Is physical assault justified if you're being followed?[W:263]

[Binary_Digit]

This seems to be the lynchpin question that apparently both sides have different answers for.

While I agree that Zimmerman following Martin put him in an uncomfortable situation, an assault on Zimmerman in response to that was not justified. At all. Martin initiated violence where there was none, and thus he made himself the aggressor.

What do you think? Even if you believe it was wrong for Zimmerman to follow Martin, was it wrong for Martin to initiate violence just because he was being followed? Would it be acceptable for anyone and everyone to initiate violence for simply being followed?

 

[CRUE CAB]

No. No ifs or buts or what ifs about it.
Unless the person is touching you, about to touch you, making threats to you. You pretty much dont have a case for smacking them around.
Maybe if you are a woman you may get away with the disparity of force type thing. But otherwise forget it.

 

[digsbe]

It's a gray area. Truthfully you don't know if you are being followed or the other person just happens to have a similar destination. Unless someone is being violent with you or making threats I don't think it's right for the person being followed to assault them. They have every right to walk and be around in public just as you do.

If you are coming to your home and you are suspicious ask the person what they are up to. If I thought someone was following me to see where I live I would ask them before going home since I don't want them knowing. If they get violent or verbally threaten you then call the cops (if time allows) and defend yourself. This is another reason why I plan on being a licensed carrier of a handgun when I can afford it. Now, if someone is following you and you converse it is not appropriate to assault them because you are offended or something. Basically, so long as the assault is done in self defense it is fine, if it is done in aggression that is not.

 

[lizzie]

It depends on whether or not you are being threatened. If someone was following me, I'd be pretty damn cautious, but I wouldn't attack them unless they attacked first.

 

[ric27]

This seems to be the lynchpin question that apparently both sides have different answers for.

While I agree that Zimmerman following Martin put him in an uncomfortable situation, an assault on Zimmerman in response to that was not justified. At all. Martin initiated violence where there was none, and thus he made himself the aggressor.

What do you think? Even if you believe it was wrong for Zimmerman to follow Martin, was it wrong for Martin to initiate violence just because he was being followed? Would it be acceptable for anyone and everyone to initiate violence for simply being followed?

No

Being followed by an individual is not enough *legal provocation* for you to initiate violence

In order for you to respond to *said follower*with force, you have to reasonably believe, you're about to be attacked by *said individual*.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Absolutely not. It is not illegal to follow someone, inappropriate, maybe, but not illegal. It is, however, illegal to assault someone.

 

[jamesrage]

Being followed doesn't warrant assaulting someone.If it did then the following would be justified- Beating store security and to store personell ass for following you, Celebrities and their security to assaulting someone for taking photos of them and motorists getting out and beating the driver in the car behind them for merely going the same way they are going.

 

[Ontologuy]

This seems to be the lynchpin question that apparently both sides have different answers for.

While I agree that Zimmerman following Martin put him in an uncomfortable situation, an assault on Zimmerman in response to that was not justified. At all. Martin initiated violence where there was none, and thus he made himself the aggressor.

What do you think? Even if you believe it was wrong for Zimmerman to follow Martin, was it wrong for Martin to initiate violence just because he was being followed? Would it be acceptable for anyone and everyone to initiate violence for simply being followed?

Neither the question you ask or any answer to it are relevant to the case.

This is not a matter of individuals making free will decisions in an environment so conducive.

This is a matter of two people caught up in a dysfunctional environment of over-population and under-supply of needs that thereby creates a collective neuroticism in the population resulting in boundary violations and suspicions that are compelled upon the minds of the inhabitants.

This is a systemic problem, solely.

No amount of searching for specific idiosyncratic culpability in the matter is of any value.

We need to focus on solving the causitive systemic problem before the number of such tragic events continues an even greater ascent rate than present.

Nothing whatsoever can be gained by polarizing with scapegoats.

Both Martin and Zimmerman are tragic victims of a systemic problem, the responsibility of the solution to which lies squarely with elected and appointed officials with the authorization to do something about it.

