has anyone in this thread ever called the police to report a su ious person?
no trolling, just wondering what made them su ious and what prompted the call to police?
Nicknames!
has anyone in this thread ever called the police to report a su ious person?
no trolling, just wondering what made them su ious and what prompted the call to police?
If Zimmerman was at all familiar with Martin's history at school and knew the guy he was pursuing was in fact the guy who had problems at school, he would have been able to identify Martin by name during the 911 call.
You can't honestly think there was even the slightest possibility Zimmerman knew who Martin was.
Sure. I might be su ious, especially if I didn't recognize you. Myself, I prolly wouldn't have tracked him down, but that's just me. You keep arguing as if I'M claiming that Zimmerman is w/o blame here.
I'm not.
It was in the report. I never claimed to have clear-cut evidence in ANY regard that didn't require a little inference.Yet you keep using it as an argument.
Here ya go...Saint Travon's tweets...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/86809463/T...e-Daily-Caller
I don't think anyone in this thread has called 911 46 times in the last year as a self appointed neighborhood watchman.
Yes.
It wasn't facebook, twitter, sealed school records, hoodies or grills.no trolling, just wondering what made them su ious and what prompted the call to police?
And Garanimals.
I have no idea what happened. But neither does anyone else aside from Zimmerman and the deceased.
I never called the cops on a guy wearing a hoodie and walking in my neighborhood that's for sure.
stirring the pot suits you
whether or not Trayvon Martin was or wasn't a saint, or fronted out hard on Twitter, is totally irrelevant to the case
Calling the police is not the issue.
He can call them all he wants, for any legal reason.
Damn, you are an idiot. No one has made that assertion (except for Chump accusing Fpoonsie of asserting that)
Doesn't look like it. See bold.
You can't get Zimmerman on (4) or (5) since Martin was over 16 and there wasn't any kind of previous restraining order. Since (2) and (3) require multiple encounters, it doesn't look like those would work either.(1) As used in this section, the term:
(a) "Harass" means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose.
(b) "Course of conduct" means a pattern a conduct composed of series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Cons utionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "course of conduct." Such cons utionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests.
(c) "Credible threat" means a threat made with the intent to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety. The threat must be against the life of, or a threat to cause bodily injury to, a person.
(2) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(3) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury, commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(4) Any person who, after an injunction for protection against repeat violence pursuant to s. 784.046, or an injunction for protection against domestic violence pursuant to s. 741.30, or after any other court-imposed prohibition of conduct toward the subject person that person's property, knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(5) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses a minor under 16 years of age commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, so. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(6) Any law enforcement officer may arrest, without a warrant, any person he or she has probable cause to believe has violated the provisions of this section.
so you're answer is no?
and i think i read somewhere where that stat is exaggerated, but i could be wrong.
So you get su ious whenever someone is wearing a hoody in the rain walking down your street who you don't recognize? I severely doubt that.
You and anyone who isn't an overzealous vigilante.
Then tell me what you admit he did wrong. So far all you've done is justify his decisions.
So you're inferring about what you know nothing about?
That was not my question.
Zimmerman didn't either. Try to keep up dumbass or go back to the Club.
Did you see him do it again?
It was awesome.
Fabbs did make the assertion that Zimmerman mighta known who Martin was. He did it right here:
now who's the idiot?
so you saw them committing a crime?
Ah, Fabbs -- always good for unintentional comic relief.
Yes, my answer is no. Anyone who is claiming they get su ious when they see someone in their neighborhood with a hoody on (especially when it's raining outside) either has the mental problems Zimmerman had or is lying through their teeth.
Again, no one is saying Zimmerman had no right to make a call. People have different thresholds about what they consider worthy of that kind of call. Since Zimmerman appointed himself the protector of the community, he has his own standard.
Good attempt at a straw man battle, though. Props.
@coyote, Zimmerman was following him around in his car, when suspect ran to get away, Zimmerman got out of his car to pursue once again.That's not repeated action?
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions