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

[ttwtt78640]

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.

Yep. And all that chatting with the police dispatcher gave Martin a full four minutes to travel the last few yards to his house. Why did Martin not simply go home?

 

[ecofarm]

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

Without evidence of injury to M, or Z's knuckles, it cannot be presumed that a fight occurred. The only physical evidence regarding clothing is Z's back.

 

[Buckworth]

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

That's not how I view the law. It is possible that Zimmerman tried to enact vigilante justice, and there is no evidence to disprove that narrative either. There's just evidence he's not very good at it.

 

[ecofarm]

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.

Especially given context:

1. 7 pm
2. Roadside
3. Residential community
4. Person being followed is a 6 foot male

All of this points to many things before mugger, rapist or home invader. People say "stalked" or followed as if it was in a dark alley or parking lot downtown late at night and a small women being followed.

 

[Goshin]

That's not how I view the law. It is possible that Zimmerman tried to enact vigilante justice, and there is no evidence to disprove that narrative either. There's just evidence he's not very good at it.

You can't convict a man based on 'because I think A, and there's nothing to disprove A.'


doesn't work that way. burden of proof is on the prosecution.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Ok, Chuck Norris.

You're not provoking me to strike you.

You are not a 17 year old with an attitude either. I am not saying that is what happened, simply that it is possible. There is certainly reasonable doubt that Martin initiated the fight, while not much doubt that he prevailed and thus Zimmerman was legally justified in his self defense claim.

 

[year2late]

I think it can be depending on the situation.

I was followed going back to my dorm room. I sensed it, but felt I had now reasonable way out. Frankly, even if the guy came up behind me and asked for directions, I was so amped up that I would have responded the same way. The guy touched my purse strap (I don't believe he directly touched me) and I went bug nuts on him. He got caught in my purse strap ( I think) and with my response he fell to the ground. I kicked the **** out of him until I knew I could get away.

The reality was that I likely injured someone who was a low level purse snatcher.

But how the **** was I supposed to know what his intent was???

IT IS NOT REASONABLE TO FOLLOW SOMEONE WHO IS WALKING ALONE IN THE DARK AND EXPECT THEY WILL THINK THEY ARE THERE TO HELP YOU.

Legal or not.....even if the guy how followed me had only came up next to me without talking, I would have responded the same exact way.

With all the rapists and muggers out there, I cannot believe that anyone thinks it is ok to follow someone walking alone in the dark.

 

[ecofarm]

That's not how I view the law. It is possible that Zimmerman tried to enact vigilante justice, and there is no evidence to disprove that narrative either.

That's nonsense. You need a new view of the law.

 

[ecofarm]

IT IS NOT REASONABLE TO FOLLOW SOMEONE WHO IS WALKING ALONE IN THE DARK AND EXPECT THEY WILL THINK THEY ARE THERE TO HELP YOU.

There's nothing wrong with checking out a 6 foot male stranger in ones community. Doing so in no way eliminates ones right to self defense.

 

[Buckworth]

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

Martin had no legal imperative to flee if he believed that he was going to continue to be followed, and if he was under threat. Besides...there was no 'few minutes'. The entire call was 4 minutes long...and Zimmerman can be heard huffing and puffing (chasing) Trayvon into the cut through...not 'sitting in his car chatting'.

 

[opendebate]

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?

You don't know who initiated the violence.

 

[ric27]

That's not how I view the law. It is possible that Zimmerman tried to enact vigilante justice, and there is no evidence to disprove that narrative either. There's just evidence he's not very good at it.

I have no idea what precept, your viewing

Majority of states have the same burden to meet as Florida's

Burden of proof for self-defense is on the state...all on the state

 

[opendebate]

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.

++


I do not believe for a minute that if you were being followed in this manner that you wouldn't feel compelled to defend yourself.

 

[ecofarm]

I would have responded the same exact way.

A 6 foot male visiting a community should not be surprised when he is checked out by a neighbor. Many people in my community will check out or even follow a stranger to see what they are up to. There is nothing wrong with that. It in no way justifies an attack no removes their right to self defense.

 

[ecofarm]

There is certainly reasonable doubt that Martin initiated the fight,

Martin is not on trial.

 

[ttwtt78640]

That's not how I view the law. It is possible that Zimmerman tried to enact vigilante justice, and there is no evidence to disprove that narrative either. There's just evidence he's not very good at it.

The state must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, not the other way around. Zimmerman was presumed innocent until proven guilty, whether he was an obnoxious moron, a very likable person or somewhere in between. Simply because you doubt Zimmerman's testimony (or lack thereof) does not make him guilty.

 

[Buckworth]

Yep. And all that chatting with the police dispatcher gave Martin a full four minutes to travel the last few yards to his house. Why did Martin not simply go home?

I can think of a lot of reasons. When I was getting followed by a car full of guys, the last thing I wanted to do was go home so they'd know where I live.

 

[CRUE CAB]

A 6 foot male visiting a community should not be surprised when he is checked out by a neighbor. Many people in my community will check out or even follow a stranger to see what they are up to. There is nothing wrong with that. It in no way justifies an attack no removes their right to self defense.

Well, lessee. Iam 6ft 215. I would be real real surprised if anyone followed me anywhere. I have said before and still say, Zimmerman is an idiot.

 

[ecofarm]

++


I do not believe for a minute that if you were being followed in this manner that you wouldn't feel compelled to defend yourself.

Oh, please. I've had neighbors check me out. I've had plenty of people follow me, some probably with bad intentions. And I've never needed to attack someone just for following me, not even in developing countries.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Without evidence of injury to M, or Z's knuckles, it cannot be presumed that a fight occurred. The only physical evidence regarding clothing is Z's back.

Trayvon had to thug up and lay down the law.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Martin is not on trial.

Exactly. It makes very little difference (unfortunatley) who started the fight as even the initial aggressor may still use deadly force in self defense under Floriduh law.

 

[ecofarm]

Well, lessee. Iam 6ft 215. I would be real real surprised if anyone followed me anywhere.

If someone followed you at 7pm roadside in a residential community, in which you were a recent visitor, would you go to a dark place and attack them?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Martin had no legal imperative to flee if he believed that he was going to continue to be followed, and if he was under threat. Besides...there was no 'few minutes'. The entire call was 4 minutes long...and Zimmerman can be heard huffing and puffing (chasing) Trayvon into the cut through...not 'sitting in his car chatting'.

True, but his decision cost him his life. You do not bring Skittles and an attitude to gunfight twice.

 

[ecofarm]

Exactly. It makes very little difference (unfortunatley) who started the fight as even the initial aggressor may still use deadly force in self defense under Floriduh law.

All of the physical evidence says that Z was attacked.

1. M has no wounds from fighting.
2. Z has no offensive wounds.
3. The only clothing evidence points to Z on his back.

There is no evidence to support the claim that Z fought against M. There is evidence to support the claim that M fought Z. Thus, the physical evidence points towards Z being attacked.

 

[Buckworth]

Without evidence of injury to M, or Z's knuckles, it cannot be presumed that a fight occurred. The only physical evidence regarding clothing is Z's back.

Right...and I would agree with you if Zimmerman was minding his own business and got randomly jumped and shot Trayvon. But that's not what happened. Zimmerman instigated contact and there's no evidence to suggest Trayvon instigated violence. Unless are are arguing for the defence and suggesting that he was scared enough to need to defend himself, in which case there would be mitigating circumstances.