Robert Zimmerman Jr added to awesome witness bullpen

#1 The police filed the items as "Found Property" and closed the case.

#2 It is evidence of possessing a screwdriver. Show me the Florida law that says possessing a screwdriver is a crime.
#2(b) Already did.

#3 As Judge Nelson would say to O'Mara: Go ask her yourself.
#3(b) False. Both BDLR and O'Mara have stated that the FBI investigation is ongoing.

 

Yes they know the law, but you did accuse him of stalking so cite for the Florida law the provisions which make Zimmerman's actions that night a stalking.

Not general, the SPECIFIC Florida statute he violated to make it a stalking.

False it was the NEN, non-emergency dispatcher which dispatches the appropriate agency. He was NOT talking to the police.

Post it then, from the point the dispatcher says "we don't want you doing that", it's YOUR assertion, back it up.

Proved everytime,

Dee Dee: I say, ‘Keep runnin’.’

BDLR: OK.

Dee Dee: He say he ain’t goin’ run, cause he say he right by his father house…

BDLR: OK.

See above, cite the specific Florida stalking law, and the evidence that Martin was being persued the entire time and knew he was being pursued the entire time.

Breathing hard while back at the apartment he was staying at which meant he ran that far, not just to the T junction.

And post the evidence Zimmerman attempted to detain Martin.

Prove it was Martin who had someone on top of him and it was he who was screaming.

Which requires a fear of IMMINENT serious bodily harm or death, prove he had that fear since he had lost the man who was watching him and could have simply gone inside the apartment by CHOSE to go back and confront Zimmerman.

Cite the evidence which proves it.

Once again cite the Florida law that made Zimmerman's actions a stalking, the entire law.

 

You said

Prove they said "it was not stolen", we know it was found DUH.

Which is also a burglary tool and when associated with stolen property evidence of a crime.

Show me where I claimed possessing a screwdriver is a crime.

Nope you have posted no evidence to support the claim of the cousin. What forensic evidence did she present? And post the claim of rape which you claimed she made.

So you can't support your claim then.

False
FBI Finds No Evidence Zimmerman Was Racist

"MIAMI | After interviewing nearly three dozen people in the George Zimmerman murder case, the FBI found no evidence that racial bias was a motivating factor in the shooting of Trayvon Martin, records released Thursday show."
http://www.theledger.com/article/20120712/NEWS/120719774

 

Prove it wasn't.

 

You say Trayvon is guilty. You have to prove your case. You haven't done that.

 

The legal definition is all that matters because this is a legal case.

 

Had GZ actually been a stalker and actually confronted tray tray with the gun first, you might have a semi-coherent point, but since neither of those things are true, well...fail.

 

[video=youtube;YVynnbx1Xsc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVynnbx1Xsc[/video]

 

Trayvon is not on trial Dasein. As you know and ignore there are burdens of proof and standards of proof. Prove is a relative legal term that depends on the standard of proof in the given circumstance. To prove guilt of a defendant in a criminal case the standard of proof is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Were Martin on trial for theft of the jewelry that would be the standard of proof needed to prove his guilt. However, Martin is not in trial Zimmerman is. So the standard of proof is reversed. As the defense all Zimmerman's defense has to do to prove something is to establish reasonability. The standard of proof that the defense has to meet is reasonablity that is a much lower standard of proof than the prosecution has to meet.

If it is reasonable based on the evidence that Martin may have been a thief then under the standard of proof he is proven to be a thief in the eyes of the court is it pertains to the Zimmerman defense.

 

Nope. Legal definition is irrelevant because Z hasn't been charged with stalking.

- - - Updated - - -

The admitted killer profile, stalked, and confronted the victim. SPD have already concluded the confrontation was the shooter's fault.

 

And this is not a court room. It is an internet forum.

 

Its an internet forum discussing a criminal case so the matters of law apply. If you don't want to use legal definitions then do not inter into a legal discussion.

 

doesn't change th fact that the admitted killer stalked Trayvon.

 

Again legal definitions. You want to argue about a criminal case you have to argue what is and is not under the law. You know and I know that he did not legally stalk Martin. You have admitted as such. If you dont want to have a legal discussion I suggest you stay out of threads dealing with legal cases.

