"Call the police" Yea, right.(The sinister twist of the Zimmerman case)

no im not

 

Your post makes no sense.

 

Apparently failing to identify yourself makes you fair game.

 

I wonder how Druggie Trayvon fells about that....oh wait....

 

law.onecle.com/florida/crimes/856.021.html

 

following someone is not a crime you (*)(*)(*)(*)ing dolts.

stalking and harassment have clear legal definitions, learn them you ignoramouses.

nothing Zimmerman did could legally be considered stalking or harassment.

so will you kindly shut the (*)(*)(*)(*) up already?


THE 911 OPERATOR IS NOT A POLICE OFFICER AND HAS NO AITHORITY TO GIVE LAWFUL ORDERS.


she also never even attempted to give any orders.



is there no end to the stupidity?

 

tell the prosecutors

 

the only thing of ANY relevence is who attacked who PHYSICALLY.


following and talking are of no relevence.

FOLLOWING AND TALKING DOES NOT JUSTIFY ANYONE TO ATTACK THAT PERSON PHYSICALLY.


get it through your skull you morons

 

or maybe someone needs to jump you and start smashing your skull into the ground for it to get through.

 

Trayvon wasn't loitering or prowling.

He had every legal right to be in that neighborhood.

 

do you talk to yourself like that for any particular reason?

 

The only one that was under the influence of drugs that night was Zimmerman.

 

His job was to report.

Not to get physically involved in the suspicious people he reported.

He ignored police more than once.

It was George himself who set up the Neighborhood Watch. He had contacted the police and he himself even arranged to have Chief Lee (the one who later did not want to press charges, and who has since been FIRED from the Sanford PD) come out to talk to the group he was forming. He did this about 7 months prior to the alleged murder.

The Neighborhood Watch booklet that Zimmerman was responsible for putting into the hands of the ones he coordinated involvement with said, as per the Sanford Police -- in big bold fonts

INSIST people are not to "get physically involved with any activity you report..."

The exact language:

Sanford Police Dept: "What you will
not do is get physically involved with any activity you report or apprehension of any suspicious persons. This is the job of the law enforcement agency."

They mention about not getting involved not only one area of the NW Guidelines, but twice. In BOLD letters.

George knew the rules. When he got out of his truck and ran after Zimmerman, he was getting physically involved.

 

the only one with a history of violence and an arrest record was Zimmerman.

 

Do you have any kind of intelligent response?

or are you just going to talk out of your ass some more?

 

response to what? I didn't want to interrupt you when youre talking to yourself.

 

^ This.

One short sentence "I'm from Neighborhood Watch. Do you live here?"

is all that needed to be said to diffuse the situation. Not, "I don't gotta problem man." then a reach to what looked like a grab for a gun from the "creepy" dude following him.

Martin was fully within his rights to Stand His Ground.

Zimbots seem to think SYG only applied to Zimmerman.

 

Sorry for my insulting language, im just tired of the crap with this.

here are my questions:

1. are you aware that following and/or talking to someone is not a crime?

2. are you aware that it is illegal to attack someone physically who is following and/or talking to you?

3. are you aware of the legal definitions for stalking and harassment?

4. Are you aware that the 9/11 operator is not a police officer and has no authority to give any orders nor did she try?

5. are you aware that the only thing of relevance to this case is who took the first swing, and who persisted the attack?

 

yup!!!!

 

No. That is *not* the only thing of relevance in this case.

 

Review 776.041. That statute makes the "initial aggressor" the person who is the one who was the first one to do something that would PROVOKE the need to use force in self-defense.

If that person caused the necessity for someone else to defend themselves, then that person is responsible for having created the situation.

Zimmerman's stalking and following alone wouldn't necessarily be the provoking incident, but that *combined* with his reaching towards his gun, that is, when he initially reached into his pocket, would be the incident that created the reasonable fear to provoke Travyon from trying to prevent Zimmerman from following through with pulling the gun.

At the moment Zimmerman reached for what Martin rightfully thought might be a gun, Trayvon very literally had the legal right to beat the life out of him in self-defense.

 

Bull!!!!

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.asp...1176.xml&docbase=CSLWAR2-1986-2006&SizeDisp=7

The question of what amounts to provocation has already been asked and answered by the Florida Supreme Court. Non-forceful acts are not provocation no matter how much you wish they were.

Never ever make that argument again!

