General Discussion

ProgressiveProfessor

(22,144 posts)

113. OK, fess up. You are Martin's 1st cousin twice removed right?

Fri May 18, 2012, 12:31 PM

May 2012

Come on Kestrel...you can do better than name calling. Your posts are normally much much better than that.

There is still a lot we don't know and may never know. Its pretty clear that Zimmerman started things and in the end Martin was killed. What happened in between has considerable fuzz on it, at least from what has been released publicly. Those details have tremendous legal importance. If Martin physically attacked Zimmerman is quite different than if Zimmerman gunned him down.

I still see something along a manslaughter charge out of this. Moreover even though I am a RKBA and CCW supporter here on DU, I strongly believe this was an uncalled for shooting. Zimmerman should have kept the situation under control. Regardless of who threw the first punch, he should have never allowed it to escalate.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

191 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

So, I Have The Right To Stalk Someone and If They Fight Back, I Can Kill Them, Claiming Self Defense [View all] Yavin4 May 2012 OP

If they attack you first and you are in fear of your life as your face gets pounded then maybe so. dkf May 2012 #1

Huh...maybe I should have stayed in my car since I told the dispatcher the man looked suspicous. vaberella May 2012 #9

+1 ScreamingMeemie May 2012 #12

Unfortunately, it's not illegal to disobey a dispatcher. randome May 2012 #26

I'm not talking about disobeying a dispatcher. I'm talking about finding the kid a threat. vaberella May 2012 #57

he was not threatened noiretextatique May 2012 #73

I completely agree. randome May 2012 #82

i pray for a good, aggressive prosecutor noiretextatique May 2012 #85

Bringing up his past should help the FBI if they want to pursue this as a hate crime. randome May 2012 #93

"fear for your life" = scary black man noiretextatique May 2012 #16

Yes. That's pretty much what it all boils down to -imo (nt) PotatoChip May 2012 #22

how many men, black or otherwise, do you let beat on you before you fight back? StarryNight May 2012 #165

if he had stayed in the car noiretextatique May 2012 #187

If you chase someone down you become the agressor in a sane state uponit7771 May 2012 #20

Bullshit Blue_Roses May 2012 #33

The girlfriend's testimony about what Trayvon said is second-hand and may be excluded amandabeech May 2012 #170

"face gets pounded"? riverwalker May 2012 #50

zimmerman apologists noiretextatique May 2012 #76

In your world, a rapist can stalk and attack someone Yavin4 May 2012 #56

YES...especially if the rapist is white noiretextatique May 2012 #68

You again. Taking up for another RW freak. kestrel91316 May 2012 #86

it does get tiresome, doesn't it? CatWoman May 2012 #102

I and many, MANY others have tried alert after alert. HughBeaumont May 2012 #132

I want to know the answer to this question too! JustAnotherGen May 2012 #2

No, that's not how it works. slackmaster May 2012 #3

Apparently so. Even if you have been told that the police don't need you to stalk ScreamingMeemie May 2012 #4

Where is the evidence that Zimmerman attacked Trayvon True Earthling May 2012 #5

stalking is illegal in some places noiretextatique May 2012 #14

It's illegal in all 50 states and in the Military's UCMJ. stevenleser May 2012 #75

In Fla, "stalking" requires repeated actions. SEe. Fla. crim law. 784.048 (2) (3). nt. amandabeech May 2012 #171

Ok, fess up. You're Zimmerman's dad, right? kestrel91316 May 2012 #87

OK, fess up. You are Martin's 1st cousin twice removed right? ProgressiveProfessor May 2012 #113

You ABSOLUTELY can approach anyone in your neighborhood and ask them questions. Romulox May 2012 #6

sure...and if the suspicious person kicks your ass noiretextatique May 2012 #11

if you attack someone who has not put their hands on you first, StarryNight May 2012 #34

any evidence that Martin attacked first? noiretextatique May 2012 #37

didn't say that. we don't know who touched who first. and neither you nor I know StarryNight May 2012 #163

