Z Never Had A Broken Nose

What he said made sense and I agreed with it.

 

Chasing someone at night is confrontational and an act of aggression. I don't care what you say, if I was walking home at night and someone was following me in a vehicle and then got out of the vehicle to continue their pursuit of me... I would be on full defense mode. I would either run or if I felt I could take the guy I would confront him. Z had no authority or no right to do anything to Trayvon. What was he going to do when he caught up to him? What was his intentions chasing him?

And it's not against the law to follow someone, but it's also not against the law to defend yourself against someone who is following you at night. It is instigating. Z chased the wrong guy who ended up taking offense to it and beating him down. Just saying I was trying to help out my community doesn't cut it.

He didn't have to throw the first punch, he was chasing him down at night. That is an act of aggression in my book.

 

Yes he has contributed alot to this Current Event Thread with no link. This thread should have never lasted this long for him to troll and attack people on.

 

I don't give a flying frack if you agreed with it or not. That is just your own bias. Its not a legally valid argument.

 

While your post might be "common sense", it has nothing to do with law....which the trial is based on.

Following someone does not give the other person the right to resort to violence.

The trail is going to come down to one question:

Did TM initiate the violence?

If proven "Yes", Zimmerman will be acquitted.

If "unclear", Zimmerman should be acquitted as his story can not be disputed (innocent until proven guilty).

If "no", Zimmerman will be found guilty of manslaughter.

 

This is a forum where people express their opinions. I guarantee there is no legal validity to your argument either.

 

I gave the link on the first page. Next false claim......

 

I don't believe that at all. Zimmerman acknowledges that Trayvon was running, a witness verifies the claim that Trayvon knew he was being followed and he was told to run. Zimmerman acknowledged to the operator that he was in pursuit of Trayvon. There is enough evidence here regardless of who threw the first punch to convict Zimmerman. You just can't chase someone at night then shoot them when they fight back and claim self defense. Self defense is when you are being chased and you fight back. Trayvon has more of a case for self defense in this situation than Zimmerman does.

 

The moment T ran away and Z got out of his vehicle to continue following him Z broke the Florida Harassment law. But you keep claiming my argument is not based on the law.

 

So, in order to defend yourself the threat has to be imminent. You cant walk up behind the guy after the fact and confront him.

And if you attacked him you are going to jail.

Exactly what he did. Ask him why he was there.

To observe where he went which is what the dispatcher asked hm to do ... 3 times.

Correct.

Yes it is. If you have a private eye following you for example and you haul off on him you are going to jail.

Your book doesn't matter.

 

If Trayvon, who was thin and 6'3", was fleeing from Zimmerman, why didn't he run home a few doors down? Are you suggesting that pudgy Zimmerman ran him down? LOL!


_

 

Citation needed again.


_

 

To find out what TM was up to. There is no indication that Zimmerman wished to physically harm TM. According to TM's girlfriend, the last words spoken were by Zimmerman before what she thought was the physical altercation, was when Zimmerman asked TM "what are you doing here?". Had TM just answered the question, the night might have turned out differently.

[quoteAnd it's not against the law to follow someone, but it's also not against the law to defend yourself against someone who is following you at night. It is instigating. Z chased the wrong guy who ended up taking offense to it and beating him down. Just saying I was trying to help out my community doesn't cut it.[/quote]

A person does not have the right to resort to violence. If TM was not being physically attacked, he had no right to initiate it.

Yes, that is an aggressive act, but it does not give TM the LEGAL right to initiate violence.

 

Post 19 isnt on the first page. I suggest you re-look at the TOS. I would figure someone nearing 8k posts would know he rules specially in this forum. Your thread title is also a bold face lie. As "Likely" does not equal "Not".

 

No he didn't. Harassment requires repeated instances.

 

Please state the LAW you are getting this from.

 

He doesn't have it because its not harassment, harassment requires and established pattern between the two.

 

Following is not Harassment... We have been through this. You are going to link to the law and we are we going to correct you YET again.

 

An average of one burglary a day was being committed at Twin Lakes Retreat? Can't wait to the see evidence on that one. If you have it.

 

You just got done telling me not to post because I don't know the law then you claim it will come down to the question if T got physical first? Good grief......thanks for the laugh.

 

T was not 6'3" but why would anyone have expect you to know basic facts on a case you have been commenting on for almost three months??????

 

This situation DOES NOT fall under the Florida Harassment Law unless Zimmerman had "stalked" or "harassed" TM or his family in the past.

For Harassment to have occurred under this law, it would have had to of been on ongoing situation where Zimmerman knew his victim and followed him on a repeating basis.

http://www.myfloridadefenselawyer.com/HarassmentFL.html

Also, Zimmerman had a legitimate purpose....to stop the crime that was happening in the neighborhood.

 

You just got done falsely claiming I've not provided a link for the OP. Forgive me for not thinking highly of your reading skills. In addition, nobody said simply following is harassment. Try reading my post until you can have a prayer of comprehension.

 

T was not committing any crime so there was no just cause for Z to exit his vehicle and keep following him.

 

Yes you are correct you didn't say following. You set the bar even (*)(*)(*)(*)ing lower. You said that getting out of your vehicle is enough to violate the harassment law.

Forgive other posters for giving you the benefit of the doubt and not correctly grasping that absolute absurdity of your literal arguments.