 

[ric27]

Neither the question you ask or any answer to it are relevant to the case.

This is not a matter of individuals making free will decisions in an environment so conducive.

This is a matter of two people caught up in a dysfunctional environment of over-population and under-supply of needs that thereby creates a collective neuroticism in the population resulting in boundary violations and suspicions that are compelled upon the minds of the inhabitants.

This is a systemic problem, solely.

No amount of searching for specific idiosyncratic culpability in the matter is of any value.

We need to focus on solving the causitive systemic problem before the number of such tragic events continues an even greater ascent rate than present.

Nothing whatsoever can be gained by polarizing with scapegoats.

Both Martin and Zimmerman are tragic victims of a systemic problem, the responsibility of the solution to which lies squarely with elected and appointed officials with the authorization to do something about it.

Wrong

It is a matter of law

That side step of *a dysfunctional environment of over-population and under-supply of needs* is bs

 

[Rainman05]

No.

Being followed is not a reason to instigate or begin to be aggressive. There is also no reason to turn around and confront someone who is attacking you if you have the possibility to run.
Trayvon martin had the possibility to run. He chose to eventually confront his follower, and may or may not have been the first to be violent. Best bet is that he was the first to engage in violence. Chasing people is not violence.

 

[Ontologuy]

Wrong It is a matter of law That side step of *a dysfunctional environment of over-population and under-supply of needs* is bs

False, obviously.

But, your answer doesn't surprise me.

Most people are easily seduced into looking for devils and scapegoats because they too see from their own ego and thus look to make the ego of the participants everything, and thereby they can imagine they might be capable of having control of themselves in the same situation ..

.. Which, when most are subjected to the same situation, they find out that they are truly powerless in the matter, much to their "surprise".

Martin and Zimmerman were so "surprised".

Now, one is dead, the other, hiding for his life.

Anyone who thinks they would do better than these two did simply haven't walked a mile in either's shoes .. and, are also likely living in denial of how bad the over-population and under-supply of needs truly is, how it can compel collective neurotic behavior in even those who think they have all the control over it.

A word to the wise American.

 

[Crosscheck]

Absolutely not. It is not illegal to follow someone, inappropriate, maybe, but not illegal. It is, however, illegal to assault someone.

How much should we protect someone's right to follow you?

It is like the old saying your freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. How much is one allowed to follow you before it becomes harrassment?

If you see a guy following some kid walking home from school do you wait until you see him grab the kid or do we just dismiss it as his legal right?

Hard questions and a very gray area.

 

[joko104]

False, obviously.

But, your answer doesn't surprise me.

Most people are easily seduced into looking for devils and scapegoats because they too see from their own ego and thus look to make the ego of the participants everything, and thereby they can imagine they might be capable of having control of themselves in the same situation ..

.. Which, when most are subjected to the same situation, they find out that they are truly powerless in the matter, much to their "surprise".

Martin and Zimmerman were so "surprised".

Now, one is dead, the other, hiding for his life.

Anyone who thinks they would do better than these two did simply haven't walked a mile in either's shoes .. and, are also likely living in denial of how bad the over-population and under-supply of needs truly is, how it can compel collective neurotic behavior in even those who think they have all the control over it.

A word to the wise American.

The cause of what happened was "over-population and under-supply of needs?"

Really off the deep end.

 

[Ontologuy]

The cause of what happened was "over-population and under-supply of needs?"

Really off the deep end.

Sadly, too many people are erroneously focused on shallow perspectives.

The problem itself is not defined there.

For many, this truly is a deeper problem for them to fathom.

For some, deeper than they can comprehend.

So, for them, they get polarized between two over-simplified and thus erroneous dualistic extremes, forever from there never grasping the problem.

 

[joko104]

Why does nearly everyone see such simple questions with such obvious an answer as endless irrelevancies? Two men get nose to nose in ways both legally could and neither had to - and a fight breaks out. There's a deadly weapon that comes into that picture. So one dies. The other doesn't. That's the way it goes. The living one tells the story. The dead one doesn't. So the living one won. The dead one lost.

