General Discussion

anomiep

(153 posts)

108. It's immaterial to whether or not Zimmerman was actually stalking

Fri Jul 12, 2013, 04:46 PM

Jul 2013

That much is true.

The fact that you made a statement that was provably, factually incorrect, and that you are now calling my statement of that 'Erroneous', when in fact what you actually claimed is impossible because Zimmerman got out of his car before anything was even suggested to him, and when something was suggested to him it was not 'don't get out of your car' but 'we don't need you to do that' in reference to following Martin - that is certainly material to evaluation of your statements on the matter.

Do you disagree?

If I see you make provably false statements and then fail to acknowledge that when the statement you made is *proven* to be false, it is reasonable for people to take that into account when you make statements in general.

I make errors all the time. When I make errors, I try to acknowledge them, rather than changing my argument without acknowledging the error. Although, at this point the fact that you're claiming error is at least *some* acknowledgement of it.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

124 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

ZIMMERMAN case NOT a Stand Your Ground case [View all] GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 OP

It does seem that, if Martin had not been killed, he would have had a Stand Your Ground case. djean111 Jul 2013 #1

Possibly, but Zimmerman's case is not based on Stand Your Ground GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #5

Oh, I know! It is just sort of ironic or something. djean111 Jul 2013 #9

Yes, and that's leading to a lot of misunderstanding GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #12

self-serving liar noiretextatique Jul 2013 #2

Oh, I thought you were talking to me GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #8

LOL...i would not be that rude to you noiretextatique Jul 2013 #67

I appreciate that GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #69

i am hopeful noiretextatique Jul 2013 #87

I think it will be manslaughter, too frazzled Jul 2013 #3

No, it is a stalking murder... hlthe2b Jul 2013 #4

Agreed! nt rdharma Jul 2013 #6

Stalking was not proved in court at all GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #10

Stalking murder. Period hlthe2b Jul 2013 #14

You need EVIDENCE in court. GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #15

Stalking murder. Period... regardless of legal technicalities... hlthe2b Jul 2013 #17

I know you feel a certain way, but courts require EVIDENCE GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #20

I am not bound by that nor are other fair-minded individuals. It was a stalking murder. Period. hlthe2b Jul 2013 #21

You are bound if you wish to be factual GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #23

Legal definitions hlthe2b Jul 2013 #25

This isn't about legal definition anomiep Jul 2013 #32

The facts bear out the public's concusion he was stalking... hlthe2b Jul 2013 #36

Since I did in fact differentiate between public opinion and legal requirements anomiep Jul 2013 #38

No they don't. And I'm sorry you don't understand that. GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #61

YOU don't get to determine nor define what the public choses to believe nor conclude from the facts, hlthe2b Jul 2013 #64

Post removed Post removed Jul 2013 #82

I advocate nothing. I DARE you to find any comment that has ever advocating anything hlthe2b Jul 2013 #83

seriously? galileoreloaded Jul 2013 #84

Stating that public disdain equates to public violance is abhorrent... hlthe2b Jul 2013 #85

kneejerk reactions and an inability to allow the system to determine guilt is galileoreloaded Jul 2013 #88

No, the rule of law did not allow for OJ or Casey Anthony or any other equitted to suffer hlthe2b Jul 2013 #89

Just for the record^^ post 84^^ deleted his graphic depicition of KKK lynching/vigilantism that was hlthe2b Jul 2013 #90

no i didn't. i stand by what I posted. i belive in a rule of law. galileoreloaded Jul 2013 #92

You are denying posting a picture of a KKK rally to accuse those who agree with you of calling hlthe2b Jul 2013 #93

ugh. reading comprehension people. I DID post that galileoreloaded Jul 2013 #94

It is a lie to accuse me of advocating violance. hlthe2b Jul 2013 #95

Case in point(TPM) If you�re a wannabe cop loser with a gun who starts stalking a kid in the dark, hlthe2b Jul 2013 #29

That's not evidence. That's someone's opinion. GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #33

Apparently you aren't reading my posts where I have repeatedly made a distinction hlthe2b Jul 2013 #34

You can't accuse people in real life without some evidence either. GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #40

The evidence is that he got out of the car, despite being told NOT to, and followed (stalked) him. hlthe2b Jul 2013 #41

Yes he got out of the car and followed Trayvon, but Trayvon outran him GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #44

Whether or not it meets this narrowly defined legal definition of stalking, IT WAS STALKING>.. hlthe2b Jul 2013 #46

No one is asking you to forgive or excuse what happened GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #53

I am not saying anything he did not do. He acted in violation of his previous expressed duties hlthe2b Jul 2013 #55

You have no evidence that he stalked anyone GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #58

Here is the legal definition you conveniently choose to ignore hlthe2b Jul 2013 #60

Don't you think if this were the case, the DA would have filed stalking charges? GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #72

No, means they didn't have sufficent evidence or chose not to charge--not that there was NO evidence hlthe2b Jul 2013 #79

You can continue your Zimmie defense here. hlthe2b Jul 2013 #57

Ok, we're done. You're now accusing me without facts. GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #63

I don't waste time on those who won't even read/respond to what is written hlthe2b Jul 2013 #66

The facts haven't changed, even if people's opinions do. GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #70

Yes, indeed, the facts haven't changed (including those you are ignoring) hlthe2b Jul 2013 #71

