Reply With Quote
what makes you think that?
I never said anything about racial profiling, counselor.
what makes you think that?
Not mentioned until the police dispatcher asked the race of the su ious person.
Also, Zimmerman said why he was su ious. The person was acting like he was under the influence of something, walking around in the rain, staring at houses.
Stalking in the legal sense or, stalking in the it's-a-scary-verb-that-makes-Zimmerman's-following-a-su ious-person-in-a-neighborhood-experiencing-a-high-incidence-of-property-crimes-and-burglary-sound-ominous sense?
got his gun, left his daddy's house, got in daddy's vehicle and found what he was looking for.
a few weeks later he throws a 50K party with the money he said he didn't have. lol
What corner? You think I would be wasting my time talking about the pointless conversation we have had today if I was representing Zimmerman? These are all redherings by lay people who do not understand that Zimmerman has a rediculously strong case.
My attention would focus solely on why stand your ground is applicable. My story would begin not with the phone call but right about where the 16 year old witness gave a statement that he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman beating his ass.
If I lose my request for the case to be dismissed on stand your ground then I prepare for trial by picking apart the prosecutors case. They essentailly have to show that after the cop told Zimmerman that he did not need to follow that Zimmerman ignored this and intentionally sought and shot Martin. Good luck proving that case without a eye witness.
I did take that into account when I conceded that you could label this as profiling.I never said anything about racial profiling, counselor.
I never said he didn't, counselor -- but I would have spelled herring and ridiculously correctly.
OK, so we can conclude Zimmerman incorrectly profiled Martin.
Quality of posts I guess. The only thing I can base it on. Plus I no longer do criminal dense. I work in condemnation law.
Zimmerman's lawyer said that when he made those statements about Zimmerman indigence in court he was not aware of the websites and the $200k.
Therefor its not perjury.
Zimmerman never said anything along those lines in court. His lawyer spoke on his behalf and his lawyer said that Zimmerman had not disclosed his available fund or the income stream.
Its not perjury but it certainly is deception unless you insist on sticking your head in the sand. He had his lawyer claim that he was indigent when he had a website that was paying out in a month more twice what the average American makes in a year.
penniless george must have felt jacked while blowing that 50K......that he claimed he didn't have.
From a legal perspective. No one in here would care about my opinion otherwise. Most people probably don't care about my legal opinion either but I post when I think it is of worth.
Yes, we all know that negative characterizations are reserved solely for Martin in this case.
Interesting point. I don't know if I equate this to lying or misleading to a degree that it will soil his credibility. But I see your point.
yes, and after more questions about the money from his lawyer, george said he didn't know he could use it. even though he already blew 50K. lol
Well its nice to see that you are trying the case without for evidence much less that witness' sworn statement on the behalf of the defense.
When I people try to play defense attorney or prosecutor, I just roll my eyes.
So, how are Zimmerman's actions counter to Florida's stalking laws?
No one ever claimed Zimmerman broke stalking laws, so leave that straw man be.
Seriously?
Zimmerman has been vilified as everything but a child of God going on 2 months now.
You can make all the negative characterizations against Zimmerman you want. Knock yourself out. I have never once said I agree with what Zimmerman did. I admitted that I would not have left my car like Zimmerman did unless someone was attacking my family or trying to break into my house.
My point in posting in any of the Zimmerman threads has been that I think under Florida Law, Zimmerman is innocent. Stupid, maybe, but innocent nonetheless.
My opinion is based entirely on what I have been able to find in the news. I paid a lot of attention when this story first broke because I was annoyed that the media made this into a white vs. black case. I have read probably 50 articles on this and have talked to a few lawyers I know who are in the community but who ultimately did not have much to add outside of what I could find online.
Based on the pictures and the witness statement of I believe a 16 year kid who said he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, I reached my conclusion. There is certainly loads of evidence that I have not seen, however, if we are trying the case online, I think I win.
The witnesses sworn testimony that you refer to are all witnesses changing their testimony and admitting they did so for various reasons that I believe will ultimately exclude them from being admissible (i.e. witness changing his testimony after watching tv).
You can roll your eyes all you want and tell me why I am wrong. I have thick skin. But this is a message board so I will post the message that I think some people might find interesting.
not you or a single one of the lawyers you talked to knew about the money?
hmmmm
Flordia stalking laws require that the offender repeatedly follow or harrass an indivdual. There are other elements but this is what matters. The whole statute is here: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/.../0784.048.html
Usually, repeat means that it would have to happen more than once. In other words, Zimmerman would have had to follow and harrass Martin more than one time to rise to stalking.
That is a very simplistic explaination, but accurate I think.
Go troll someone else for awhile.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
