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

[ecofarm]

No one said you do, but you do not have the right to engage your "follower" with physical violence.

Perhaps as a female in a parking lot in the middle of the night downtown alone or out-numbered, but not as a full-grown male 7pm in a residential neighborhood. This loss of context has gotten so out of control that some are referring to checking out a stranger in ones neighborhood as stalking.

 

[274ina]

Lol, you can't follow somebody 'all day'. Please. If you purposely follow somebody at all it could be considered a crime. Depends on your intentions.

Go...stand outside of somebodies house and see how long it takes for the cops to show up. Good luck with that.

Yes it is legal. They can call the cops. But unless it meets the stalking statues, there is no crime. Why do you think they made a special law in CA for
paprazzi.

Following all day MAY in some states violate the law, but in the TM case, for a few minutes is perfectly legal.

Intentions is not a crime and can not be proven. A threat must be made.

you will also note the SCOTUS says even the Police can be video taped in public.

Criminal Stalking Laws by State

FL
2) 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.

And yes I have spent DAYS in front of a guys house. I was protesting with lots of signs. he called the police, but of course they never showed up even.....

 

[Buckworth]

Well here is what I found. So where are you getting these extra details of your's, such "hiding in a doorway?" Sounds like you're embellishing.

Ah, I sensed you were trying to spring some sort of 'gotcha' trap. I wasn't "embellishing", I just remembered incorrectly when Trayvon was taking shelter in a doorway. My mistake.

That doesn't change the fact that Trayvon approached Zimmerman, and ran from Zimmerman with the purpose of evading him. I'm certain Trayvon took steps to avoid confrontation.

 

[ChrisL]

Ah, I sensed you were trying to spring some sort of 'gotcha' trap. I wasn't "embellishing", I just remembered incorrectly when Trayvon was taking shelter in a doorway. My mistake.

That doesn't change the fact that Trayvon approached Zimmerman, and ran from Zimmerman with the purpose of evading him. I'm certain Trayvon took steps to avoid confrontation.

Then he hid, and according to the story (since you're buying some parts of it) Martin came out of nowhere at Z from his left side and started hitting him.

 

[ecofarm]

He stalked him,

Do you not see the difference between stalking and checking out a stranger in ones neighborhood?

Again, I can only suggest that one read the statutes.

 

[Buckworth]

Yes it is legal. They can call the cops. But unless it meets the stalking statues, there is no crime. Why do you think they made a special law in CA for
paprazzi.

Following all day MAY in some states violate the law, but in the TM case, for a few minutes is perfectly legal.

Intentions is not a crime and can not be proven. A threat must be made.

you will also note the SCOTUS says even the Police can be video taped in public.

Criminal Stalking Laws by State

FL
2) 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.

And yes I have spent DAYS in front of a guys house. I was protesting with lots of signs. he called the police, but of course they never showed up even.....

Whether it's legal or not is entirely subjective. Stalking somebody with the intention of causing harm or impeding their civil rights is illegal (one extreme) while accidentally following somebody because you happen to be going in the same direction isn't (the other extreme) - we know it wasn't the latter example, but we don't know it wasn't the former.

My point is we don't have the benefit of Trayvons testimony to find out if the first example is true. Zimmermans account isn't believable because he leaves a confirmed gap of 2 minutes in his story (if was where he says he was at the end of the 911 call), if he was indeed returning to his truck like he stated. Something happened that we don't know about. It wasn't a simple case of an observer being assaulted and defending himself (even without the 2 minute gap). Zimmerman clearly was the aggressor in the encounter - to what extent? We will never know. It would have helped if the first police investigation was complete, instead of cursory.

 

[ecofarm]

Stalking somebody

Following a stranger in ones neighborhood is not stalking.

 

[Buckworth]

Following a stranger in the neighborhood is not stalking.

http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking

Get over it. I'm talking about the strict definition of the word, not the criminal offence - which may have applied, but we will never know because the guy who was stalked is dead.

 

[ecofarm]

http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking

Get over it. I'm talking about the strict definition of the word, not the criminal offence - which may have applied, but we will never know because the guy who was stalked is dead.

You're employing a false equivalence with a legal term in order to engender sympathy for the "victim" and to imply a crime was committed by Z through following a (6 foot) stranger in his neighborhood during the early evening. In the process, you are belittling the crime of stalking (and the suffering of the victims) and excusing criminal behavior. You'd like stalking to appear as a legitimate endeavor; that's disgusting.

Use honest, ethical terminology and stop being an apologist for stalkers.

 

[Buckworth]

Then he hid, and according to the story (since you're buying some parts of it) Martin came out of nowhere at Z from his left side and started hitting him.