No one has a right to creep a stranger obamanut2012 May 2012 #134

well, if they don't have a right to do that, then they sure don't have a right to attack someone StarryNight May 2012 #164

Sure, and if they run away from you, Mariana May 2012 #41

Lots of "ifs" there. I'm not here to defend Zimmerman, just to get basic premises correct. nt Romulox May 2012 #80

Not too many "ifs". Mariana May 2012 #104

No, you can't obamanut2012 May 2012 #131

I get the feeling that Zimmerman wasn't exactly looking like a Mr. Rogers type that night Blue_Tires May 2012 #138

And I can tell you to FUCK OFF also. So what?? Logical May 2012 #148

Isn't great?! That's what Florida grants you and DUers support it. n/t vaberella May 2012 #7

only if you are white or a white latino...close enough noiretextatique May 2012 #8

+1 obamanut2012 May 2012 #135

apparently there are DUers who beleive bowens43 May 2012 #10

I think of a lot of what you're interpreting as 'support'... randome May 2012 #29

Well, GZ has at least two who show up on every thread kestrel91316 May 2012 #89

That's how it sounds to me, too. randome May 2012 #95

There has always been a segment on DU that supports the gun/death merchants Hugabear May 2012 #120

Pretty much. smokey nj May 2012 #13

seriously, what was Martin "defending himself" against? someone asking him StarryNight May 2012 #39

Um, George Zimmerman. You know the man who'd been following him. smokey nj May 2012 #48

why do you need to "defend" against following? you just keep walking. especially if you are a StarryNight May 2012 #167

He was defending himself (a child) from a creepy stalker that may or may not have been a sexual Dragonfli May 2012 #53

FAIL. A single punch doesn't justify a shooting, particularly if kestrel91316 May 2012 #90

So you think it is find to physically attack someone you believe they are following you? ProgressiveProfessor May 2012 #99

I think it's FINE to verbally attack someone I believe is following me CatWoman May 2012 #103

There those here saying the Martin had the right to PHYSICALLY attack Zimmerman ProgressiveProfessor May 2012 #105

ok, so explain it to me Blue_Tires May 2012 #141

You do realize that your are making the reasonable person case, just like Zimmerman ProgressiveProfessor May 2012 #151

it's all in the manner of how you're being followed... Blue_Tires May 2012 #139

Not legally... ProgressiveProfessor May 2012 #150

So why did it work for Bernie Goetz? Blue_Tires May 2012 #173

The jury believed that he had been threatened with IIRC the screwdrivers that were being carried. ProgressiveProfessor May 2012 #179

just how martin had been threatened.... Blue_Tires May 2012 #181

Not sure where you are getting that... ProgressiveProfessor May 2012 #183

it's a fine line... Blue_Tires May 2012 #184

you're african-american? Blue_Tires May 2012 #186

Yes, as was my late wife ProgressiveProfessor May 2012 #188

Stop by sometime... Blue_Tires May 2012 #189

I'm subscribed there ProgressiveProfessor May 2012 #190

You can follow and verbally accost someone in a non-threatening manner. hack89 May 2012 #15

but he did accost him, according to you noiretextatique May 2012 #18

Accost =/= threaten or assault hack89 May 2012 #23

How do you know any accosting was done in "a non threatening manner"? Fumesucker May 2012 #27

zimmerman went from "these people always get away" and "fucking coons" noiretextatique May 2012 #51

I don't know. Just pointing out what the jury will hear from his lawyers. hack89 May 2012 #72

you used the word accost, not me noiretextatique May 2012 #43

Your logic makes perfect sense and I agree with it hack89 May 2012 #78

i understand...i also know that juries are comprised of people noiretextatique May 2012 #79

So you are good with someone escalating a verbal confrontation to physical violence? ProgressiveProfessor May 2012 #106

Is it possible to put a reasonable person in fear of their life without breaking any law? Fumesucker May 2012 #19

