If a kid had thrown a rock at my car, I might try to follow him home. If I saw someone hit-and-run, I might follow him until I could "see" the driver and get the license number of the car. If someone accosted the kids who wait in my drive-way for the school bus? I might follow him (on foot or by car) until the police arrived. I can think of dozens of reasons that don't involve raving nutters.
All the obvious is just out the window on the Zimmerman-Martin matter.
Diametric opposites too. To be against Zimmerman - they claim no right to self defense even if under violent attack. But to be for Martin, they argue you can attack and beat someone to death just for watching where you are going.
They claim Zimmerman started a violent fight by merely trying to see where Martin was headed, but totally discount the first approach was Martin turning to come putting his hand in his pocket as stated in the 911 call at Zimmerman until he saw Zimmerman on the phone.
Yeah, it can be scary if someone is watching you. Welcome to urban life. And if you're poking around the backs of people's homes in the rain hiding your face... hopefully someone is watching you.
Yes, that is what the Trayvon Martin case should establish as law. If anyone is following you - or even just trying to watch here you are going - you have an absolute right to go beat that person to death. I think even if just someone looks at you in an intimidating way you should be able to beat that person to death. I mean no one should have to take any intimidation.
Afterall, the crap about there is no such thing as verbal provocation justifying violence or reasonableness really needs to go. Tough guys like me really should rule the world anyway. In fact, STG really should be changed to AWI - Attack When Intimidated. The Trayvon Martin way.
You may think you are being sarcastic, but it really hits home.Yes, that is what the Trayvon Martin case should establish as law. If anyone is following you - or even just trying to watch here you are going - you have an absolute right to go beat that person to death. I think even if just someone looks at you in an intimidating way you should be able to beat that person to death. I mean no one should have to take any intimidation.
I don't think the OP mentions legality, Trayvon, or whether it warrants physical violence in retaliation or not. I don't think people on this thread are suggesting being followed means you are justified in physical violence towards the pursuer. Is that your impression?Afterall, the crap about there is no such thing as verbal provocation justifying violence or reasonableness really needs to go. Tough guys like me really should rule the world anyway. In fact, STG really should be changed to AWI - Attack When Intimidated. The Trayvon Martin way.
I've had people follow me for the following reasons:
To hand me back my wallet I'd forgotten.
To give me a religious tract.
To give me a brochure, sales paper, or similar.
To get me to sign their petition.
To try to sell me something.
To ask me for a handout.
Because they thought I was someone else.
Because they thought I was cute and wanted to catch up with me and talk to me. (women, mostly... but a couple gay guys too. :doh )
Misunderstanding like the anecdote I told a page ago.
and yes... at least a couple of times people were following me with criminal intent.
When I turn to confront a follower, I keep the potential threat in mind but don't assume they must have ill intent.... you never know.
The standard is "reasonableness" of action. It is pretty clear I could handle any unarmed man or even someone with a knife, so my response in terms of reasonableness is highly different from a 110 little cute blonde female with some minor degree of physical disability. She has been HIGHLY trained and rehearsed to legal standards (in our opinion as cops) and her own sense of fear (well founded) of what to do if being approached by a stranger she senses any danger about and doesn't know.
As you put it, there is no way to know if the guy is a beggar, handing out some religious materials, is trying to sell drugs, is asking for directions, wants to chat, wants to rob her or wants to drag her to her vehicle, rape and murder her. She is unbashful about how strangers feel about her. In those situations, if such an approaching person comes within 30 feet, she is to shout "Stay away from me!" as angrily and loudly as possible. Any normal person would certainly stop. If not, at 20 feet she draws and levels a 5 shot alum. ally 38sp - laser dot on his chest - screaming "Stop or I will kill you!" Only a mentally disturbed person wouldn't stop. At 10 feet she is to fire - but not definitely to kill. That depends upon risk factor. If a risk, but no weapon present, she is to blow apart his pelvis with her first shot - but a quick 2nd if failing. If a weapon present or movements indicating going for one of if he charges - 3 shots - chest-head-chest.
She is so skilled I know no cop that can match her speed or accuracy. Amazingly so. But her entire training is within that 30 feet and allowed no other practice or shooting. The training was so repetitious, so intense, and so repeated as to make those instinctive - rather than figure-what-to-do-in-an instant. Since there are over a dozen cops - male and female, County, FWC and State who have all worked with her on this training, added to her "defense" if she ever does shoot is over a dozen cops taking the stand testifying she did exactly what they trained and ordered her to do in such a situation. I know that is not available to most citizens.