We have no idea what happened. Zimmerman says he 'came out of nowhere', but that doesn't make it true. Zimmerman also said that he returned to his vehicle when he was told to, and he didn't. I'm saying that he ran to conceal himself from, or evade his follower. Getting back to when I said Trayvon was 'taking shelter' in the clubhouse: it's not even clear that he didn't know Zimmerman was following him at that point, because one could logically assume that Zimmerman had been following him for a time before he made the 911 call.

 

[ChrisL]

We have no idea what happened. Zimmerman says he 'came out of nowhere', but that doesn't make it true. Zimmerman also said that he returned to his vehicle when he was told to, and he didn't. I'm saying that he ran to conceal himself from, or evade his follower. Getting back to when I said Trayvon was 'taking shelter' in the clubhouse: it's not even clear that he didn't know Zimmerman was following him at that point, because one could logically assume that Zimmerman had been following him for a time before he made the 911 call.

So, in other words, you are cherry picking statements of his which to believe in order to support your assumptions about what happened.

 

[Buckworth]

You're employing a false equivalence with a legal term in order to engender sympathy for the "victim" and to imply a crime was committed by Z through following a stranger in his neighborhood during the early evening. Use honest terminology.

In the process, you are belittling the crime of stalking and excusing criminal behavior.

No, I assure you it is only my intention to speak english, not belittle the victims of criminal stalking. I do, however, think it is plausable to consider Trayvon a victim of criminal stalking.

 

[ecofarm]

No, I assure you it is only my intention to speak english, not belittle the victims of criminal stalking. I do, however, think it is plausable to consider Trayvon a victim of criminal stalking.

Next you'll be telling us how Z was a rapist, in your understanding of the term.

Is there a crime you will not belittle?

 

[Buckworth]

So, in other words, you are cherry picking statements of his which to believe in order to support your assumptions about what happened.

I believe what he said on the 911 tape, because he hadn't committed a crime at that point. I do not believe that he was being honest when he said he stopped following Trayvon.

 

[ChrisL]

So you are saying the fact that Zimmerman didn't get any licks in is evidence he didn't nothing to instigate? You have no way of know how rare or common one-sided fights are. Anecdotally, in my old job as a doorman, I have seen plenty of fights where the instigator got his ass kicked and the defender didn't have a mark on him. More times than I can remember.

Primarily, I don't believe that Zimmerman turned around when he was told to, and therefore I don't believe the rest of what he says. If you listen to the 911 tape it is obvious that Zimmerman doesn't intend to return to his vehicle and meet the police. If he turned around when he said he did he would have had time to be back at his vehicle and able to give the address, but he was somewhere in the cut through when he was asked where he was. In my opinion he intended to keep searching for Trayvon.

You know, even if he did continue to follow him, that still does not give a valid reason to beat someone up. Trayvon should have called the police immediately.

Another thing about your version of events that doesn't even make sense is that if Z had it in his mind that he was going to do something or start something with Trayvon, he would have never called the police to begin with. He would have confronted Trayvon all on his own and left the police out of it, for obvious reasons.

 

[ChrisL]

I believe what he said on the 911 tape, because he hadn't committed a crime at that point. I do not believe that he was being honest when he said he stopped following Trayvon.

Okay, don't read my last post. Don't you see how your version of events doesn't add up?

 

[ChrisL]

I believe what he said on the 911 tape, because he hadn't committed a crime at that point. I do not believe that he was being honest when he said he stopped following Trayvon.

Why do YOU think George shot Trayvon?

 

[ecofarm]

Okay, don't read my last post. Don't you see how your version of events doesn't add up?

Physical evidence and the testimony of witnesses be damned!

 

[ChrisL]

Physical evidence and the testimony of witnesses be damned!

Yeah, because I don't believe this part of what that guy said.

 

[Buckworth]

You know, even if he did continue to follow him, that still does not give a valid reason to beat someone up. Trayvon should have called the police immediately.

I'm saying it's probable that events weren't as Zimmerman said, he wasn't simply 'ambushed'. I think we don't know the whole story, and ultimately how Trayvon ended up on top of Zimmerman.

Another thing about your version of events that doesn't even make sense is that if Z had it in his mind that he was going to do something or start something with Trayvon, he would have never called the police to begin with. He would have confronted Trayvon all on his own and left the police out of it, for obvious reasons.

I'm not saying that Zimmerman intended to kill Trayvon before he called the police. I'm saying that it's probable that his story is incomplete as it relates to how the fight started.

If he intended to kill Trayvon before he left his truck, he would have been guilty of first degree murder. He was charged with second degree murder because they were trying to prove that profiling a person and carrying a gun demonstrates that he knew killing Trayvon was a possibility before he left the truck. Basically: 'I knew that I was following a criminal, and I have a weapon, therefore I will continue to follow him'. Second degree murder in Florida is notoriously hard to get a conviction on because it is obfuscated by conceal and carry & stand your ground statutes. In many (if not most) states this case would have been open and shut murder 2 or at least manslaughter.

 

[Buckworth]

Why do YOU think George shot Trayvon?