That is a question for the jury hack89 May 2012 #24

The "other side of the story" is the dead child. TBF May 2012 #44

I don't ignore it. hack89 May 2012 #64

Well then we'll ignore that dead child and go with the badass. TBF May 2012 #92

Look - explaining what the law actually says is not justifying Trayvon's death hack89 May 2012 #94

How the judge/jury interprets the law is what matters counselor. nt TBF May 2012 #96

No shit - but the law cannot be stretched beyond recognition to get "justice" hack89 May 2012 #101

I don't think they have a problem here. The only folks stretching are the TBF May 2012 #117

They have a hell of a problem hack89 May 2012 #121

Zimmerman can talk about ponies prancing in the sky if he wants to - TBF May 2012 #122

Zimmerman does not have to say a word hack89 May 2012 #123

Zimmerman being told on tape to stay in his vehicle & the dead child. TBF May 2012 #124

Ignoring the 911 operator is not a crime hack89 May 2012 #125

all i want is Zimmerman's official statement to police that night Blue_Tires May 2012 #176

of course it is noiretextatique May 2012 #47

Nope, I had someone arrested for following me obamanut2012 May 2012 #136

What was the exact charge that he was convicted on? nt hack89 May 2012 #146

Under florida law ctaylors6 May 2012 #17

+1 uponit7771 May 2012 #21

"Repeatedly follows" is why Zimmerman was not charged with stalking. nt hack89 May 2012 #25

We are not in court and stalking has another meaning besides the legal definition.. Fumesucker May 2012 #30

Yes - but what happens in court is all that matters. nt hack89 May 2012 #35

Then why worry about how people are using language outside of court? n/t Fumesucker May 2012 #42

Because it contributes to unrealistic expectations as to what will happen at trial. hack89 May 2012 #67

He did repeatedly follow, it doesn't have to happen over days hours or weeks uponit7771 May 2012 #46

He was not specifically charged with stalking hack89 May 2012 #62

True, they don't have to charge him to prove the chain of events and whos at fault uponit7771 May 2012 #65

"The initial act of felon aggression was the stalking" is a huge assumption on your part hack89 May 2012 #88

Florida Stalking Statute amandabeech May 2012 #174

I think a case could be made that Zimmerman had a habit of stalking people of color. intheflow May 2012 #147

I'd keep my ass in the car Aerows May 2012 #28

That seems to be the case ArcticFox May 2012 #31

Falsely framed, but you already knew that ProgressiveProfessor May 2012 #32

I had the same thought professor Yupster May 2012 #40

The situation with Zimmerman and Martin, though Aerows May 2012 #63

No doubt about that Yupster May 2012 #70

Cops, who tend to overcharge only asked for manslaughter ProgressiveProfessor May 2012 #84

"Cops" tend to overcharge no one, as they do not have the capacity to do do. Ikonoklast May 2012 #107

Ok, cops tend to recommend/request charges on the high side ProgressiveProfessor May 2012 #110

Cops give evidence, reports, and testimony to a DA or a grand jury. Ikonoklast May 2012 #115

IIRC the Sanford PD requested/recommended that Zimmerman be charged with Manslaughter ProgressiveProfessor May 2012 #116

Law enforcement do not charge anyone obamanut2012 May 2012 #137

Already discussed several posts up ProgressiveProfessor May 2012 #152

Make it not political ProgressiveProfessor May 2012 #81

I don't see that as political Aerows May 2012 #91

I too believe that Zimmerman should be found guilty, most likely of manslaughter ProgressiveProfessor May 2012 #97

Incorrect. We have clear evidence that Zimmerman Pursued Martin. Yavin4 May 2012 #60

Here's how Florida defines stalking: Kaleva May 2012 #36

Yeap, ZMans following was willful and malicious and he followed him for a while uponit7771 May 2012 #38

But it wasn't repeated following of Trayvon. Kaleva May 2012 #52

Yes it was, he was even told at one time to stay in the car...repeated doesn't have to happen over.. uponit7771 May 2012 #55

