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

[Buckworth]

Not in my opinion. If I was being followed, I would have called 9-1-1 and kept moving, probably head towards a populated area, a store, or the police department, which was closer.

You don't know what lead to the melee. Full stop. Therefore you cannot speculate on what you would or wouldn't have done.

 

[ChrisL]

You don't know what lead to the melee. Full stop. Therefore you cannot speculate on what you would or wouldn't have done.

What are you talking about? I'm answering the OP question.

 

[Buckworth]

The only thing I can figure is that M thought someone was after him for some reason and Rachael egged it on. That's more likely than Z starting the fight, given evidence.

That's ridiculous. You have no idea, and you're filling in the blanks with opinion.

 

[ecofarm]

That's ridiculous. You have no idea, and you're filling in the blanks with opinion.

The evidence is clear: Z was attacked and being brutally beaten.

The question is: Why did M fail to call the cops and why did he go to a dark place to deal with his follower?

The answer is: He thought someone had been sent after him for something (fighting, drugs, jewelry, whatever) and Rachael played his paranoia up. Thus her "I didn't think it was deadly serious", typical words from someone who took something too far.

 

[Buckworth]

There's nothing wrong with checking out a stranger in ones community.

There's plenty of statutes that prevent you from infringing on another citizens' freedom of movement.

But I'm not alleging that just watching him was wrong. I'm saying that I don't buy his giftwrapped story that plunks perfectly into the letter-of-the-law of floridas self defence laws. I'm saying Trayvon got convicted for winning a fight - in spite of the fact that he was just trying to walk home and was followed. Zimmerman continued to follow him after he specifically said he wasn't following him, even when Trayvon tried to run away. I would suggest that Trayvon had tried everything reasonable to avoid contact with Zimmerman, and was cornered and confronted and nobody can say for sure what lead to him winning the fight.

I do suggest that the case for self defence in the case of Trayvon would be stronger, had he lived.

 

[ecofarm]

There's plenty of statutes that prevent you from infringing on another citizens' freedom of movement.

Checking out a stranger in the neighborhood does not and should not negate ones right to self defense.

 

[Buckworth]

The evidence is clear: Z was attacked and being brutally beaten.

Beaten yes, attacked no. You can provide no corroborated evidence that Trayvon started the fight.

The question is: Why did M fail to call the cops and why did he go to a dark place to deal with his follower?

I'm not sure you understand what it's like to be a black teenager, and repeatedly get profiled and followed and questioned for no reason - and that's just by the police. But that's beside the point, the florida self defence and stand your ground statues do not require you to retreat or call the authorities. If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander.

The answer is: He thought someone had been sent after him for something (fighting, drugs, jewelry, whatever) and Rachael played his paranoia up. Thus her "I didn't think it was deadly serious", typical words from someone who took something too far.

That's nonsense, you're convicting a dead guy based on gossip. I'll tell you this, when I was his age I did things far worse than Trayvon was ever accused of. It was all part of being a kid. Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.

He was walking home from the store. If Zimmerman didn't make a series of mistakes, Trayvon would have lived and made it home.

 

[Buckworth]

Checking out a stranger in the neighborhood does not and should not negate ones right to self defense.

Neither should walking home.

 

[ecofarm]

If Zimmerman didn't make a series of mistakes, Trayvon would have lived and made it home.

There is nothing wrong with checking out a stranger in ones community.

 

[Jack Hays]

Yeah, watch...don't profile and follow. You don't get any special rights above an ordinary citizen.

Evidence he got his ass kicked, no evidence of anything else. You have to assume that he didn't start it, because he's a crappy fighter. Assumptions aren't evidence. You're taking the word of a guy who was following an innocent kid, and was facing jail time for killing him.

I'm just following the evidence, as did the jury.

 

[ChrisL]

There's plenty of statutes that prevent you from infringing on another citizens' freedom of movement.

But I'm not alleging that just watching him was wrong. I'm saying that I don't buy his giftwrapped story that plunks perfectly into the letter-of-the-law of floridas self defence laws. I'm saying Trayvon got convicted for winning a fight - in spite of the fact that he was just trying to walk home and was followed. Zimmerman continued to follow him after he specifically said he wasn't following him, even when Trayvon tried to run away. I would suggest that Trayvon had tried everything reasonable to avoid contact with Zimmerman, and was cornered and confronted and nobody can say for sure what lead to him winning the fight.

