I truly hope you’re not an attorney or in any way linked to the legal system because you really don’t have a good grasp on the rules of evidence. Granted, Florida might have some exceptions that most don’t know, but what you keep stressing about is more likely than not prejudicial CHARACTER EVIDENCE and is INADMISSIBLE if offered by the prosecution. We can also go down the hearsay route…

Maybe you can pick one of these, but please support it with something substantial:
There are several exceptions to the rule against hearsay in U.S. law.[1] Federal Rule of Evidence 803 lists the following: (1) present sense impression, (2) excited utterance, (3) then existing mental, emotional, or physical condition, (4) … medical diagnosis or treatment, (5) recorded recollection, (6) records of regularly conducted activity, (7) absence of entry in records …, (8) public records and reports, (9) records of vital statistics, (10) absence of public record or entry, (11) records of religious organizations, (12) marriage, baptismal, and similar certificates, (13) family records, (14) … property records, (15) statements in documents affecting an interest in property, (16) statements in ancient documents, (17) market reports, commercial publications, (18) learned treatises, (19) reputation concerning personal or family history, (20) reputation concerning boundaries or general history, (21) reputation as to character, (22) judgment of previous conviction, and (23) judgment as to personal, family or general history, or boundaries.[1] Also, some documents are self-authenticating under Rule 902, such as (1) domestic public documents under seal, (2) domestic public documents not under seal, but bearing a signature of a public officer, (3) foreign public documents, (4) certified copies of public records, (5) official publications, (6) newspapers and periodicals, (7) trade inscriptions and the like, (8) acknowledged documents (i.e. by a notary public), (9) commercial paper and related documents, (10) presumptions under Acts of Congress, (11) certified domestic records of regularly conducted activity, (12) certified foreign records of regularly conducted activity

Trayvon is Trayvon because he died and died young.

Zimmerman is Zimmerman because he lives as a free man and is a grownup.

These are not conventions that have been made up for this case. They pre-existed.

We are obviously living in a parallel universe.

If this were just a case of simple following there probably would not have been nearly the level of problems that there ended up being.

Following somebody is not the same as following them for the purpose of getting them a police detainment. It seems like it might well have been clear to Trayvon that that is what Zimmerman was trying to do. Not just simple following. If this wasn’t true when the argument started, it was probably true by the time it got physical.

Going home wouldn’t help. Trayvon probably wanted the cops at his house even less than he wanted to deal with them in the street.

I mean, get real here, folks.

Do you even think there really was mj residue in Trayvon’s plastic bag a couple weeks earlier. Maybe, maybe not. Either way, Trayvon knew the score and he knew he did not want to be dealing with the Sanford pd (“If you have a black suspect, please hit zero for immediate assistance from a live operator . . .”).

The same applies to Zimmerman. Why would the “community watchman” violently attack someone who he didn’t know and thought may have been armed? It’s just as unlikely.”

nigmalg,

It doesn’t have to be a case of either person “attacking” the other.

The idea that Zimmerman executed Martin in cold blood is far-fetched. The idea that Martin would turn around and try to crush Zimmermans skull without even any argument between them is also far-fetched.

Most likely is that Zimmerman confronted Martin and was basically told to “piss off” by a kid angry at being followed. The argument escalated (a neighbor testified there was at least a full minute of argument before he heard sounds of fighting – a clear contradiction of Zimmermans story that he was attacked with hardly any exchange of words) and it became physical*. Zimmerman found himself taking a beating and shot. Then, realizing that his pursuit, confrontation, etc. could open him to legal liability, lied and said Martin attacked him without warning.

Sadly even this is was too fast.

But you can’t just kill someone, and insist you were attacked, and expect the state to leave you alone, and not even charge you with a crime.

In a clear cut case of self-defense, I wouldn’t expect it realistically (because I’ve had too much experience with the real world), but I would expect it morally.

If someone comes to my house and tries to break in, they are putting me at risk (check the stats on how often someone breaking in to a home with people there is violent to them). I have every moral and ethical right to defend myself, and the state has no moral or ethical right to punish me in any way for it.

Some level of investigation that it was indeed self-defense is reasonable. Expecting criminal charges in every case (which involves going to jail for at least some period of time and spending large amounts of time and money – that is, the charging itself is punishing) is NOT.

this was presented upthd:

Subsection (1) defines “harass” as “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.” § 784.048(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2006). “Course of conduct” is “a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose.” § 784.048(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2006) (emphasis added). Subsection (2) then provides that any person who “willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows [or] harasses . . . another person commits the offense of stalking. . . .” § 784.048(2), Fla. Stat. (2006).

That is a quote from a Florida quote and it seems to be accurate.

the requirement of “repeatedly” is the most controversial. the courts of Florida have basically determined that stalking (the criminally actionable kind which the statute refers to as “agravated stalking” but courts sometimes simply refer to as “stalking”) requires not merely that one preson follows another with malicious intentions, but, more particularly that one person follow another single individual person TWICE, having malicious intentions both times. As you can see from the quote, the two separate acts of malicious following required by the statute may be separated by only a relatively short amount of time.

If there are tweets (serious ones, not jokes) about Trayvon beating anybody up, then, yeah, that is going to come in, too. As it should.

I mean, getting in a fight at school is not as bad, or as likely to be repeated behavior, as a “bad” call to police. A lot of us here have gotten in a fight or two at school. I know when the bully (turns out he had a real bad undiagnosed chromosome disorder) knocked my glasses off my head, even I fought back.

I have never called the police to report a black man walking in a hoodie in the rain. Without more I would not do that. It is not nice to sic police on people for innocent behavior, especially when the real reason for the way-overly-solicitous suspicion is racism.

#200 | Nick T. | April 17th, 2012 at 11:31 am

BoogaFrito, yes you’re correct (in your first, non-sarcastic sentence). Those things are “evidence” as in something that tends to make a certain fact more likely or less likely. Evidence is different from definitive proof. I used the word to mean what it means, sorry if this threw you off.

Oh, I understood.

You also said you believed Zimmerman had committed a crime, presumably based on this evidence. I was merely making light of your biases in my response. Perhaps I was too subtle.