Is physical assault justified if you're being followed?[W:263]

[Buckworth]

Dude, what are you talking about? No you do not. There was physical evidence, expert medical testimony, eyewitness accounts, telephone records, etc. You do NOT decide a case based on your own prejudices, that goes against what our justice system is. Good God! :doh Why do I get the feeling you are very young?

Yes, and you need to apply your life experience and how you perceive the world to render a decision. Different juries will reach different decisions. That's just the way it is.

For instance: Zimmerman said he tried to return to his vehicle immediately after he was told to. He stated this many times in police reports and television interviews. To him, that is a fact. But cell phone records and 911 calls directly contradict his account of the story. He did something that he didn't tell us about. He was lying.

He also said he left his vehicle only to check an address so the police could meet him. We know this isn't true because he ran in the direction that he said Trayvon was going (and ultimately 'found' him). He was lying.

There's also this nagging matter that stems from the Zimmerman family that suggests that Trayvon saw Zimmermans gun, and that's what prompted him to attack. If that was the case then (aside from Zimmerman possibly being guilty of brandishing) Trayvon was fighting for his life.

 

[ChrisL]

Yes, and you need to apply your life experience and how you perceive the world to render a decision. Different juries will reach different decisions. That's just the way it is.

For instance: Zimmerman said he tried to return to his vehicle immediately after he was told to. He stated this many times in police reports and television interviews. To him, that is a fact. But cell phone records and 911 calls directly contradict his account of the story. He did something that he didn't tell us about. He was lying.

He also said he left his vehicle only to check an address so the police could meet him. We know this isn't true because he ran in the direction that he said Trayvon was going (and ultimately 'found' him). He was lying.

There's also this nagging matter that stems from the Zimmerman family that suggests that Trayvon saw Zimmermans gun, and that's what prompted him to attack. If that was the case then (aside from Zimmerman possibly being guilty of brandishing) Trayvon was fighting for his life.

Look, it's quite obvious to me now that you do not have a good grasp on how our justice system is supposed to operate. :roll:

 

[Buckworth]

Look, it's quite obvious to me now that you do not have a good grasp on how our justice system is supposed to operate. :roll:

Yesh, it's supposed to convict guilty people and it failed. I'm just telling you the reality of how juries are selected. If you can't grasp fact that two juries will come to different decisions with the same evidence (ala OJ Simpson), or why people can be guilty on one state but not another, then I don't know what to tell you.


Feel free to explain why he lied, and why his lying doesn't influence his version of events.

 

[joko104]

I can say with pretty good certainty that a guy walking in the direction of his home with a bag of candy purchased from the closest store, in the rain....was going home. You're correct, the fact that somebody was following him changed his behaviour.

No, he could have crawled home in that amount of time. Your messages are diametrically opposite from the known facts.

 

[Buckworth]

No, he could have crawled home in that amount of time. Your messages are diametrically opposite from the known facts.

I'm saying that Trayvon was going home before he followed. He even headed in that direction after he was followed.

What are you saying?

 

[274ina]

Whether it's legal or not is entirely subjective. Stalking somebody with the intention of causing harm or impeding their civil rights is illegal (one extreme) while accidentally following somebody because you happen to be going in the same direction isn't (the other extreme) - we know it wasn't the latter example, but we don't know it wasn't the former.

My point is we don't have the benefit of Trayvons testimony to find out if the first example is true. Zimmermans account isn't believable because he leaves a confirmed gap of 2 minutes in his story (if was where he says he was at the end of the 911 call), if he was indeed returning to his truck like he stated. Something happened that we don't know about. It wasn't a simple case of an observer being assaulted and defending himself (even without the 2 minute gap). Zimmerman clearly was the aggressor in the encounter - to what extent? We will never know. It would have helped if the first police investigation was complete, instead of cursory.

All subjective and no facts.

Z's FACE SAYS IT ALL and jusifies deadly force.

and intention is not a crime, if I follow you for 1/2 a day as allowed by law. that is all it is. LEGAL following.

and in no case does following allow you to attack me.

 

[joko104]

I'm saying that Trayvon was going home before he followed. He even headed in that direction after he was followed.

What are you saying?

That your statement that it was a FACT that Trayvon Martin was going home is false. NOR is your revision of he was going home before being followed also false. It is known when he left the 7-11 by the security camera and it known what time Zimmerman's call came into the police. Your "FACT" is FACTUALLY FALSE.

Zimmerman was heading home before TM initially approached him reaching into his waistband but then turned and ran as he approached Zimmerman talking to the police on his cell phone. Your "FACTS" are absolutely false by the evidence.

