Can you repost? I can't see that article at my work.
Can you repost? I can't see that article at my work.
the busy bee has no time for sorrow.
According to a report by Reuters last April "One resident who bought his home in 2006 for $250,000 said it was worth $80,000 today."
According to the same report, in addition to 8 burglaries in the 263-unit community, "Twin Lakes residents said dozens of reports of attempted break-ins and would-be burglars casing homes".
There's a reason the neighborhood watch set up.
He's a selective listener.
Listen here, my point is that it doesn't matter how many goddamn vacancies there are in the neighborhood - but because you and everyone else with an agenda wanted to make this about race and gun laws and every other token issue that could be tied to the case, the whole thing got convoluted away from an obvious manslaughter conviction of a negligent dolt who can't even comprehend the ancillary issues you've made this about.
Not that the public response to the case isn't relevant, just that it had nothing to do with whether z was guilty or not
Oh no, but he's not a racist. Oh, but he had a right to carry a gun. Must be innocent
Silly. Silly silly. Piers Morgan is a silly man.
If this happened at a housing project , Zimmerman would have been one guilty ass Latino and treyvon a no name statistic. Now , Zimmerman becomes white and Treyvon a national suburban martyr
Listening, with what method do you value human life?
Last edited by Listening; 07-15-2013 at 08:50 PM.
Answer the question
The fact that they brought up the unrelated lady's burglary is a 403 issue and should have been objected to vigorously by the prosecution. The MPC and Model Evidence Codes are followed in most states, and I'm certain Florida has adopted substantially the same laws. There is no strong argument for those statements being included that don't run up against 403.
Your specious argument that these break ins (which, to clarify, could and should have been alluded to by the defense) allow someone from the neighborhood watch to follow a teenager who had made no specific suspicious movements other than being black is just that, specious. Don't claim you didn't make the argument, because it's very clearly there in successive posts that can be read together to suggest that 1) Zimmerman was indeed following Martin, 2) he did so without being ordered to by the police, 3) he was doing so as a member of the neighborhood watch and 4) he was doing so due to suspicion of criminal activity. What neither you, the defense nor anyone else has stated is what this suspicious activity is. That is because, other than being an African American teenager, Martin was not doing anything suspicious because he had every right to be on that street at that time and to not be accosted.
The Stand Your Ground law has something to do with the verdict because it was introduced by the defense and read to the jury as an excuse for a homicide committed with a deadly weapon and without accident. There is nothing further to state here: whatever point you are attempting to make is incorrect, as Stand Your Ground law is probably the pivot point behind this whole decision.
Yes. Assaulting and killing someone based upon unfounded suspicions is against the law. As is unwarranted following of an individual. If Martin had been older and less inclined to respond as a teenager would, when he noted Zimmerman following him he could have called the cops and properly reported Zimmerman for stalking, suspicious activity and (at least probably, due to the fact that he was carrying a weapon) assault or criminal threat. There was no argument that what Zimmerman did was not illegal. There WAS an argument that what he did, while illegal, was excused based upon extenuating circumstances.
That the case came out the way it did is inarguable. That Zimmerman did something deeply wrong should also be inarguable. Neighborhood Watch is not a vigilante group, they are not certified officers of the peace allowed to carry and discharge weapons in the normal service of their duty. It's true that Zimmerman carried his weapon legally in a state that has unfortunate laws that allow concealed weapons and allow people in altercations to use deadly force even when it is neither necessary nor prudent.
This case, and every other one that gets publicized like it, is so frustrating for the armchair attorneys that pop up, proclaiming that the law most certainly works the way that CNN or Fox has told them. It's even more frustrating for being such a distortion of already distorted laws based upon poor prosecution, a non-representative jury and facts muddled both by the circumstances and by poor police work.
Where's the point when Zimmerman's actions first became illegal, how illegal did they get, and what points do they escalate all the way to murder/manslaughter?
Last edited by Listening; 07-15-2013 at 09:42 PM.
I'm editing this because your edited response came across less antagonistic.
There's an argument to be made that, absent any articulable activity that would arouse Zimmerman's suspicions, all he was doing was profiling Martin based upon his age, race, build and attire. That's not legal regardless of where one lives. That he followed Martin, while armed, would not likely rise to the level of criminal stalking, but an argument could me made that, because he was following a young boy at night through a neighborhood without a specific, non-biased articulable suspicion that he was willfully and maliciously following or harassing him. Now, he did not necessarily do it repeatedly, but when a police dispatcher told him, "we don't need you to do that," in reference to following him, it could be argued that he was aware that he no longer needed to follow and that his harrassment was repeated based upon this advisement.
Suspicious activity is just that: you need to be able to articulate some reason for the threat posed. Here, Zimmerman never had anything more than a "hunch" that Martin was doing something. He could call the cops, but based upon that tip the officers would have no articulable reason to stop Martin other than, "he looks suspicious." Now, they'd find some specious reason to do so, but the fact remains that a warantless stop is illegal unless the officer can articulate a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity having been perpetrated in his/her presence. Zimmerman provided none of that, the officers had no reason to believe that any crime had been committed, and other than walking home while black, male and young, Martin committed no suspicious activity.
The assault happened, arguably, as soon as Zimmerman got close to Martin. Assault is the creation of an immediate apprehension of unwanted bodily contact. Once Zimmerman got close to Martin he created a fear (and ultimately a reality) that Martin's personal being was threatened. The facts are not clear as to who exactly struck first and what exactly occurred during the altercation, but regardless assault could be argued based upon Zimmerman's approach at night.
I don't think murder was ever a correct charge because it is hard, based upon the circumstances, to show that Zimmerman actually acted with malevolence towards Martin, although I think it could be strongly implied. However, manslaughter should have been almost a slam dunk based upon his following without articulable suspicion, contact with Martin and eventual shooting.
Holy shit I hate lawyers.
I really shouldn't pass judgement on the case because I wasn't in the curtroom. I will say this...
Business folk who run corporations into the ground and screw stock holders, suppliers, employees and every one else, get sued for negligence all the time. Mind you these suites are often frivolous but many not. Drinking and driving is negligence. If you're shit faced and hurt someone on the road, you're going to jail for a long time...
The reason you shouldn't pass judgement on the case isn't because you weren't in the CURTOOM, Vigo. I won't even bother to state one of the handful of punchlines.