There is is, folks, there is what is called R E A L I T Y! That's been reality for thousands of years at least.

 

[Jack Hays]

This seems to be the lynchpin question that apparently both sides have different answers for.

While I agree that Zimmerman following Martin put him in an uncomfortable situation, an assault on Zimmerman in response to that was not justified. At all. Martin initiated violence where there was none, and thus he made himself the aggressor.

What do you think? Even if you believe it was wrong for Zimmerman to follow Martin, was it wrong for Martin to initiate violence just because he was being followed? Would it be acceptable for anyone and everyone to initiate violence for simply being followed?

Trayvon brought skittles to a gunfight. Fatal mistake.:naughty

 

[Ontologuy]

Why does nearly everyone see such simple questions with such obvious an answer as endless irrelevancies? Two men get nose to nose in ways both legally could and neither had to - and a fight breaks out. There's a deadly weapon that comes into that picture. So one dies. The other doesn't. That's the way it goes. The living one tells the story. The dead one doesn't. So the living one won. The dead one lost. There is is, folks, there is what is called R E A L I T Y! That's been reality for thousands of years at least.

Meaningless over-simplification of a tragedy.

Everyone is talking about this tragedy and looking for causes and solutions to prevent recurrence.

Social scientists take note of frequency and location of such tragedies, and when an abnormal amount of similar occurrances happens they attempt to determine the cause with an idea toward prevention before the problem gets worse and the occurrences escalate, as it is natural for us to want to prevent tragedies.

Too many people are dividing up simplistically between dualistic extremes, focusing on the specific persons of Martin and Zimmerman, attempting to find fault singularly and alone within one or the other.

The more profound examination takes a deeper look at the matter .. and realizes that there is a trend and that the unhealthy trend has an etiology, so to speak, in over-population increases and under-provision of needs, creating neurotic living environments that foster boundary violations and suspicisions .. and an increase in understandably resulting tragedies.

For years, university students have done the rat-environment experiment, where they put a number of rats in a sufficient environment with adequate food and all is well, and then they double the population in that same-space living area and don't increase the food .. and the neuroticism that develops as a direct result causes the rats to see each other as dangerous competitors, eventually eating each other.

We are seeing similar but more human-specific behavior in our own over-populated and under-provided demographics .. and the Martin-Zimmerman tragedy is simply one more publically presented result.

 

[joko104]

Meaningless over-simplification of a tragedy.

Everyone is talking about this tragedy and looking for causes and solutions to prevent recurrence.

Social scientists take note of frequency and location of such tragedies, and when an abnormal amount of similar occurrances happens they attempt to determine the cause with an idea toward prevention before the problem gets worse and the occurrences escalate, as it is natural for us to want to prevent tragedies.

Too many people are dividing up simplistically between dualistic extremes, focusing on the specific persons of Martin and Zimmerman, attempting to find fault singularly and alone within one or the other.

The more profound examination takes a deeper look at the matter .. and realizes that there is a trend and that the unhealthy trend has an etiology, so to speak, in over-population increases and under-provision of needs, creating neurotic living environments that foster boundary violations and suspicisions .. and an increase in understandably resulting tragedies.

For years, university students have done the rat-environment experiment, where they put a number of rats in a sufficient environment with adequate food and all is well, and then they double the population in that same-space living area and don't increase the food .. and the neuroticism that develops as a direct result causes the rats to see each other as dangerous competitors, eventually eating each other.

We are seeing similar but more human-specific behavior in our own over-populated and under-provided demographics .. and the Martin-Zimmerman tragedy is simply one more publically presented result.

I could be mistaken, but I am fairly certain only GZ and TM were outside and they had plenty of room. There was no hint that TM wanted to buy a case of Skitttles and a case of that bottled drink.

It would seem your point is that if people all lived in the country with lots of space they'd be no violence. I dunno, did you move to the country to prevent yourself from being violent?

 

[Aunt Spiker]

This seems to be the lynchpin question that apparently both sides have different answers for.

While I agree that Zimmerman following Martin put him in an uncomfortable situation, an assault on Zimmerman in response to that was not justified. At all. Martin initiated violence where there was none, and thus he made himself the aggressor.