 

[joko104]

Yesh, it's supposed to convict guilty people and it failed. I'm just telling you the reality of how juries are selected. If you can't grasp fact that two juries will come to different decisions with the same evidence (ala OJ Simpson), or why people can be guilty on one state but not another, then I don't know what to tell you.


Feel free to explain why he lied, and why his lying doesn't influence his version of events.

It is extremely racist to bring up the OJ Simpson trial in my opinion. That case has exactly nothing in common whatsoever with this case. ZERO. NOTHING. NADA.

 

[Buckworth]

All subjective and no facts.

Z's FACE SAYS IT ALL and jusifies deadly force.

and intention is not a crime, if I follow you for 1/2 a day as allowed by law. that is all it is. LEGAL following.

and in no case does following allow you to attack me.

Zimmermans face says he had trauma to the face. It doesn't say anything about who started the fight.

No. There's no laws that specifically allow you to follow another person. There are laws that prevent you from doing so, and it all depends on the situation.

My entire argument is that Zimmerman lied repeatedly, and there are far too many inconsistencies with his version of events and the facts for him to be considered believable. Something else happened that lead to the fight (and during the fight) that we don't know about.

 

[joko104]

I think he shot him because he was losing a fight he was responsible for. I don't believe he would have followed Trayvon if he wasn't armed.

It is very possible he would not have followed if he wasn't armed. Good thing he was.

 

[Buckworth]

That your statement that it was a FACT that Trayvon Martin was going home is false. NOR is your revision of he was going home before being followed also false. It is known when he left the 7-11 by the security camera and it known what time Zimmerman's call came into the police. Your "FACT" is FACTUALLY FALSE.

I'm sorry, I don't know what you're talking about or what you're getting at.

Zimmerman was heading home before TM initially approached him reaching into his waistband but then turned and ran as he approached Zimmerman talking to the police on his cell phone. Your "FACTS" are absolutely false by the evidence.

I seriously can't make sense of what you're saying.

 

[Buckworth]

It is very possible he would not have followed if he wasn't armed. Good thing he was.

That's a bizarre statement. What do you think would have happened if he went home, instead of following Trayvon?

 

[joko104]

Zimmermans face says he had trauma to the face. It doesn't say anything about who started the fight.

No. There's no laws that specifically allow you to follow another person. There are laws that prevent you from doing so, and it all depends on the situation.

My entire argument is that Zimmerman lied repeatedly, and there are far too many inconsistencies with his version of events and the facts for him to be considered believable. Something else happened that lead to the fight (and during the fight) that we don't know about.

We've been thru this many times on the forum and citing exact Florida law. Under Florida law Zimmerman did NOT stalk Martin. However, because Martin approached GZ twice (unless DeeDee and GZ BOTH are lying and DD was a prosecution witness), it could be argued that Martin stalked GZ because Martin came at GZ TWICE.

You post in extremes. Now your ENTIRE ARGUMENT is that GZ lied. Lying is not murder. They tried to convict on the Casey Anthony trial upon her radically lying about everything constantly. Didn't work.

Everyone lies. Everyone.

 

[joko104]

Yes, and you need to apply your life experience and how you perceive the world to render a decision. Different juries will reach different decisions. That's just the way it is.

For instance: Zimmerman said he tried to return to his vehicle immediately after he was told to. He stated this many times in police reports and television interviews. To him, that is a fact. But cell phone records and 911 calls directly contradict his account of the story. He did something that he didn't tell us about. He was lying.

He also said he left his vehicle only to check an address so the police could meet him. We know this isn't true because he ran in the direction that he said Trayvon was going (and ultimately 'found' him). He was lying.

There's also this nagging matter that stems from the Zimmerman family that suggests that Trayvon saw Zimmermans gun, and that's what prompted him to attack. If that was the case then (aside from Zimmerman possibly being guilty of brandishing) Trayvon was fighting for his life.

No, seeing someone has a gun does not allow you to violently assault that person. I have no clue where you come up with that theory. Nor is it rational. What is rational is that if you attack someone you know has a gun, you are willfully and deliberately provoking that person to shoot you with it.

 

[Buckworth]

It is extremely racist to bring up the OJ Simpson trial in my opinion. That case has exactly nothing in common whatsoever with this case. ZERO. NOTHING. NADA.

LOL, I'm automatically racist if I talk about OJ? That's awesome.

I was talking about jury prejudice, and was using the OJ Simpson case to illustrate that he was found not guilty, but then subsequently found criminally responsible. Both were jury trials, and they came to different conclusions from the same evidence. Which punctuated my point that the law is not always served in a jury trial.

