So now it's perfectly "normal" to stalk people you're afraid of?

[CatWoman]

come on Zimmerman bots, help me understand this.

[JustAnotherGen]

1. Move over

I've brought popcorn and champagne. Let's sit and observe their responses together.

[CatWoman]

2. LOL

and I've bought the

[Lost-in-FL]

7. Yes!!

Cause you really need something 'strong' to believe that it matters for the case that Trayvon tested + for 'a' drug just because an idiot like Zimmerman though he was on drugs.

[CatWoman]

9. well

I always need something strong

however, I don't have a problem with Trayvon having traces of THC in his system.

But on the flip side, wasn't Z pretty drugged out himself? On the legal stuff?

Maybe that's where his dumb ass decision making came from.

You think?

[Lost-in-FL]

12. Legal stuff? You mean 'power' or 'prescribed drugs'? nt

[CatWoman]

14. lil bit from Column A

and a lot from Column B

[JustAnotherGen]

20. Honestly

I'm beginning to believe I need a lobotomy to understand this cra-cra-cra-craaaaaaazeeeeeee!

[hack89]

3. Zimmerman did not stalk anyone

not according to Florida law.

It is perfectly legal to follow and verbally accost anyone. It is not legal to follow and threaten or assault anyone.

[CatWoman]

5. ok

so it's "normal" to FOLLOW someone I'm so afraid of that I FEAR for MY life?

[CatWoman]

6. EVEN when I'm told NOT to FOLLOW the person I'm so afraid of that I FEAR for MY life??????????????

[ScreamingMeemie]

8. I am loving how the apologists keep brushing this simple fact under the rug.

[Lost-in-FL]

10. "Rent-a-cop"ers like Zimmerman think like that. nt

[hack89]

18. No it not. Zimmerman should be in jail

just pointing out that what I feel and what the law says may not be the same.

[CatWoman]

11. WHERE YA AT HACK?????

[onehandle]

15. The gungeon.

They only come out to defend their culture.

[hack89]

25. The culture of reading, understanding and accepting what the law actually says and means?

why is that a bad thing?

[hack89]

24. Zimmerman should be in jail

but that doesn't change what the law actually says.

[onehandle]

13. Thank you, gungeoneer. nt

[hack89]

23. Can you show where I am wrong? Can you show me the applicable FL laws?

in court, the only thing that matters is the what the law says.

[Fumesucker]

33. One point you seem to be missing is that this wouldn't even be going to court but for public outrcry

This whole incident was set to be swept under the rug forever by the police and prosecutor until it became an item of public interest.

[hack89]

35. I did not miss that point

it is simply irrelevant to what will happen now that Zimmerman has been charged.

I think Zimmerman should go to prison - there is no justification for what he did. But it is not a slam dunk prosecution - "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a high bar that gets even higher when only one side of the story is being told.

Understanding what the law actually says is important to avoid unrealistic expectations as to what will happen in court.

[Fumesucker]

36. You have been regaling us with tales of how the law is to be applied..

But the law was not going to be applied at all, it was going to be sidestepped.

To many of us that is a more interesting and revealing story than what may or may not happen in the courtroom once the law actually was begun to be followed.

[hack89]

37. So why not start a thread so we can discuss how fucked up the police were?

that is not what this thread is about.

[Fumesucker]

38. I didn't realize you were in charge of what threads are "about"...

Clearly the OP has a point, there were going to be no negative repercussions for Zimmerman after he killed Martin until people started to raise a stink.

I'm just reinforcing the point the OP is making..

[hack89]

39. The question was about stalking. Which I answered.

I agree with your point on how it was swept under the rug. Where do you get the idea I think otherwise?

[Lost-in-FL]

16. You are confusing a gun license with a hunting permit. nt

[hack89]

19. No - I just can read what the law says. nt

[Aerows]

17. Zimmerman needs to do time

He tried to play superhero with a firearm and directly disobeyed the advice of the 911 dispatcher when he got out of his car. You don't get out of your car if you fear for your life, you stay the hell inside of it and wait for the police you just called.