What do you think? Even if you believe it was wrong for Zimmerman to follow Martin, was it wrong for Martin to initiate violence just because he was being followed? Would it be acceptable for anyone and everyone to initiate violence for simply being followed?

If they threaten you, don't leave you alone if you ask, and pursue you otherwise - then yes . . . especially if they're armed or if they're acting like they are intent on hurting you in some manor.

Maybe - from a female perspective - I take being followed to be a reason for concern, especially after the person doesn't leave you alone or is OBVIOUSLY stalking you in some fashion when there is no reason for them to be. (example: someone's in a vehicle, sees me, and gets out - with their eyes on me - and follows me, even after I flee the scene)

 

[Ontologuy]

I could be mistaken, but I am fairly certain only GZ and TM were outside and they had plenty of room. There was no hint that TM wanted to buy a case of Skitttles and a case of that bottled drink.

Your disconnect here implies, perhaps, that this statement was meant as a reply for someone else's post.

It would seem your point is that if people all lived in the country with lots of space they'd be no violence. I dunno, did you move to the country to prevent yourself from being violent?

Again, you over-simplify, this time as a rationalization for your subsequent unjustified ad hominem.

You may find social science, and getting to the bottom of complex problems to create solutions that millions would cheer because tragedies were avoided, to be of little use in your ideology, but fortunately for the future of our people and our planet, there are those with a differing point of view.

 

[plutonium]

excuse me sir.. how do you know martin started the fight.?.. because zimmerman said so... dam i would say someone hit me first to if i was on trail for murder and no one saw what happened .. i would also say that the person told me they are going to kill me too... please give me a break...do you really think people are that ignorant... sounds like treavon is very hardcore to say you are going to die today.... that fits the description of a person with a long criminal record.... a gang member

 

[joko104]

The question is too over-simplified. Even the law on such topics is relatively abstract using terms like "reasonable person" and "reasonable belief..."

That so much has to do with the persons involved, circumstance and even minute details that even no testimony or even witness could really explain well, there is no absolute answer to the poll.

HOWEVER, it is NOT the mere act of following that determines the right to us violence. There has to be more than that including in law.

My wife has drawn down on another person 4 times. 4 different men. All 4 times she had given repeated stop and stay away commands. All 4 times poised danger. All 4 times it was a reasonable demand. All 4 time each of the men ignored it. All 4 times the men clearly more powerful than her if an unarmed conflict. All 4 times she then drew (and she's blindingly fast). All 4 times each man then did heed her demands to stop.

Yet, for all 4 times, if it had been me? I think it would have been determined unreasonable. All 4 times I would have been clearly more powerful than the other man. All 4 times there would be little to no chance the man's intentions were to try to assault or harm me.

When Aunt Spiker comments "from a female perspective" - that distinction is very legitimate a distinction. Age greatly can factor into is, as can size. Situation. Location. Words said. Even body language and facial expression.

There is no absolute answer to this poll that is correct.

 

[plutonium]

no of course not period

 

[joko104]

excuse me sir.. how do you know martin started the fight.?.. because zimmerman said so... dam i would say someone hit me first to if i was on trail for murder and no one saw what happened .. i would also say that the person told me they are going to kill me too... please give me a break...do you really think people are that ignorant... sounds like treavon is very hardcore to say you are going to die today.... that fits the description of a person with a long criminal record.... a gang member

Yep, that's how it works in "presumed innocent unless proven guilty."

Life is sooooooo unfair. So is death, huh?

 

[joko104]

No. No ifs or buts or what ifs about it.
Unless the person is touching you, about to touch you, making threats to you. You pretty much dont have a case for smacking them around.
Maybe if you are a woman you may get away with the disparity of force type thing. But otherwise forget it.

No, size, age, apparent strength also can factor in.

I think there have been a few people found not-guilty who were in wheelchairs/disabled who have shot and killed someone harassing them who had not physically assaulted the disabled person. There are many factors as to what constitutes "reasonableness."