By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
timmah on 15 July 2013
Edit Thread
drunk said:
timmah said:

Nice, so in your world, I could just beat the shit out of (and maybe kill) anybody and just claim they were following me? What if you think they're following you, but you're just going to the same place? Oops. Interesting world you live in. You can't legally beat somebody into the ground just because they're following you, but good luck with that mindset. It'll get you far in life. On the other hand, it's legal to use deadly force if you are being beaten (which Zimmerman was). All the speculation about what led to the confrontation is not evidence, and not something a jury can use to convict. The verdict was correct based on the EVIDENCE. That doesn't make Trayvon's death less of a tragedy, but it is what it is.

By the way, there was no evidence presented, nor any argument made that Zimmerman 'antagonized' Martin. Everybody on your side of the argument keeps doing the same thing, using a ton of speculation, and making nutty statements that don't line up with law or what is actually admissible in a trial, and somehow speculation and arguments based on emotion are the core reason for what you see as a need to convict. So, because your personal opinion is that it's ok to beat somebody up for following you, that means Zimmerman should have been convicted? You either don't understand the legal system and jury instructions, or you don't care to.

lol, there a many ways to know if someone is stalking you.  and we already know from the facts in this case that he was... thats why the cops told him not to do it.   derp, someone looks suspicious... thats not good enough.   you stalk someone when that person didn't do anything wrong.  thats harrassment... and an ass whooping thats ready to happen.   go ahead, at night stalk some random guys who "look suspicious".  lets see how fast you get your ass beat. lol

Ok, you've just shot every bit of your credibility out the window. He wasn't stalking, he was following, this was evident throughout the trial and corroborated by testimony from law enforcement experts. Stalking is defined as:

A person who intentionally and repeatedly follows or harasses another person and who makes a credible threat, either expressed or implied, with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm is guilty of the crime of stalking.

You have to prove intent and a credible threat, none of that was proven in court, there was never an alligation of 'stalking'. Based on Zimmerman's recorderd coversation with the dispatcher, his intent was to track Trayvon, not to harm him. Intent is everything in a stalking case. Get your facts straight please.

Secondly, you also showed how much you don't know about the case by saying 'the cops' told him not to follow. It was a civilian 911 operator who suggested he go back to his truck, and he told her he was going to, he also stated to the police he was going back to his truck when he was confronted by Martin. Whether you believe this or not is irrelivent, there was not any evidence to the contrary. Juries have to convict on Evidence, a concept that is apparently lost on some here.