One other reason it is maybe reasonable is she was a victim of a horrific assault, thus is fearful. Her being trained in correct response is superior to her reacting in panic. Prior to this training and in part what lead to it, was when she came within 1/10th of a second of shooting some guy point-blank in the face with a derringer for grabbing her breast from behind in a nightclub. There is no way to ever know, but it likely if someone (cop-friend) had not grabbed his hand over the derringer and hammer from her blindside, she would have blown the back of that guy's head out. Whether it from being startled and pulling the trigger or really it was a 1/1000th of a second close call - given the trigger had been pulled and hammer pinched the cop's hand? Can't be known.
Is how she was trained to NOW react (30-20-10 rule) to a man approaching her she perceives in dangerous when in public reasonable?
I'm asking you.
You appear very resistant to adressing this question (the OP) in the abstract, not sure why that is.
That's precisely the point though, we are talking about their perception of their own risk/safety. They cannot know, by virtue of being non-omniscient, if they are REALLY at risk or not. That's a philosophical question, it has nothing to do with how we operate in the real world.
I think you are sort of agreeing that being followed is suspicious, a "potential risk", and otherwise should put someone "on guard" so to speak. But that it's not a sufficient threat to warrant physical retalation. I think in general, I'd agree to that...is that your view?
Is following someone an aggressive act?
Simple question, simple answer.
I don't believe that it is. If it was then police would not be able to legally follow people. Investigators (PI's) would not legally be able to do it. Paparazzi would not be able to do it.
Is following someone an aggressive act?
Yes, that is what the Trayvon Martin case should establish as law. If anyone is following you - or even just trying to watch here you are going - you have an absolute right to go beat that person to death. I think even if just someone looks at you in an intimidating way you should be able to beat that person to death.
When I turn to confront a follower, I keep the potential threat in mind but don't assume they must have ill intent.... you never know.
What would you assume if you attempted to flee but the person continues to follow you?
Granted the Martin/Zimmerman case isn't the same thing, and that would be pretty clear thinking to expect of the average 17yo.
If it is as Z asserts, that he was walking back to his vehicle when M came up behind him and attacked him, that's a dramatic overreaction to Z's actions IMO and clear aggression on Martin's part.
Do we have any evidence suggesting that things went down any other way? Not that I know of.
Z and M know the truth, and M ain't talking since he's dead.... but I don't see convicting a man because of what we don't know.
Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.... not "guilty unless you can prove you aren't."
The problem is that Zimmerman's account of things doesn't make any sense and doesn't completely coincide with witness accounts.
I believe some of the witness testimony provide reasonable evidence that Zimmerman's story isn't entirely true. That, and the fact that Zimmerman's story about being attacked from behind doesn't really make any sense.
And you don't let a person go because of what you don't know either.
What's important is what we do know. We do know that Zimmerman shot Martin. We do know that Zimmerman engaged in behaviors that would cause a reasonable person to feel threatened. We also know that Zimmerman did have ill-will directed at Martin. Zimmerman's own words damn him in this regard. He had already tried and convicted Martin of wrongdoing in his mind.
He stated quite clearly that he considered Martin an Asshole and he felt that Martin was going to "get away with it". The fact that Zimmerman had ill-will for martin is very important because such things would have shown up in Zimmerman's body language and non-verbal communication with Martin. When someone who does mean you ill-will is following you, you will certainly feel threatened. And people instinctively pick up on this body language. It's all part of our biological wiring. This is very important because it establishes ground to argue that any aggression Martin displayed towards Zimmerman was actually based on Martin's right to stand his ground.
The facts are what we should be looking at, not speculation, and certainly not the unsupported claims of the defendant. The facts don't help Zimmerman's case at all.
This is a little different than that. He is guilty of killing Martin. That much is known. What needs to be ascertained is whether or not Zimmerman has a legitimate claim to the stand your ground defense. That doesn't require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It's an affirmative defense which places some degree of the burden of proof on the defense. His word is certainly not enough. If it was, anyone could get away with murder provided that they claim self-defense. That claim would always create a reasonable doubt if we always assume the claim is true without requiring any evidence that it is true.
Zimmerman must provide reasonable evidence of a few different things:
1. that he killed Martin it in self-defense (this could mean that he has to prove that he did not provoke Martin into defending himself) AND
2. He needs to establish that Martin was not the person who was in a position to stand his ground from the threat to Martin posed by Zimmerman.
The second one is where Zimmerman will have trouble. This is because even is 1 is true, 2 being false would mean that Zimmerman didn't have any right to stand his ground. Martin would have had that right. Zimmerman would have essentially waived his right to self-defense if he made himself enough of a threat to martin. The very act of following Martin means that Zimmerman was already very, very close to waiving his right to a stand-your-ground defense before the altercation even began.
Like I said, if we operate under the assumption that everything the shooter says is always true until proven false, we set a precedent that would allow murder to happen so long as the murderer claims self-defense.
You have some points there, I admit, but you're putting too much burden of proof on the defense.
There is no way Zimmerman can prove he didn't provoke Martin because there are no eyewitnesses to the beginning of the physical fight.
#2 is also dubious because it involves the mental state and thought processes of a man who is dead, as well as because there are no eyewitnesses to the moment things went physical. All we know is Z told 911 he was trying to keep watch on M so he didn't get away after acting in a manner Z thought suspicious enough to call 911 about.
If you held every self-defense case to the same sort of burden of proof, a lot of innocent people would be convicted.
The only provocation we KNOW Zimmerman made to Martin was following him. Following someone doesn't give the followed person the right to physically assault them absent other signs of threat.
What are the requirements for self-defense? I know 'em by heart....
1. You must be without legal fault in provoking the incident. (IE you weren't doing anything illegal.)
2. You must have believed yourself to be in imminent danger of bodily harm.
3. A reasonable man in the same situation would also believe #2.
Further, the reasonable-man standard of believing yourself in danger of bodily harm is that three elements must be present: Opportunity, Ability, and Jeopardy/Intent.
-The subject must have the Ability to do you harm.... okay, both Z and M qualify in that regard.
-The subject must have the Opportunity to do you harm right NOW.... if Z was walking away from Martin, this puts Martin's supposed SD claim in serious jeopardy. Contrariwise, we have an eyewitness that Martin was on top of Z, and Z had injuries of some kind.
-The subject must demonstrate Jeopardy behaviors or Intent.... the subject must do things indicating that an attack is imminent, like cocking a fist and moving towards you, or verbally threatening and reaching for a weapon, that sort of thing. Again, we have eyewitnesses saying Martin was beating Zimmerman, but we have no eyewitnesses that say Zimmerman exhibited Jeopardy behavior towards Martin.... unless you count following him and keeping him under observation, and if that is ALL then we're REALLY opening a can of worms for people to make spurious SD claims!
Available info indicates that Martin moved to confront Z and backed off when he saw he was on the phone (to 911). Do we have any evidence that Zimmerman directly confronted (provoked) Martin? Not that I know of, other than following him, and that isn't a crime in itself, unless we start making assumptions about Z's body language or facial expression.
IMHO both Treyvon Martin and George Zimmerman are (were) a pair of overly-aggressive dipsticks who BOTH turned a misunderstanding into a homicide by their poor choices.... but I can't see convicting Z of Murder-2 simply for following someone he deemed suspicious.
We don't have to assume that what the shooter said was true.... but we DO have to have some kind of evidence that it ISN'T.
Very good... but a minor point.. Didn't Z say that TM decked him when he REACHED for his phone?
Why are you following me? Simple question, but may answers are possible and valid.Is following someone an aggressive act?
...
No. Zimmerman did not say that. His father said that.
Thanks, Maggie.. I wonder where his father heard it??
Very good... but a minor point.. Didn't Z say that TM decked him when he REACHED for his phone?
Remember, TM was also on the phone with his GF.
I would NOT have hit GZ if I thought he was calling the police.. I would have been relieved. I would have hit him if I thought he was reaching for a gun.
You know, so many things have been said (and mis-said, and assumed, and mis-quoted, and mis-represented) about this case that I can't remember if that's what Zimmerman said or not.
If that is indeed what happened, it could bolster the claim that Martin was acting in reasonable self-defense... a tense confrontation is a bad time to reach into your pockets! Regardless what you were reaching for.
Good lord, sometimes I think the twists and turns of this thing, the way that so many opportunities for it to have ended short of someone dead were narrowly missed by the antagonists, is only matched by Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet.
Martin could have walked straight home instead of meandering around; Zimmerman could have stayed in his truck; Martin could have just took off running and kept running (chubby Zimmerman could never have caught him on foot); either could have defused the final confrontation with a few well-chosen words, probably; Martin could have refrained from attacking Zimmerman, and if Zimmerman had been a better hand-to-hand fighter or had Pepperspray as a less-lethal backup weapon he could have done something short of killing Martin.
It's a disgusting series of mistakes, bad assumptions, poor choices and hot-headedness, on both sides, that culminated in a needless death.
Even so, I have trouble seeing it as Murder 2. At absolute most, manslaughter.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?