versus you, who just made yourself look like an idiot.what if tray did attack him you will all look like idiots
If the prosecution freely admits they don't know who attacked who, then doesn't that just dip their entire case in reasonable doubt? OR is the state going to do something similar to what they did with the Casey Anthony trial and just try to advance their "theory" in the absence of any REAL evidence? It didn't work out so well! How and WHY would they even bother trying a case where the defendant will try to claim "self defense" or "stand your ground" when they can't even say for sure who attacked who? Doesn't this entire case pretty much hinge on who attacked who first? Didn't they learn anything last year?versus you, who just made yourself look like an idiot.
no one knows who attacked who, the prosecution has already tipped their hat on this.
Not really. I would attack someone following me and yelling. The real question is did Zimm's actions instigate the altercation or try to minimize it. If the prosecution can prove that Zimmy had a viable retreat BEFORE he confronted TM, he's done. If the jury feels TM attacked out of aggression, not self defense, GZ walks.what if tray did attack him you will all look like idiots
I realize this, but without knowing who attacked who first I don't think a jury will be able to convict. Sorry, he may very well be guilty but a lot of assumptions are being made by people who have no clue what happened. It seems like people are making these assumptions based on emotions. I find this troubling.not really imo....if i was a juror and i had ..not sure who threw first punch..mutt zimm clearly initiated everything ...zimm is guilty... i think zimm pulled his piece and got scared and shot when martin went for the gun...martin feared (rightfully so) for his life ..zimm is the aggressor .....and as far a casey anthony the state fucked by not saying one simple phrase to the simpleton hay seeds in florida..."there is not a videotape of casey anthony committing this awful crime..but she did it no doubt..connect the dots it is very clear...reasonable doubt does not mean no eye witnesses ....
Why not? Does he not have the right to step out of his truck? I don't really understand this statement.Zimmbomb stepped out of his truck? Why?
Case closed sluts
SYG totally 100% applies, you have no duty to restrict yourself from doing things that there is no law against. Is there a law in Florida which makes it a crime to follow a person and ask questions? No? Then SYG applies.SYG doestn apply as he pursued martin . . . lmfao why are people still quoting syg . .. if it applies to anyone its the dead 17 yr old kid who was walking home from 7 - 11 with his purchases
actually it could be looked at as harrasment or stalking. I don't know what world you live in where a grown ass man ( not in law-enforcment ) can follow kids around and think that thats not criminal.SYG totally 100% applies, you have no duty to restrict yourself from doing things that there is no law against. Is there a law in Florida which makes it a crime to follow a person and ask questions? No? Then SYG applies.
17 year old thugs are not kids.actually it could be looked at as harrasment or stalking. I don't know what world you live in where a grown ass man ( not in law-enforcment ) can follow kids around and think that thats not criminal.
I can show you some true thugs and you will see just how Trayvon was not, but I'm sure you would rather go on with your stupidity for it enables you to have an argument17 year old thugs are not kids.
Zimmerman's behavior MIGHT be considered harrasment but falls far short of the burden for stalking. Unfortunately once again, we only have Zimmerman's word to go on here. The prosecution's best chance, most likely, is to attempt to assassinate his credibility. I'm pretty sure we will see all sorts of dirt coming out about Zimmerman in the coming weeks and months.actually it could be looked at as harrasment or stalking. I don't know what world you live in where a grown ass man ( not in law-enforcment ) can follow kids around and think that thats not criminal.
Stalking Law & Legal Definition
A person who intentionally and repeatedly follows or harasses another person and who makes a credible threat, either expressed or implied, with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm is guilty of the crime of stalking. A person may be charged with aggravated stalking if they commit the crime of stalking while subject to a temporary restraining order, injunction against trespass, or similar order.
Stalkers target public figures or celebrities, children, and sometimes even complete strangers. But, in most cases, a stalker is someone you know and with whom you have had a relationship. Criminal statutes which can be used in an effort to deter stalking include laws against harassment and assault, as well as a specific stalking law.
Harassment Law & Legal Definition
Harassment is governed by state laws, which vary by state, but is generally defined as a course of conduct which annoys, threatens, intimidates, alarms, or puts a person in fear of their safety. Harassment is unwanted, unwelcomed and uninvited behavior that demeans, threatens or offends the victim and results in a hostile environment for the victim. Harassing behavior may include, but is not limited to, epithets, derogatory comments or slurs and lewd propositions, assault, impeding or blocking movement, offensive touching or any physical interference with normal work or movement, and visual insults, such as posters or cartoons.
First comes the harrassment....then comes the stalking. Life lost because someone wanted to play wannabe cop. Zimmerman is a real loser.Zimmerman's behavior MIGHT be considered harrasment but falls far short of the burden for stalking. Unfortunately once again, we only have Zimmerman's word to go on here. The prosecution's best chance, most likely, is to attempt to assassinate his credibility. I'm pretty sure we will see all sorts of dirt coming out about Zimmerman in the coming weeks and months.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/
Right, but look at the definition of stalking. Keywords "intentionally and repeatedly". His actions may have been intentional, but they weren't repeated. Stalking laws are mainly for creepers who don't want to let go of an ex or psychos obsessed with a celebrity. Stalking would most likely not apply here. Harassment might.First comes the harrassment....then comes the stalking. Life lost because someone wanted to play wannabe cop. Zimmerman is a real loser.