Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

uponit7771

(93,523 posts)
Fri May 18, 2012, 09:45 AM May 2012

The stalking of Trayvon Martin was the INITIAL act of felon aggression PERIOD END OF STORY [View all]

Last edited Fri May 18, 2012, 03:19 PM - Edit history (2)

...and that's part of why they can charge the guy with second degree murder.

He's already admitted to the acts of stalking and indications of him chasing Martin is overwhelming.

After this, regardless of who had what and what happened AFTER THE ACT OF FELON AGGRESSION is irrelevant, ZMan should've gotten a lawyer and stayed quite in front of the police.

From a previous TP, you can NOT walk into a store brandishing a gun (felon aggression) and claim self defense after shooting the store owner cause they were grabbing their gun to defend themselves

Stalking Under Florida law....


if a person "stalks" someone else, that's a 3rd degree felony and would almost certainly negate any claim of self-defense.

Definition of stalk (felony version) under FL law: 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.

Edited to add: There's also misdemeanor stalking, defined as "Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree"


The defense of ZMan falls apart when his defenders indicate in any way that his following wasn't malicious and that's where his current actions of following a person who KNEW was black and indicated so (unsolicited or not) and his past actions of singling out black kids and chasing them come into play.

EDIT: Repeated follows does NOT have to happen over hours, days or weeks and ZMan 1. followed Martin in his car and stopped to the car to then....2.. Follow Martin on foot.

The law doesn't say if you don't have 20 repeated action over a month then it's not stalking.

