Skip to main content

View Diary: Yet Another Ruling against Trayvon -- Audio Experts excluded from Trial (155 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No. He has to have repeatedly followed Martin (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pi Li, VClib, Dr Swig Mcjigger

    for it to be stalking.  You can't "stalk" you follow different people at different times.  It has to be repeated action directed at the same person.  

    Think of it this way.  If a guy repeatedly and maliciously follows his ex-girlfriend, that's stalking.  If he's just angry at women, and repeatedly follows different women between the ages of 20 and 30, that's not stalking.  It may be bad behavior, but it's not stalking under the law.  

    •  I know how to think of it (0+ / 0-)

      and I think my example is valid.

      It may not have been tested yet, but it's a decent case to answer.

      I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
      but I fear we will remain Democrats.

      Who is twigg?

      by twigg on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 02:25:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It goes to "intent" (0+ / 0-)

        I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
        but I fear we will remain Democrats.

        Who is twigg?

        by twigg on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 02:26:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  You are just wrong. You don't have to take my (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pi Li, VClib

        word or it.  Think of it this way.  If Zimmerman was in the commission of felony stalking, then the prosecution could have charged him with first degree murder -- murder in the commission of a felony is first degree murder.  They did not.  They charged him with second degree murder - -which means they are NOT claiming he was committing a felony by following Martin.

        Here's more proof.  While you will hear the prosecution say "profile" "wannabe  cop" and other things the Court approved, I'll bet you WON'T hear the prosecution say "stalking," because legally, he wasn't stalking.  If they say he was "stalking" -- acting illegally-- that would likely be a mistrial, because they essentially would be alleging he committed a criminal act that he has never been charged with committing.  

        And "goes to "intent" only matters if your ACTIONS are illegal.  In my example about the man following different women, his "intent" is completely irrelevant, because his ACTIONS are not illegal.  If I'm walking behind you on a public street, watching you -- an action that is completely legal -- it does not matter what my intent is.  Period.  End of story. It does not matter if I hate you and wish you were dead.  As long as ALL I am doing is walking behind you, watching you, or even saying something to you, the fact that I hate you and wish you were dead doesn't matter.  

        "Intent" matters in Z's shooting of Martin, clearly.  But it has nothing to do with the question of whether Z acted completely legally by following and watching Martin.  It may have been a stupid thing to do, but legally, it was NOT stalking.  

      •  twigg - not under Florida law (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        coffeetalk, Pi Li, andalusi

        Z did nothing illegal up to the point the two of them confront one another. What happened at that point is what the trial is all about.

        The prosecution isn't going to make a stalking claim because under Florida law an event that takes ten minutes from the 911 call to the tragic end in no way fits the Florida stalking statute. The prosecution won't embarrass itself by making such a frivolous claim. The judge would smack them down and embarrass the prosecution in front of the jury.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 10:44:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site