• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

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

Is physical assault justified if you're being followed? (Public poll)


  • Total voters
    52

Binary_Digit

DP Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
4,793
Reaction score
2,366
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
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

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
16,763
Reaction score
4,343
Location
Melbourne Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
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

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,224
Reaction score
14,224
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
28,581
Reaction score
31,551
Location
between two worlds
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
7,541
Reaction score
3,195
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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

Well-known member
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
6,775
Reaction score
1,123
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Absolutely not. It is not illegal to follow someone, inappropriate, maybe, but not illegal. It is, however, illegal to assault someone.
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,498
Reaction score
16,290
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
6,325
Reaction score
1,797
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
7,541
Reaction score
3,195
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2012
Messages
10,032
Reaction score
4,964
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
6,325
Reaction score
1,797
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 15, 2009
Messages
10,848
Reaction score
8,244
Location
NW USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
60,933
Reaction score
21,533
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
6,325
Reaction score
1,797
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
60,933
Reaction score
21,533
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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

Traveler
Banned
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,236
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
6,325
Reaction score
1,797
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
60,933
Reaction score
21,533
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
6,325
Reaction score
1,797
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 16, 2013
Messages
1,095
Reaction score
296
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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
 
Last edited:

joko104

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
60,933
Reaction score
21,533
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 16, 2013
Messages
1,095
Reaction score
296
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
no of course not period
 

joko104

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
60,933
Reaction score
21,533
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
60,933
Reaction score
21,533
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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."
 
Top Bottom