I do suggest that the case for self defence in the case of Trayvon would be stronger, had he lived.

Hmmmm. Now who's speculating? :mrgreen:

 

[ttwtt78640]

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?

Based on what evidence? Surely something more than Zimmerman's word is required to make that assertion.

 

[Buckworth]

Hmmmm. Now who's speculating? :mrgreen:

I'm not speculating, I'm dreaming. Trayvon is dead as a doornail, cuz Zimmerman f-ed up.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I'm not speculating, I'm dreaming. Trayvon is dead as a doornail, cuz Zimmerman f-ed up.

Based on what evidence? The jury has disagreed with you, they found self defense to be plausable based on the evidence presented at the tiral.

 

[ecofarm]

Based on what evidence? Surely something more than Zimmerman's word is required to make that assertion.

M had not a bump nor bruise, except on his knuckles. Z had no offensive injuries.

 

[ecofarm]

Zimmerman f-ed up.

There is nothing wrong with checking out a stranger in ones community.

 

[ric27]

Yeah, watch...don't profile and follow. You don't get any special rights above an ordinary citizen.

Evidence he got his ass kicked, no evidence of anything else. You have to assume that he didn't start it, because he's a crappy fighter. Assumptions aren't evidence. You're taking the word of a guy who was following an innocent kid, and was facing jail time for killing him.

Absolutely, you take his word with the other attachments *proof of his injuries/witnesses seeing the conflict* when you cannot prove Z was bull****ting nor disprove Z's self defense narrative

That's the way the cookie crumbles

 

[ttwtt78640]

There's plenty of statutes that prevent you from infringing on another citizens' freedom of movement.

But I'm not alleging that just watching him was wrong. I'm saying that I don't buy his giftwrapped story that plunks perfectly into the letter-of-the-law of floridas self defence laws. I'm saying Trayvon got convicted for winning a fight - in spite of the fact that he was just trying to walk home and was followed. Zimmerman continued to follow him after he specifically said he wasn't following him, even when Trayvon tried to run away. I would suggest that Trayvon had tried everything reasonable to avoid contact with Zimmerman, and was cornered and confronted and nobody can say for sure what lead to him winning the fight.

I do suggest that the case for self defence in the case of Trayvon would be stronger, had he lived.

Are you kidding me? Do you not recall the four minute pause in the defense closing argument? What reason did Martin have to not travel the few yards to his house while Zimmerman sat in his car chatting with the police dispatcher?

Transcript of George Zimmerman 911 Call - by Oliver Closoff - Newsvine

 

[ChrisL]

I'm not speculating, I'm dreaming. Trayvon is dead as a doornail, cuz Zimmerman f-ed up.

From everything I know, they both made bad decisions.

 

[ttwtt78640]

M had not a bump nor bruise, except on his knuckles. Z had no offensive injuries.

Rest assured that I could likely provoke you (especially as a 17 year old no_limit_nigga) to strike me without leaving any marks on you (or me).

 

[ecofarm]

Rest assured that I could provoke you (especially as a 17 year old no_limit_nigga) to strike me without leaving any marks on you.

Ok, Chuck Norris.

You're not provoking me to strike you.

 

[Buckworth]

Based on what evidence? The jury has disagreed with you, they found self defense to be plausable based on the evidence presented at the tiral.

So did the Simpson jury, so have lots of juries. I'm still going to voice my opinions.

Zimmermans followed a kid who was walking home. By car and by foot. Listen to the 911 call again and tell me if you think Zimmerman had any intention of returning to his vehicle and meeting the police at a specific location. The operator repeatedly asked him to go home or go to specific locations and Zimmerman told them to call him when they got there and he would tell him where he was at that point. It's possible that he was going to go back on patrol, but I really don't buy that he was going to give up his search for somebody who he had identified as a criminal.

 

[Buckworth]

M had not a bump nor bruise, except on his knuckles. Z had no offensive injuries.

So Trayvon is guilty of winning a fight. Zimmerman sucks at fighting. Nothing more can be assumed from that evidence.

 

[ecofarm]

Zimmermans followed a kid who was walking home. By car and by foot.

There's nothing wrong with checking out a stranger on ones neighborhood. Doing so does not remove ones right to self defense.

Do you think that checking out a stranger in your community should remove your right to self defense?

 

[Goshin]

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?

Legally, no it isn't, unless there are other threat behaviors or jeopardy indicators or criminal actions involved. JUST following isn't a crime, in and of itself, done once.