 

You keep saying this was a stalking, well then post the Florida stalking statute and then explain how this was a stalking.

- - - Updated - - -

Still waiting, post the statute and how it applies.

 

It’s not a tricky word, but if you’re really stuck as to what stalking is the dictionary can help, and stalking is the correct word to describe Zimmies actions

 

He never said anything about police officers. Firstly, Zimmy was not a police officer. Secondly, a police officer would not have stalked Martin.

Martin had every right to ask why the heck he was being pursued. He was doing absolutely nothing wrong, and Zimmerman admitted it in his police walk-through. "Looking suspicious" is not unlawful.

 

George Zimmerman stalked Trayvon Martin then killed him.

Just to educate you, here's the definition of the transitive verb:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/stalking

 

Being Hispanic is not unlawful ... See I can do that too.

 

It's truly amazing that with all the evidence, repeatedly, refuting your claims and comments and attempts to defend Zimmerman that this is the best you conservatives can come up with.

Pointing out that Zimmerman stalked Trayvon has not, nor will ever be, a claim that he is being charged with stalking. Pointing out that Zimmermans stalking of Trayvon constitutes a legal appearance of a threat, especially as Zimmerman was carrying a gun which may have been in view, and gave Trayvon a righ to defend himself is not a claim by anyone that Zimmermans crime was stalking.

That despite it being already excrutiatingly specific with this context and this regard you conservatives refuse to actually address the evidence and arguments presented so far is overwhelmingly showing your deliberate ignorance.

Zimmerman instigated the situation and confrontation and escalated it.

His actions legally constitute a threat. As it would for anyone were they legally walking home at night and were suddenly slowly followed on a deserted street by a man in a car, who then got out carrying a gun and began to follow them on foot while blatantly refusing to identify themselves.

This wasn't Zimmerman walking along and Trayvon got the wrong idea. This was a man who had stalked a teenager at night in his car, got out and began pursuing him with a firearm and then shot that same teenager when he legally defended himself.

Stalking is not even a colloquial term at this point. Zimmerman stalked Trayvon. But he was not charged with stalking. Nor has ANYONE said Zimmerman was charged with stalking, making it incredibly odd that you conservatives can't seem to come up with any arguments other than the ones you make up.

His actions, stalking, were what instigated and then escalated the situation. Because of Zimmermans actions and his refusing to identify himself, his is responsible for Trayvons death. Because Zimmerman knowingly initiated and escalated the situation, in defiance from a police call operator, Trayvon is completely innocent. Trayvon is legally allowed to defend himself, as anyone is, when faced with some nutjob stalker carrying a gun that had just stalked him in his car and then got out to stalk him on foot. Trayvon was allowed to stand his ground. Zimmerman, as the instigator and escalator, was not. Demanding Trayvon run when he was not required to does not stop him being the victim. That he "could" have gone home doesn't change the fact he isn't required to. Considering that the SYG laws were put in place to defend the victim, Trayvon, from this very thing it's quite telling that you conservatives are against it in this "particular" (gee, we wonder why) case.

If you have a problem with the word "stalking", take it up with lexiconographers. Don't make up ridiculous, moronic, arguments about "durp the legal word" that nobody but yourselves have claimed just because you don't have an argument.

 

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0784/Sections/0784.048.html

You sir are the one that needs an education. Legal language matters.

 

The problem here is that you are taking the word of a retarded girl who didn't run to the cops upon hearing of Trayvons death. She was found a month later and only after Trayvons dad took interest in his sons phone activity. So if you can believe someone like that, thats cool, but a jury will not. Had she went running crying right away, yes.

 

OK. Say Martin didn't ask Zimmy why he was following him. That meant that Zimmerman confronted Martin and then shot him. That makes it even more heinous.

Zimmy told the cops that he was going to follow Martin. He gave no good reason why.

 

Well, ok, that is one theory, but its not the only possible scenario. Were you there? Did George call the cops into this situation?

 

So this is some kind of alternate scenario? Why do you leave the whole battery part out?

Umm, no he didn't.