Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (725184)	7/7/2013 10:09:02 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 1579397

Obama, so quick to call for Mubarak to step down, called for the protesters to exercise restraint this time around and then ignored them during his vacation in Africa.

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (725184)	7/7/2013 10:16:16 PM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 1579397

Yes, he had a right to look at him and even to follow him.

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (725184)	7/7/2013 10:42:07 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579397

Hi J_F_Shepard; Re: "Did he have a right to stalk him without identifying himself." It seems likely that the trial will result in a not guilty verdict and then the locals will be doing the "back seat attorney" thing. It would help if you actually found an example of case law on the subject. The prosecution had over a year to think about this but they didn't mention the lack of any such right. They had such a weak case that they put witness after witness up who ended up making arguments for the defense. Their own lead policeman testified that he believed Zimmerman's (self defense) story, LOL. Arguing on the basis of nonexistent laws against following people (at a distance and only for a few yards) would just make it weaker. And what's the punishment for "stalking"? I doubt it's on the table. Let's see what the Florida statute on stalking is: A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person and makes a credible threat to that 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. leg.state.fl.us The prosecution could certainly get "willfully", a jury might be convinced of "maliciously" but I doubt it, but there's no way in Hell that they're going to conclude that Zimmerman "repeatedly" followed Martin. So the charge fails because of the absence of the required element "repeatedly". I realize that some of my audience here doesn't understand the English language and is confused on what "and" means in a legal context. So let's look up some case law to see how the courts interpret the "repeated" part of the definition of stalking: Rodney Nicholson v. State of Indiana This case involves a conviction for stalking under Indiana Code section 35-45-10-5(a) (2008). A majority of the Court of Appeals held that a span of twenty-two months between contacts would not fit the definition of repeated or continuing harassment and therefore would not support a conviction for stalking. We disagree and affirm the trial court, holding that the lag in time between the harassing calls in 2006 and the subsequent single call in 2008 did not foreclose the conviction for stalking, particularly since much of the break in time between the calls was due to defendant’s incarceration. Ultimately,the record demonstrated the calls involved a course of conduct involving repeated and continuing harassment of the victims. in.gov The stalking laws are broken mostly by people who follow around someone they've personally known or someone famous. There are cases of one stranger following another but they are rare. And like any other stalking case, they require the element of "repeated" behavior. Just one time doesn't cut it. Let me translate this for you. It's not against the law to follow someone. That's why the whole population isn't violating the law when they're on the freeway. Here's a description of "stalking" for victims of domestic violence. Same principle applies: Although language prohibiting stalking has been incorporated in one form or another into every State’s legal system, there is still no single legal definition of stalking. It is generally defined as a “course of conduct directed at a specific person that would cause a reasonable person to fear bodily injury” to herself or a member of her household. “Course of conduct” means “repeatedly maintaining a visual or physical proximity to a person or repeatedly conveying verbal or written threats or threats implied by conduct or a combination thereof directed at or toward a person,” and “repeatedly” is defined as two or more occasions. Unlike other crimes, which normally consist of a single illegal act, stalking is a series of actions* that, when taken individually, may be perfectly legal.* ovw.usdoj.gov So from a legal point of view, the State has no case against Zimmerman for stalking. That's why it wasn't mentioned in the trial. The prosecution are not complete idiots. -- Carl