The DA did not file stalking charges. That means there was no evidence for them GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #73

No, means they didn't have sufficent evidence or chose not to charge--not that there was NO evidence hlthe2b Jul 2013 #77

Why do you keep repeating this? anomiep Jul 2013 #97

His instructions as a neighborhood watch volunteer already made that clear... hlthe2b Jul 2013 #98

You didn't address my point anomiep Jul 2013 #101

Your point is immaterial. hlthe2b Jul 2013 #103

The fact that you made a factually false statement is immaterial? anomiep Jul 2013 #105

Erroneous. And clarified. I strongly suspect you too are not free hlthe2b Jul 2013 #106

It's immaterial to whether or not Zimmerman was actually stalking anomiep Jul 2013 #108

I said my statement was erroneous. There is a difference between intentionally misrepresenting as hlthe2b Jul 2013 #109

See? anomiep Jul 2013 #110

And once again, the conclusion: Zimmerman stalked. n/t hlthe2b Jul 2013 #111

Let me ask you something. anomiep Jul 2013 #115

that dead horse you keep beating is not only long buried, but mummified by now. hlthe2b Jul 2013 #117

STALKING. Mr. David Jul 2013 #28

Once again, you have no evidence of stalking GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #37

On the official record: he left his car and followed despite being told by 911 NOT TO hlthe2b Jul 2013 #42

No. You have that backwards Recursion Jul 2013 #47

Only a better case to be made for stalking.... hlthe2b Jul 2013 #49

Well, but you have the order backwards several times in this thread Recursion Jul 2013 #50

He followed, was told not to. He STALKED> End of story hlthe2b Jul 2013 #52

Everybody accuses me of being pro-the-other-guy when I talk about this online Recursion Jul 2013 #59

You've got the sequence wrong. GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #51

He left his car armed, he followed, he was told not to, He was also told NOT to as part of his hlthe2b Jul 2013 #54

You didn't address my point anomiep Jul 2013 #99

He was representing neighborhood watch, so yes, those rules are likewise relevant. hlthe2b Jul 2013 #100

I'm not in zimmerman's camp anomiep Jul 2013 #102

No, I'm glad to hear you are not. hlthe2b Jul 2013 #104

No stalking involved HolyMoley Jul 2013 #16

Stalking murder.. Period... n/t hlthe2b Jul 2013 #19

Emotional outbursts and total disregard for the judical system aside HolyMoley Jul 2013 #24

Stop it. I am not arguing what will occur in court. I am arguing judgment in public opinion hlthe2b Jul 2013 #26

And his life is already over at the young age of 30 (ish). Mr. David Jul 2013 #31

if declared not guilty there will be a wildly profitable book ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2013 #39

Case in point(TPM) If you�re a wannabe cop loser with a gun who starts stalking a kid in the dark, hlthe2b Jul 2013 #30

There was no proof Zimmerman went back to his vehicle... Spazito Jul 2013 #48

Correct. But there was also no proof that he didn't--That's the problem. GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #56

That is why it was so crucial for the prosecution to poke as many holes as they could... Spazito Jul 2013 #62

He does go back and forth on where the police should meet him GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #65

The Prosecutor, John Guy, pointed that out very strongly in his rebuttal... Spazito Jul 2013 #75

Definitely manslaughter verdict. Fifty imaginary bucks here. WinkyDink Jul 2013 #7

I'll add my fifty. GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #11

So the state appealed to the hearts of the jurors Generic Other Jul 2013 #13

Hey, I'm stating my prediction. But just because you asked so nicely: WinkyDink Jul 2013 #119

Well I kinda hope you are right Generic Other Jul 2013 #120

Muah! :-) WinkyDink Jul 2013 #123

He was either defending himself or he wasn't badtoworse Jul 2013 #18

You are correct GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #22

*If* he was actually defending himself .. anomiep Jul 2013 #107

A lot of people don't understand that HolyMoley Jul 2013 #27

Are you advocating the "Stand Your Ground" law? rdharma Jul 2013 #35

Neither. Just trying to clarify how the jury will have to make its decision GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #43

In that case it's clear....... it was NOT self-defense. rdharma Jul 2013 #45

Let's hope the jury sees it that way GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #68

Defense should have debunked the "sidewalk weapon" BS! rdharma Jul 2013 #91

Judge mentioned "SYG" in final jury instructions. Atman Jul 2013 #74

She shouldn't have. This isn't a SYG case. What did she say exactly? GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #76

It was toward the end. I don't know the exact wording. Atman Jul 2013 #78

That's not good GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #80

it was a horrid phrase to use in the instructions... ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2013 #96

I am surprised that the prosecution didn't say anything. GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #112

i sure hope not... ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2013 #113

Me neither. We have to rely on the jury now. GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #114

see post # 81 rollin74 Jul 2013 #86

the stand your ground reference comes at approx. 10:14 mark of video below rollin74 Jul 2013 #81

Wow. That's right out there, isn't it. GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #116

She's not a dumb judge or new to this. vaberella Jul 2013 #121

I have to disagree with you. GiaGiovanni Jul 2013 #124

That wording of the jury instructions ctaylors6 Jul 2013 #118

oh makes sense. by sheer nature it's Stand Your Ground. vaberella Jul 2013 #122