When did I mention race?

 

[joko104]

I don't find Zimmermans story believable, correct. And no, as a juror I would not take testimony of a killer at face value, especially when he was the aggressor and there are inconsistencies.



Then how do you reconcile the fact that Zimmerman was asked to return to his vehicle 4+ minutes before he alleges he was jumped by Trayvon? Especially since he said he simply tried to walk back to his truck. The walk would take less than a minute.



On the contrary, in this case especially you have to base your decision on what you think. You have no idea what went on in the jury room or what personal prejudices were applied. There's a reason jury selection is so rigorous, it is because you are trying to align the prejudices of the potential jurors to your advantage. The reason that women were allowed by the prosecution is because they thought that picking mothers would benefit their case, and the reason they were all white (well, .5 hispanic) is because the defence thought that would benefit their case. If it were an all male all black jury, we might be having a different conversation.

All your messages are based upon speculating on unknown or didnt' happen alternative realities. Do you even realize that?

 

[Buckworth]

We've been thru this many times on the forum and citing exact Florida law. Under Florida law Zimmerman did NOT stalk Martin. However, because Martin approached GZ twice (unless DeeDee and GZ BOTH are lying and DD was a prosecution witness), it could be argued that Martin stalked GZ because Martin came at GZ TWICE.

But by dictionary definition he did indeed stalk Trayvon. Sure, you can argue that Trayvon was stalking Zimmerman, but it's not believable, since Zimmerman fully admits he was following Trayvon, and Trayvon was always moving towards home until he entered the cut through.

You post in extremes. Now your ENTIRE ARGUMENT is that GZ lied. Lying is not murder. They tried to convict on the Casey Anthony trial upon her radically lying about everything constantly. Didn't work.

I think when a killer is caught lying, it's kind of important when you're trying to determine his guilt.

Everyone lies. Everyone.

That's so deep it's meaningless.

 

[joko104]

LOL, I'm automatically racist if I talk about OJ? That's awesome.

I was talking about jury prejudice, and was using the OJ Simpson case to illustrate that he was found not guilty, but then subsequently found criminally responsible. Both were jury trials, and they came to different conclusions from the same evidence. Which punctuated my point that the law is not always served in a jury trial.

When did I mention race?

Wow, you really don't get anything right, do you?

No, OJ was NEVER found CRIMINALLY responsible for those deaths. He was found CIVILLY liable for the deaths.

Obviously you don't know the different standards for a civil case and a criminal case. SO..... I will TRY to explain this inaccuracy of your view to you.

In a CRIMINAL case, there is a presumption of innocence. To defeat it, the government (who is who is bringing the criminal case), must prove beyond any reasonable doubt the Defendant is guilty. If there is ANY basis to doubt the defendant is guilty, he must be found not-guilty. All speculations and alternative "what-ifs" favor the Defendant.

In a CIVIL case, other people are bringing a civil lawsuit. The technical legal standard is "by a preponderance of evidence." IF the jury thinks is it 50.00001% likely the Defendant did it, and 49.99999% likely the Defendant did not, the jury is to find the Defendant 100% CIVILLY liable and render a CIVIL judgment. HOWEVER, in that the jury was NOT finding that OJ was a murderer. Rather, that he was civilly liable in a economic sense for the deaths by a preponderance of the evidence.

Since the OJ Simpson trial, it has been learned via DNA that thousands of people have been wrongfully convicted. Yet you don't cite any of those, do you? You go looking for a case involving a black guy that absolutely NOTHING to do with this case in any of the accusations or circumstances whatsoever, and that is why I say doing so is obvious racism on it's face.

Do you NOW UNDERSTAND the difference between a civil case and criminal case in the USA? I don't even think Canada has a presumption of innocence, does it?

 

[Buckworth]

No, seeing someone has a gun does not allow you to violently assault that person. I have no clue where you come up with that theory. Nor is it rational. What is rational is that if you attack someone you know has a gun, you are willfully and deliberately provoking that person to shoot you with it.

I didn't say that. I was implying it's possible that Trayvon was fighting for his life.

 

[joko104]

But by dictionary definition he did indeed stalk Trayvon. Sure, you can argue that Trayvon was stalking Zimmerman, but it's not believable, since Zimmerman fully admits he was following Trayvon, and Trayvon was always moving towards home until he entered the cut through.



I think when a killer is caught lying, it's kind of important when you're trying to determine his guilt.



That's so deep it's meaningless.

No, TM was not going home when he approached GZ either time. No TM was not going home by the timeline. No, you can post that falsity 1000 times and it is false every time.