I think he shot him because he was losing a fight he was responsible for. I don't believe he would have followed Trayvon if he wasn't armed.

 

[ChrisL]

I'm saying it's probable that events weren't as Zimmerman said, he wasn't simply 'ambushed'. I think we don't know the whole story, and ultimately how Trayvon ended up on top of Zimmerman.

You are assuming things. That's all you're doing. The problem is that there is no evidence to the contrary of Zimmerman's. If you were a juror, you cannot assume anything.

I'm not saying that Zimmerman intended to kill Trayvon before he called the police. I'm saying that it's probable that his story is incomplete as it relates to how the fight started.

But this is just another assumption with nothing to back it up. I can sit here and make assumptions all day too, doesn't mean a thing. Doesn't change anything either.

If he intended to kill Trayvon before he left his truck, he would have been guilty of first degree murder. He was charged with second degree murder because they were trying to prove that profiling a person and carrying a gun demonstrates that he knew killing Trayvon was a possibility before he left the truck. Basically: 'I knew that I was following a criminal, and I have a weapon, therefore I will continue to follow him'. Second degree murder in Florida is notoriously hard to get a conviction on because it is obfuscated by conceal and carry & stand your ground statutes. In many (if not most) states this case would have been open and shut murder 2 or at least manslaughter.

None of the above indicates guilt on Zimmerman's end. There is just no evidence to back these assertions. That is why the jury came to the conclusion of not guilty. You cannot convict someone because of what you "think." You have to stick to the evidence and testimony and leave your personal prejudices out of the equation. That is what this jury did, and if they had the same line of thinking as you then we might as well just abandon the entire innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt philosophy and have kangaroo courts that convict people based upon assumptions and beliefs.

 

[Buckworth]

You are assuming things. That's all you're doing. The problem is that there is no evidence to the contrary of Zimmerman's. If you were a juror, you cannot assume anything.

I don't find Zimmermans story believable, correct. And no, as a juror I would not take testimony of a killer at face value, especially when he was the aggressor and there are inconsistencies.

But this is just another assumption with nothing to back it up. I can sit here and make assumptions all day too, doesn't mean a thing. Doesn't change anything either.

Then how do you reconcile the fact that Zimmerman was asked to return to his vehicle 4+ minutes before he alleges he was jumped by Trayvon? Especially since he said he simply tried to walk back to his truck. The walk would take less than a minute.

None of the above indicates guilt on Zimmerman's end. There is just no evidence to back these assertions. That is why the jury came to the conclusion of not guilty. You cannot convict someone because of what you "think." You have to stick to the evidence and testimony and leave your personal prejudices out of the equation. That is what this jury did, and if they had the same line of thinking as you then we might as well just abandon the entire innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt philosophy and have kangaroo courts that convict people based upon assumptions and beliefs.

On the contrary, in this case especially you have to base your decision on what you think. You have no idea what went on in the jury room or what personal prejudices were applied. There's a reason jury selection is so rigorous, it is because you are trying to align the prejudices of the potential jurors to your advantage. The reason that women were allowed by the prosecution is because they thought that picking mothers would benefit their case, and the reason they were all white (well, .5 hispanic) is because the defence thought that would benefit their case. If it were an all male all black jury, we might be having a different conversation.

 

[ChrisL]

I don't find Zimmermans story believable, correct. And no, as a juror I would not take testimony of a killer at face value, especially when he was the aggressor and there are inconsistencies.

Okay, but at one point you stated that you believed a part of his story. If he is a liar, then you cannot base any of your assumptions on any part of his story, so now you're left with absolutely nothing to go on but whatever it is you imagine happened. This seems like an obvious prejudicial leaning.

Then how do you reconcile the fact that Zimmerman was asked to return to his vehicle 4+ minutes before he alleges he was jumped by Trayvon? Especially since he said he simply tried to walk back to his truck. The walk would take less than a minute.

How do I reconcile it? I don't feel a need to reconcile anything. He could have stopped to tie his shoes for all anyone knows.

On the contrary, in this case especially you have to base your decision on what you think. You have no idea what went on in the jury room or what personal prejudices were applied. There's a reason jury selection is so rigorous, it is because you are trying to align the prejudices of the potential jurors to your advantage. The reason that women were allowed by the prosecution is because they thought that picking mothers would benefit their case, and the reason they were all white (well, .5 hispanic) is because the defence thought that would benefit their case. If it were an all male all black jury, we might be having a different conversation.

[/QUOTE]

Dude, what are you talking about? No you do not. There was physical evidence, expert medical testimony, eyewitness accounts, telephone records, etc. You do NOT decide a case based on your own prejudices, that goes against what our justice system is. Good God! :doh Why do I get the feeling you are very young?

 

[trfjr]

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?

because if your allowed to get physical with someone you suspect following you it will create the problem that the person you suspect following could just be going the same place you are and your just being paranoid