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

[opendebate]

You call me a bully and I'M the one who is name-calling? :roll:

Saying that someone is bullying is different than CALLING them a fool.

 

[Josie]

Saying that someone is bullying is different than CALLING them a fool.

Except you actually did call me a bully and I didn't say you were a fool. :doh

 

[ChrisL]

I wouldn't dare to insult your intelligence...I'll leave that up to you and btw way to are doing a splendid job.

The problem here is that you are misunderstanding me, reacting with rage instead of curiosity and TELLING what I am doing rather than LISTENING to me why I tell you.

try again.

I think you have an overactive imagination, don't project it upon me. The only ones here displaying a lack of intelligence are the ones who are refusing to look at the evidence objectively. Guess what? There is absolutely NO evidence that George attacked Trayvon. None, nil, nada.

 

[Buckworth]

Then in that "spirit of the law," if a "vigilante" "follows the wrong person" it is presumed that any violence confrontation reqardless of who started it or continued to any degree at all was started by "the vigilante."

Other than he didn't call the police, why don't you see TM as a vigilante too? He is who first approached GZ - at the trunk while GZ on the phone - and since it appears TM ran away, but then came back towards GZ with the first question (according to DD) of why are you following me? - how is that not TM being a vigilante and - since GZ had done nothing wrong and was "innocent," - therefore TM was questioning "the wrong person"?

No, I don't presume Zimmerman started it, I also don't presume Trayvon started it. The fact is Zimmerman was acting as a mistaken vigilante and his actions resulted in a death.

You don't have enough information about what lead to the fight. It's not unreasonable for a person to ask why somebody is following you - when they are following you. It shows that Trayvon was...reasonable.

Vigilantes don't generally use walking to the store and back home as covers to take action. It's possible that he was just walking to the store then back home, and he should have been left alone.

 

[Buckworth]

This is the scenario you claim could have happened. GZ swung at TM or maybe GZ went for his gun, so TM slammed GZ in the face and continued to struggle with GZ - who TM saw was going for his gun. In this struggle, GZ shot TM point blank in the chest - with GZ have started it overall and then is who threw the first punch OR went for his gun - thus giving TM a clear right of self defense including violently.

That was confusing. And that's my point, there's a lot of confusing things that could have happened before we finally saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman, including that Trayvons was likely acting in self preservation. Seeing as if he saw the gun at any point it would satisfy the Florida statute for imminent danger and justify deadly force.

Yeah, it could have happened that way I suppose within the evidence if that is how the person sees that particularly unknown. You cannot convict or condemn a person upon speculations of the unknown. You can only find a person innocent that way.

I'm only asking to convict based on the known: he followed and shot a kid who was walking home. So have to speculate if you want to consider that the kid was an aggressor at any point.

 

[Buckworth]

yes he did run.... unfortunately, at some point, he stopped running.... coming back to confront Z was a fatal mistake...he shoulda kept running right on home... he had a good head start and not far to go.

There's no evidence he 'came back', only Zimmermans word. I've been followed and the last thing I want is for my pursuer to know where I live. I find it reasonable to assume that he thought that once he left the road he hoped that he would no longer be followed and was waiting to return to the road when Zimmerman came upon him.

there is no evidence TM was justified in assaulting Z... if there was, we might have a very different verdict under discussion here.

There's also no evidence that Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman.

 

[Buckworth]

FYI, I do know what it's like to be followed. I went to my neighbor's house and called the police. THAT is what you do when you're being followed. You don't go on the attack. IF you do that, then YOU are wrong and assaulting someone. Understand that fact.

You don't know that he 'went on the attack'. You assume.

 

[joko104]

That was confusing. And that's my point, there's a lot of confusing things that could have happened before we finally saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman, including that Trayvons was likely acting in self preservation. Seeing as if he saw the gun at any point it would satisfy the Florida statute for imminent danger and justify deadly force.



I'm only asking to convict based on the known: he followed and shot a kid who was walking home. So have to speculate if you want to consider that the kid was an aggressor at any point.

WHAT?! There is NO evidence that Trayvon Martin was "walking home." In fact, if the evidence points to anything of this matter it is that TM was NOT walking home. YOU ABSOLUTELY DO NOT KNOW WHAT TM WAS DOING OR WHY, do you? If he was just walking home he would have been home. The timeline does make that a certainty.

 

[ecofarm]

There's no evidence he 'came back', only Zimmermans word.

M was not on the path when Z first passed the sidewalk intersection. We know this because given time and walking speeding (physical evidence) Z would have been on the phone with police if he had encountered M when Z first encountered the intersection. From this we can discern that M was not at the intersection while Z was on the phone and passed the intersection. Thus... where did M come from?

The physical evidence is clear: Z passed the sidewalk intersection while on the phone with police. There was no encounter at that time.

 

[Thrilla]

There's no evidence he 'came back', only Zimmermans word. I've been followed and the last thing I want is for my pursuer to know where I live. I find it reasonable to assume that he thought that once he left the road he hoped that he would no longer be followed and was waiting to return to the road when Zimmerman came upon him.

so let me get this straight... he ran away and lost Z for a number of minutes ( Z was still talking on the phone for about 2 minutes after he first said " he's running")
even if we assume he stopped running and began walking .. we are talking about neither one of them being in sight of each other... and TM only had a short distance to cover to be safely at home.
hell, he could have crawled home on his hands and knees and still made it.