NO, Zimmerman did not stalk Martin. Not by a dictionary definition. More importantly not by the legal definition. NOR is there evidence that GZ followed Martin at all. The evidence - if any at all - is that GZ stayed to the sidewalk and TM didn't.

Then again, what lie are you talking about anyway?

 

[year2late]

Following a 6 foot male stranger in ones neighborhood to see what he is up to is not stalking and does not in any way remove ones right to self defense. Have some respect for the victims of that crime, stop belittling it.

I have been a victim of crime.

The guy that was following me would probably have gotten the same response if he had just tapped me on the shoulder and asked for directions to the train station. Because following me while I was walking alone in the dark induced such incredible fear/anxiety/anger.

Following from the car or from afar was one issue. Getting closer is FITH.

 

[ecofarm]

I have been a victim of crime.

The guy that was following me would probably have gotten the same response if he had just tapped me on the shoulder and asked for directions to the train station. Because following me while I was walking alone in the dark induced such incredible fear/anxiety/anger.

Following from the car or from afar was one issue. Getting closer is FITH.

You're a chick, not a big dude visiting a residential community roadside at 7pm.

 

[joko104]

I didn't say that. I was implying it's possible that Trayvon was fighting for his life.

Without a doubt, they both were fighting for their lives before it was over. TM lost that fight.

As you often point out, there is no certain way to know who started the fight, only that there was one by the injuries to GZ. "I dunno" means "NOT GUILTY" in the USA. In the UK originated King's Court that the Canadian system evolved from, there is no presumption of innocence and substantially less right to defend yourself too. In Canada he'd very likely been found guilty in some regions of Canada. He'd likely be found guilty in some regions of the USA too.

So? This did not happen in Canada and it did not happen in NYC. Doesn't matter what the legal standards are there. ALL your messages about finding someone guilty are just all factually and legally false about Florida law.

 

[joko104]

I have been a victim of crime.

The guy that was following me would probably have gotten the same response if he had just tapped me on the shoulder and asked for directions to the train station. Because following me while I was walking alone in the dark induced such incredible fear/anxiety/anger.

Following from the car or from afar was one issue. Getting closer is FITH.

If you slammed a person in the face breaking his nose for tapping you on the shoulder and asking for directions, you would have committed felony assault under the laws of the State of Florida.

Then again, there is no evidence that GZ tapped TM on the shoulder, is there?

This claim - the EXTREME WORSHIP OF VIOLENCE - some anti-GZ people cite that you can violently assault someone who is following you is truly bizarre, a glorification of violence, and has no basis in law whatsoever.

 

[Buckworth]

Wow, you really don't get anything right, do you?

No, OJ was NEVER found CRIMINALLY responsible for those deaths. He was found CIVILLY liable for the deaths.

Obviously you don't know the different standards for a civil case and a criminal case. SO..... I will TRY to explain this inaccuracy of your view to you.

In a CRIMINAL case, there is a presumption of innocence. To defeat it, the government (who is who is bringing the criminal case), must prove beyond any reasonable doubt the Defendant is guilty. If there is ANY basis to doubt the defendant is guilty, he must be found not-guilty. All speculations and alternative "what-ifs" favor the Defendant.

In a CIVIL case, other people are bringing a civil lawsuit. The technical legal standard is "by a preponderance of evidence." IF the jury thinks is it 50.00001% likely the Defendant did it, and 49.99999% likely the Defendant did not, the jury is to find the Defendant 100% CIVILLY liable and render a CIVIL judgment. HOWEVER, in that the jury was NOT finding that OJ was a murderer. Rather, that he was civilly liable in a economic sense for the deaths by a preponderance of the evidence.

Since the OJ Simpson trial, it has been learned via DNA that thousands of people have been wrongfully convicted. Yet you don't cite any of those, do you? You go looking for a case involving a black guy that absolutely NOTHING to do with this case in any of the accusations or circumstances whatsoever, and that is why I say doing so is obvious racism on it's face.

Do you NOW UNDERSTAND the difference between a civil case and criminal case in the USA? I don't even think Canada has a presumption of innocence, does it?

Yes, I completely understand. He was found not guilty but responsible. Pardon my vernacular. My point stands. All you did was repeat what I said, but try to make yourself sound smart. And insult me and use caps a lot, lol. Do you understand that I was using an analogy to illustrate a point that jurys decisions are subjective to the specific jurors? I never mentioned race, that's on you.

Yes, we have a presumption of innocence in Canada, haha. Our murder rate is only a third of yours, tho...so we're doing something right.