He wasn't told to stay in the car. Kaleva May 2012 #69

he had a pattern of stalking black males noiretextatique May 2012 #71

Which would be profiling and he may be charged with that. Kaleva May 2012 #83

Z took more than Oneka May 2012 #77

Yes, it is that simple, I disagree but I lack the proper pistol to be manly enough for them Dragonfli May 2012 #45

Stalking is illegal in Florida, but no one was stalked in the Martin/Zimmerman case. ZombieHorde May 2012 #49

The "repeated instances" can happen in a short time, stalking DOES apply here.... uponit7771 May 2012 #54

How does the law define a single instance? nt ZombieHorde May 2012 #58

The act itself and then the continuation is repeated uponit7771 May 2012 #61

Is that the law? That seems extremely silly. ZombieHorde May 2012 #74

Can you cite a case or reg for that? amandabeech May 2012 #175

See Serial Killer Richard Ramirez Yavin4 May 2012 #156

He was called the Night Stalker because it sounds catchy, not necessarily because ZombieHorde May 2012 #168

yes.... according to some, you should be free to kill others fascisthunter May 2012 #59

yes, that's exactly what some DUers are arguing CreekDog May 2012 #66

If Zimmerman was on the ground, HockeyMom May 2012 #98

You might want to review the earlier posts on what intermediate range means ProgressiveProfessor May 2012 #100

"Intermediate range" could be anywhere from 1 to 18 inches according to one source. Kaleva May 2012 #111

Apparently so. Both in Florida and on DU. Bake May 2012 #108

Nah. I said that a month and a half ago......... socialist_n_TN May 2012 #129

It depends on the colors of the persons involved Blue_Tires May 2012 #109

+1 La Lioness Priyanka May 2012 #126

only if you are white. really doubt it would work if you were black. La Lioness Priyanka May 2012 #112

Number one Life Long Dem May 2012 #114

NOT WITH DEADLY FORCE........ socialist_n_TN May 2012 #130

Trayvon was stalked obamanut2012 May 2012 #140

Yep that is EXACTLY what they are saying Rex May 2012 #118

Yes. That is it indeed. Incredible. uppityperson May 2012 #119

Zimmerman didn't "Stalk" Martin Taitertots May 2012 #127

yuh... he just "walked up to him"....lol fascisthunter May 2012 #133

Well, he certainly wasn't on horseback Taitertots May 2012 #144

what about the following in the car before that? Blue_Tires May 2012 #142

So, Serial Killer Richard Ramirez Didn't Stalk Anyone?? Yavin4 May 2012 #155

thank you! Nine May 2012 #157

WTF does Richard Ramirez have to do with this case and/or the laws of Florida? Taitertots May 2012 #161

I believe whatever my TV tells me. Is that what some DUers here are arguing? just1voice May 2012 #128

If you follow someone because you mistakenly or even stupidly suspect they may be up to no good, Vattel May 2012 #143

So, How Does The Person Being Followed Know That The Stalker Is Non-Violent? Yavin4 May 2012 #153

You tell me. Vattel May 2012 #159

If you are female, certainly. eridani May 2012 #191

depends on what the Race of the person you are going after is JI7 May 2012 #145

No hfojvt May 2012 #149

There Is A Famous LA Serial Killer Named Richard Ramirez Yavin4 May 2012 #154

Maybe Zimmerman put his hands on Martin and Martin responded? soccer1 May 2012 #158

Yes, that is definitely possible. slackmaster May 2012 #162

Maybe, but, again, the hearsay rule prevents a third party from reporting what Trayvon said to her. amandabeech May 2012 #177

Hearsay exceptions soccer1 May 2012 #178

Are you thinking about "dying declaration?" amandabeech May 2012 #180

Exceptions to hearsay rule soccer1 May 2012 #182

We don't know what happened treestar May 2012 #160

Yes, Zimmerman could have avoided shooting Trayvon. No doubt about that. soccer1 May 2012 #169

Lax gun laws mean bullies are armed. daaron May 2012 #166

You need to be a non-minority and have some pretext, but yes. gulliver May 2012 #172

The dumbing down of DU continues. flvegan May 2012 #185