There's also no evidence that Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman.

that's true.... well, if we ignore the broken nose, the 2 black eyes and the cuts on Z head... as well as ignoring the only injuries to TM were cut knuckles and a gun shot wound.

it is your premise that GZ used his nose to assault TM's knuckles?.. that's pretty much the only thing that would make sense of your version is to be accepted as truth.

 

[What if...?]

Depends on what happens when following turns into finding.

 

[Buckworth]

WHAT?! There is NO evidence that Trayvon Martin was "walking home." In fact, if the evidence points to anything of this matter it is that TM was NOT walking home. YOU ABSOLUTELY DO NOT KNOW WHAT TM WAS DOING OR WHY, do you? If he was just walking home he would have been home. The timeline does make that a certainty.

I can say with pretty good certainty that a guy walking in the direction of his home with a bag of candy purchased from the closest store, in the rain....was going home. You're correct, the fact that somebody was following him changed his behaviour.

 

[Helix]

Moderator's Warning:

Address the topic instead of attacking other posters.

 

[ecofarm]

that's true.... well, if we ignore the broken nose, the 2 black eyes and the cuts on Z head... as well as ignoring the only injuries to TM were cut knuckles and a gun shot wound.

There's more physical evidence than that:

1. Z's injuries.
2. M's total lack of injury (not a single bruise, scrape or bit of damaged clothing) other than the shot.
3. Z's lack of offensive wounds.
4. M's offensive wounds.
5. The only clothing damage being Z's back and the shot.
6. Z was on the phone with NEN for 2 minutes, during which time he surely passed the sidewalk intersection without encounter.


There's other physical evidence, all of it supporting Z's story and none of it contradicting Z's story.

 

[Buckworth]

Depends on what happens when following turns into finding.

Yes. Nobody knows what happened.

 

[Buckworth]

There's more physical evidence than that:

1. Z's injuries.
2. M's total lack of injury (not a single bruise, scrape or bit of damaged clothing) other than the shot.
3. Z's lack of offensive wounds.
4. M's offensive wounds.
5. The only clothing damage being Z's back and the shot.
6. Z was on the phone with NEN for 2 minutes, during which time he surely passed the sidewalk intersection without encounter.


There's other physical evidence, all of it supporting Z's story and none of it contradicting Z's story.

Repeating evidence over and over about the fact that Zimmerman lost a fight still doesn't suggest who or what started it.

You don't know where Zimmerman went after he left his truck. You don't know where Trayvon went. All you know is where they were spotted with Trayvon on top of him.

 

[ecofarm]

Repeating evidence over and over about the fact that Zimmerman lost a fight still doesn't suggest who or what started it.

All of that physical evidence is regarding who started the fight.

7. M had plenty of time to get home.

You don't know where Zimmerman went after he left his truck. You don't know where Trayvon went. All you know is where they were spotted with Trayvon on top of him.

Perhaps they were in the bushes making out.

 

[ChrisL]

You don't know that he 'went on the attack'. You assume.

He didn't call the police. He had phone in hand, and if he was so frightened, why not call the cops? Instead, he called his girlfriend.

 

[Compatibilist]

Nope! And if you do then you could very well end up like TM... or else get your ass kicked.

I wish TM would have took the beating GZ took... and his follower quit when he started yelling for help.

Then he would still be alive and would have learned a valuable life lesson.

 

[Buckworth]

All of that physical evidence is regarding who started the fight.

7. M had plenty of time to get home.

Give me a piece of evidence that suggests who started the fight...other than Zimmerman following Travyon.

It's reasonable to assume that if you are being followed, you would be more concerned with losing your tail...and not wanting that person to know where you live. In Zimmermans 911 call he (under the assumption that Trayvon was a criminal) didn't want Trayvon to know where he lived. The difference between the two of them is that at that point Trayvon was innocent and Zimmerman was the one acting improperly.

 

[Buckworth]

Nope! And if you do then you could very well end up like TM... or else get your ass kicked.

I wish TM would have took the beating GZ took... and his follower quit when he started yelling for help.

Then he would still be alive and would have learned a valuable life lesson.

What the lesson? Don't get followed or don't to try to escape your follower?

 

[ecofarm]

Give me a piece of evidence that suggests who started the fight...other than Zimmerman following Travyon.

All of the physical evidence I presented (1-7) points to a surprise attack. It's rare that two men, prepared to come to blows, results in one being entirely untouched. A fight that appears entirely one-sided is almost surely a surprise attack. Then there is the time and phone (also physical evidence) considerations, which establish that M was not at the sidewalk intersection when Z first arrived there and that M had plenty of time to get home.

 

[ecofarm]

Zimmerman was the one acting improperly.

Following a full-grown male that one has never seen before, in ones own neighborhood, to see what he's up to, is not stalking and in no way removes ones right to self defense.

 

[Buckworth]

All of the physical evidence I presented (1-7) points to a surprise attack. It's rare that two men, prepared to come to blows, results in one being entirely untouched. A fight that appears entirely one-sided is almost surely a surprise attack. Then there is the time and phone (physical evidence) considerations, which establish that M was not at the sidewalk intersection when Z first arrived there and that M had plenty of time to get home.

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.

 

[Buckworth]

Following a full-grown male that one has never seen before, in ones own neighborhood, to see what he's up to, is not stalking and in no way removes ones right to self defense.

Right. And you don't lose your right to self defence when you are being followed home. Moot.