 

The only undeniable fact in this case is that if Z had just called the cops and backed off, Trayvon would be alive and his own life would not be ruined. It's too bad he didn't.

 

did you just seriously just tell me that putting his hand in his pocket was grounds for trayvon to try and beat zimmerman to death in "self defense?"

That is not "reasonable"

 

Ah. GIBBS v STATE. A Talklefter I see.

Let's look at that. I'm a little busy at the moment, so I'll let Legal Eagle Stoid reply:

Gibbs v. State, which you (appear to be) claiming (you actually say as little as possible, leaving yourself plenty of weasel room) is the last word in how the State of Florida interprets 776.041(2), and that “by force or the threat of force” is the answer.

Assuming for the moment that that is true, it doesn’t undermine anything, as The Tao understood, and as I believe you do too.

For the benefit of those who aren’t research freaks, a summary (read it here-it’s actually very short and easy to read for an appellate opinion):

• Gibbs is a black woman who says hi to a white couple on a bench.
• They ignore her.
• She asked why.
• The woman, Osmun, said: “Get away you dirty (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*), you don’t belong here”
• Gibbs uses a racial slur and an obscene gesture in response.
• Osmun got up, approached Gibbs and started swinging at her.
• Gibbs stepped back, then pushed Osmun.
• Osmun staggered back, then fell in some shrubbery. She was helped up.
• A friend took her to “Manor Care”.
• Within a half hour, Osmun died of heart failure.
• The ME ruled it a homicide cause by cardiac arrythmia caused by stress after an altercation.
• After a jury trial, Gibbs was convicted of “culpable negligence with injury”

Now I will quote the opinion directly,all emphasis is mine:

Quote:
At the jury charge conference, appellant requested an instruction on justifiable use of nondeadly force, but asked that the standard instruction be modified to clarify what "provocation" means. The standard instruction read:

Quote:
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="class: alt2"] The use of force not likely to cause death or great bodily harm is not justifiable if you find Joelle Gibbs initially provoked the use of force against herself.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Appellant sought addition of the words "by force or threat of force" to the standard instruction, so that it would read:

Quote:
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="class: alt2"] The use of force not likely to cause death or great bodily harm is not justified if you find Joelle Gibbs initially provoked the use of force against herself, by force or the threat of force. [/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Defense counsel wanted the jury to understand that any provocation by appellant had to be "by force or the threat of force." He was concerned that the jury might be confused and think that "merely provoking someone by complaining that they didn't say good morning" justified the victim's attack on appellant and did not justify appellant in defending herself against that attack.
The court denied the request for clarification and gave the standard instruction on justifiable use of non-deadly force.

We agree with appellant that the jury instruction given by the trial court was inadequate to properly charge the jury in this case. The instruction stated that appellant could not defend herself with non-deadly force if she "initially provoked" the victim. By not limiting provocation to the use or threat of force, the court failed to make the jury aware that the word "provoked," as used in the instruction, did not refer to mere words or conduct without force. Stated another way, the instruction given by the court eliminated the use of non-deadly force in self-defense if there was any provocation by the defendant—no matter how slight or subjective the provocation. By that standard, a mere insult could be deemed sufficient to prohibit defending oneself from an attacker.

In this case, appellant's self-defense was based on testimony that the victim verbally attacked her and then aggressively approached and swung at her. According to the defense, it was only then that appellant pushed the victim and used some force against her. Because the instruction did not limit provocation to some force or threat of force, the instruction could have misled the jury to believe that appellant's pointedly asking the victim why she failed to acknowledge her greeting and/or appellant's racial retorts and obscene gestures were sufficient provocation to preclude appellant from defending herself from an attack by the victim.

The state argues that the trial court did not err because it gave the standard jury instruction. However, the Florida Supreme Court's approval of the standard instructions cannot relieve the trial judge of responsibility under the law to charge the jury properly and correctly in each case as it comes before that judge. ... The clarification that the defense sought here was peculiarly applicable to the facts of the case and should have been given.See Outlaw v. State, 82 Fla. 68, 89 So. 342, 343 (1921) (where there is the potential for the jury to be misled as to who was the provocateur or aggressor it is reversible error not to give a clarifying instruction on the issue). See also Chandler v. State,744 So.2d 1058, 1061 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)(reversing conviction of disorderly conduct where trial court failed to give a requested jury instruction when there was a reasonable possibility that the jury would be misled or confused by failure to give that instruction).

For the above reasons, we reverse appellant's conviction and sentence.