Let me know when that actually happens.
So you really have no response to this - you can't reconcile how your argument that GZ was on his back when the shot was fired and how that does not coincide with the angle of the shot. Don't feel bad, neither does the defense team.
GZ was at liberty to do whatever he damn well pleased, but the evidence doesn't support that he was "stalking".
Yes, there is clear evidence of stalking. Stalking is defined as a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose. "Course of conduct" means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Stalking occurs when an individual engages in a course of conduct that's designed to cause a substantial amount of emotional distress in another. Although typically misdemeanors, stalking charges can quickly become serious felonies when the repeated conduct/harassment is accompanied by a threat of harm that places the victim in fear of death or bodily injury.
It's absolutely not the same tactic as blaming a rape victim. You claimed TM was a littel scared child trying with all his might to get away. In that case, he should have called the cops, had witness 8 call the cops, and run the hell home or to a well lit area instead of loitering in the dog walk.
It is exactly the same as blaming a rape victim. You are trying to place some onus on Trayvon for the conduct of GZ. Trayvon was minding his own business, had a right to be where he was, and was under no responsibility to run home, call police, or any other such nonsence. No one had the right, not even a police officer to question Trayvon.
So TM was being 'authoritative' when
he confronted GZ and demanded that GZ account for himself in his own neighborhood ?
Some people can put their fingers in their ears and sing, "lalalalala" all day long but that will not change the facts and evidence lean towards an affirmative finding that GZ was the one who was using the authoritive voice and was the aggressor in this case.
George appointed himself as the Captain of the Norwest Neighborhood Watch Program and attended an orientation meeting and took extraordinary measures to go from home to home handing out business cards and asking neighbors to report "suspicious activities" to him and LE. According to neighbors within the community, George would regularly "patrol" the neighborhood while walking his dog, or by vehicle with its headlights turned off. Some neighbors purposely changed their regular outside activities simply to avoid George's patrols. George was unhindered in his confrontations with those he believed did not belong within the community.
George also had a history of interjecting himself into situations where he believed a crime had been committed. At one time, he chased down an individual who George believe had stolen an item. On another occasion, George chased down another vehicle because the driver had spit on his car.
In addition, we have the testimony of DeeDee who substantiates that Trayvon was aware that a "creepy man" in a vehicle was following him. The NEN call proves that when Trayvon tried to get away from George by running down between the townhomes at the "T," George jumped out of his truck, exclaiming the excited utterance, "Oh ****, he's running" and wind noise and background noises give the distinct impression that George is running after Trayvon. At some point, George states, "these ********, they always get away" and "*********** punks." GZ admits to the NEN Dispatch that he is following Trayvon.
Although Zimmerman claims that he had withdrawn from searching for Trayvon, we can only assume that Trayvon had no way of knowing that. There is also evidence to support that this is not truthful - DeeDee mentions that Trayvon stated that Zimmerman was now following him again and that he said he could see him approaching.
It is not a far off stretch that a reasonably minded jury will surmize that it was GZ who was using the authoritive voice and acting as the aggressor.
I'm sorry, was there an argument in there somewhere ? Many people here believe many different things.
If you think we should share your belief, make a case for it. Otherwise, meh.
Yeah, I have an argument. An extraordinary, untrained civilian — someone who fancies themselves to have legal authority that they do not in fact have, someone armed with a concealed firearm, someone that values real estate more than life — seems to believe he can proceed to escalate that moment until violence ensues, at which point, being the only one carrying a concealed and deadly weapon, he can take a human life that should never have been at risk in the first place.
Regardless of who threw the first punch, Zimmerman provoked the confrontation by, while armed with a gun, recklessly hunting down an innocent teen who was a guest in the neighborhood. Zimmerman could have easily avoided any confrontation with Trayvon. Zimmerman himself admits that the kid ran away from him when he first saw Zimmerman, trying to escape. Zimmerman did not have to go for a kill shot. Most importantly, if Zimmerman had not pursued Trayvon, and if Zimmerman had not brought a gun, thereby inserting the possibility of deadly force into the equation where previously there had been none, then Trayvon would be alive today, regardless of who shoved who first:
“A defendant may, as a reasonable man, have believed that he was in danger of losing his life, or of incurring great bodily harm, and yet the killing may not, under some circumstances, be justifiable or excusable. One instance is where he has brought about the necessity without being reasonably free from fault. Again, the circumstances of a case may at least make it a question for the jury whether a killing was not in pursuance of a previously formed design to kill, instead of having been the result of a mere purpose of self-defense, although at the time of the altercation the first overt act may have come from the person slain.” Ballard v. State, 31 Fla. 266, 12 So. 865.
O'Mara has indicated that Zimmerman's attempts at raising himself while pinned under Trayvon constitutes his attempt to "retreat" but because of Trayvon's formidable size, he was unable to retreat. But this does not explain why Zimmerman did not announce to Trayvon that he had the gun and intended to shoot. Law enforcement is trained to announce that they intend to shoot before doing so. If Zimmerman had the time to move and position his hand so as to be sure and not shoot it, he had the same time to speak his intentions to Trayvon.
Bottom line - Zimmerman was no cop. He had no probable cause. And worse, he had no training to understand the tenuous legality of his perceived authority. Meanwhile, Trayvon did nothing to require his cooperation or detention. So a confrontation began and an argument ensued. Zimmerman stood his ground against an unarmed man that he unilaterally approached and challenged. Trayvon is dead. Zimmerman is utterly unjustified, regardless of whether Trayvon was agitated enough by having his civil rights violated to have engaged in common assault or mutual combat. Trayvon was unarmed. Zimmerman had the gun.
The arguments for equivalency between Zimmerman and Trayvon because Trayvonn may have been moved to common, non-lethal assault during the confrontation, or even less, to become involved in some mutual non-lethal combat, are subject to my full disregard and contempt. There is dishonesty in that false equivalency that goes to the heart of what went wrong and took a life in Florida.
When the state present the evidence that GZ was committing a crime he hasn't been charged with, then you'll have something.
Zimmerman gives me the impression that he lives to make that job as difficult as possible.