A person intent has to be included here also, the intent of ZMan is pretty clear in statements and to a reasonable person looking at the facts; ZMan wasn't chasing Martin to ask him for some Skittles
91 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
sorry, but this isn't stalking gharris714 May 2012 #1
Glad you could join us, just to post that. ScreamingMeemie May 2012 #2
You're certainly not sorry. I can sense the glee of your anticipation. EOTE May 2012 #3
Post removed Post removed May 2012 #5
he folowed in his truck and then by foot.. frylock May 2012 #7
Good catch, the "repeated" can be a continued action or actions...of stalking uponit7771 May 2012 #13
This is wrong, Here's the definition uponit7771 May 2012 #12
A witness said Martin was chased which would indicate to Martin this person was aggressive Quixote1818 May 2012 #44
+1 uponit7771 May 2012 #48
If you think Zimmerman was stalking Life Long Dem May 2012 #4
Stalking has more than one definition. EOTE May 2012 #6
One thing is always included in stalking Life Long Dem May 2012 #8
Are you capable of reading? EOTE May 2012 #9
obsessive is repetitive Life Long Dem May 2012 #11
So you have a very hard time with logic as well as reading, do you? EOTE May 2012 #14
That's false, it can be a singular instance of continued stalking and that's what ZMan did... uponit7771 May 2012 #15
I think you ought to look up how Florida defines "stalking". Kaleva May 2012 #28
Yes, repeated doesn't have no intermentant it can be continuous one can't argue that if ZMan stalked uponit7771 May 2012 #34
We're not talking about how Florida defines "stalking", we're talking about the actual definition. EOTE May 2012 #37
The "actual definition" doesn't really matter, does it? Kaleva May 2012 #43
Either way, websters or FlawDuh law ZMan stalked...repeated actions doesn't mean repeated over uponit7771 May 2012 #45
Actually, it definitely does matter. EOTE May 2012 #47
The DA doesn't have to charge him with the crime just prove that it was done and then it's down uponit7771 May 2012 #53
While I wouldn't say he stalked Trayvon... Kaleva May 2012 #79
The only definition that counts is the one in the Florida statute. nt hack89 May 2012 #51
Like hell it does. EOTE May 2012 #57
The DA has to prove Trayvon's fear of being killed was reasonable hack89 May 2012 #62
Which, once again, has nothing to do with the fact that Martin was stalked. EOTE May 2012 #64
I know that hack89 May 2012 #67
That's not true, a reasonable person can conclude ZMan wasn't chasing the guy to ask uponit7771 May 2012 #65
But will a reasonable person conclude that Zimmerman was chasing him to kill him? hack89 May 2012 #69
Stalking only has to be malicious, it's reasonable to belive Martin thought it was so looking at the uponit7771 May 2012 #71
But he is not being charged with stalking hack89 May 2012 #74
He doesn't have to be charged with the crime to conclude the actions occured, his self defense uponit7771 May 2012 #76
He does not meet the legal definition of stalking hack89 May 2012 #78
Martin ran didn't he? He ran cause he thought the guy wanted Skittles? uponit7771 May 2012 #70
That might work hack89 May 2012 #73
true, I'll never talk to the cops after this one. I really though ZMan was going to go free until uponit7771 May 2012 #77
my understanding of burden of proof is different than this ctaylors6 May 2012 #83
The CONTINUED act even if it's in a singular time span is "repetitave" in itself... uponit7771 May 2012 #10
I disagree Life Long Dem May 2012 #16
Yes, I'm quite aware that you tend to disagree with objective facts quite often. NT EOTE May 2012 #17
Really? Life Long Dem May 2012 #20
First of all, you said nothing about the legal definition of stalking. EOTE May 2012 #21
How the hell do you get that from my post? Life Long Dem May 2012 #27
Once again I have to ask if you're capable of reading. EOTE May 2012 #30
He's ingnoring the definition on purpose, even if the defenders stick with repated in the legal.. uponit7771 May 2012 #31
Repetitively or not, what Zimmerman did was stalking. EOTE May 2012 #41
Your trying to find what you want to fit into your definition of stalking. Life Long Dem May 2012 #32
This is slicing some serious onions but even if we take your assumed definition of stop and starting uponit7771 May 2012 #38
Are you really incapable of understanding that some words have multiple definitions? EOTE May 2012 #39
But we are talking legal definitions and Life Long Dem May 2012 #50
No, we were NOT talking about the legal definition. You lost your chance to make that argument long EOTE May 2012 #52
Repetitive acts have been proven given ZMans own statements, the repitition doesn't have to be over uponit7771 May 2012 #55
K, so if he folllowed him for a month continually NON STOP then it wouldn't be stalking? uponit7771 May 2012 #18
Of course it would be stalking. Life Long Dem May 2012 #22
This is a TOTAL stretch, if T Martin had been a 12yr old girl of any color and ZMan a white man uponit7771 May 2012 #25
he followed martin in his truck and repeated to follow by foot frylock May 2012 #33
So, how many times do you believe he followed Trayvon that night? slackmaster May 2012 #19
Good one Life Long Dem May 2012 #24
Twice, once in car and then on foot....a continues action...see above statemens about skin color uponit7771 May 2012 #26
You have just proved that Zimmerman didn't Stalk Martin Taitertots May 2012 #23
A reasonable person can conclude ZMan wasn't going to ask Martin for some Skittles and uponit7771 May 2012 #29
The law is clear and his actions do not constitute stalking Taitertots May 2012 #49
Let's see. Followed in his car. Then followed on foot. = repeated. "reasonable fear of injury/death" uppityperson May 2012 #84
Your interpretation of the law is incorrect Taitertots May 2012 #85
that argument ProdigalJunkMail May 2012 #86
ha ha ha uppityperson May 2012 #88
"Being briefly followed simply doesn't qualify as reasonable fear of injury/death"? Are you serious? uppityperson May 2012 #87
he followed in his car then followed by foot frylock May 2012 #36
They'll argue he never stopped his car, just let the damn thing roll uponit7771 May 2012 #42
And didn't ZMan change course on foot... KansDem May 2012 #60
GREAT POINT...From just the 911 tape that makes this 3 instances of "stalking" uponit7771 May 2012 #63
well fuck having a trial then... ProdigalJunkMail May 2012 #35
Nope, peopel sholdn't say shit to the cops without a lawyer....he's due hiis day in court and I'm uponit7771 May 2012 #40
is he charged with that? i don't know what the exact charges are... ProdigalJunkMail May 2012 #54
No, he doesn't have to be charged with it just proven that he started the felon AGGRESSION & every.. uponit7771 May 2012 #56
once again...juries make those decisions ProdigalJunkMail May 2012 #58
Yes, a jury will decided if ZMan stalked Martin...that goes without saying...this post was for uponit7771 May 2012 #61
from what i can find a jury will make no such decision ProdigalJunkMail May 2012 #66
He doesn't have to be charged with the crime to conclude the actions occured, his self defense uponit7771 May 2012 #68
i think you are wrong ProdigalJunkMail May 2012 #72
Continue to educate just like I do with OJ Simpson and the racist Furman who bashed that case uponit7771 May 2012 #75
ok...that's fair ProdigalJunkMail May 2012 #80
If you want to talk about the law then talk about the law cthulu2016 May 2012 #46
Again, 1...got out of his car.....2....followed him on foot...time span is NOT mentioned as a factor uponit7771 May 2012 #59
- cthulu2016 May 2012 #81
The trick... Cave_Johnson May 2012 #82
Since he's not being charged with stalking, a crime,... Kaleva May 2012 #89
I guess that's not the end of the story nt kudzu22 May 2012 #90
I'm not sure why you're ctaylors6 May 2012 #91
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The stalking of Trayvon M...