THIS is why playing at being a vigilante is bad for society - innocent people get killed, and Trayvon was innocent and now he's dead. There is no excuse that should get Zimmerman off the hook on this one - he was playing vigilante, and there is no place for that in society. None.

[belcffub]

26. he wasn't in fear for his life when he got out of the car

only when he was being punched and having his head smashed into the ground...

and "we don't need you to do that" =/= do not do that
and you are under no legal requirement to do what the 911 dispatcher says... he should have followed the recommendation... we pay police to do this after all...

[Aerows]

28. If you call the police

And are advised to stay in your car, but then you get OUT of your car and put yourself in a situation where you "fear for your life", you exercised astoundingly bad judgment. If you shoot a person due to a situation YOU instigated by following them because you don't want to wait for the police, you are a vigilante. There is no place for vigilantes in our society, and yes, that is what we pay the police for and why we have a justice system.

Zimmerman is an idiot.

[belcffub]

30. I mostly agree with you

Agree :
And are advised to stay in your car, but then you get OUT of your car and put yourself in a situation where you "fear for your life", you exercised astoundingly bad judgment.

I'm a little wishy washy here
If you shoot a person due to a situation YOU instigated by following them because you don't want to wait for the police, you are a vigilante.

just because I made a bad choice in my first agreement with you above does not mean I agree to take a beating up and including death if the person I walk up to starts assaulting me... at what point during the beating do I get to defend myself???

Agree :
There is no place for vigilantes in our society, and yes, that is what we pay the police for and why we have a justice system.

Agree :
Zimmerman is an idiot.

[Aerows]

32. What do you call a person

that refuses to wait for the police and takes matters into their own hands? Because that is exactly what happened.

[hack89]

27. I agree. nt

[CrispyQ]

29. +1 -nt

[ctaylors6]

31. Assault and stalking under FL law ...

For those who would like to distinguish among assault, aggravated assault, and stalking:

784.011 Assault.—
(1) An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.
(2) Whoever commits an assault shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

784.021 Aggravated assault.—
(1) An “aggravated assault” is an assault:
(a) With a deadly weapon without intent to kill; or
(b) With an intent to commit a felony.
(2) Whoever commits an aggravated assault shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

784.048(2) Misdemeanor stalking -
Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

784.048(3) Felony stalking -
Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury of the person, or the person’s child, sibling, spouse, parent, or dependent, commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.


FWIW, I don't practice in FL so can't speak directly to FL law, but based on other state law, I don't think "repeatedly" applies to this case. The charging document did not include anything about stalking.

Edited to add: I'm not sure why people are so concerned about the stalking question. The relevant statute is the initial aggressor statute. If Zimmerman committed aggravated assault when he approached Martin, the he loses his claim of self-defense. ALTERNATIVELY, if Zimmerman's actions provoked a use of force from Martin, then Zimmerman loses his claim of self defense (with a few exceptions provided by the statute).

[kestrel91316]

40. Prove to us that Zimmerman did not follow him, verbally threaten or taunt him, and then point the

gun at him. Because I have seen nothing to indicate that he DIDN'T do just that.

[hack89]

41. I never said that is what happened - I don't even believe it is what happened

But if the DA cannot prove those things then things are not as clear cut as you think they are.

I think Zimmerman is guilty of at least manslaughter and should go to jail for a long time. But this prosecution is not a slam dunk - "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a high bar that gets even higher when Zimmerman's story is the only one told in court.

[maddezmom]

4. pretty sick isn't it?

[WI_DEM]

21. I've been disgusted by the posts by Zimmerman apologists here on DU

The fact is he pursued a kid who was not doing anything wrong. He was walking home. Zimmerman had a gun and Martin did not. Might Martin have defended himself against somebody stalking him? sure and why not!?

[vaberella]

22. Does that make any sense?

Why the hell would you go after someone that you fear will threaten your life? Shit. No logic here....none.

[Fumesucker]

34. Because you have a gun on you..

There's no way Zimmerman would have pursued Martin if not for the fact that Z had a gun..