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

[Buckworth]

If you slammed a person in the face breaking his nose for tapping you on the shoulder and asking for directions, you would have committed felony assault under the laws of the State of Florida.

Then again, there is no evidence that GZ tapped TM on the shoulder, is there?

This claim - the EXTREME

Right, there's only evidence that Zimmerman profiled, stalked, lost a fight to, and then shot Trayvon...then lied about what happened.

 

[joko104]

Yes, I completely understand. He was found not guilty but responsible. Pardon my vernacular. My point stands. All you did was repeat what I said, but try to make yourself sound smart. And insult me and use caps a lot, lol. Do you understand that I was using an analogy to illustrate a point that jurys decisions are subjective to the specific jurors? I never mentioned race, that's on you.

Yes, we have a presumption of innocence in Canada, haha. Our murder rate is only a third of yours, tho...so we're doing something right.

And I pointed that you selected the OJ case because he was black. Thus a racist view. There are thousands of cases since then to prove the obvious that different judges and different jurors will have different perspectives, just as people have different perspectives of this case. All that adds up to nothing.

I don't think the standard of proof of guilt in Canada is as strict, but this isn't about Canada.

 

[joko104]

Right, there's only evidence that Zimmerman profiled, stalked, lost a fight to, and then shot Trayvon...then lied about what happened.

There is NO evidence that Zimmerman profiled TM, it was not illegal if he did, no evidence that GZ stalked Martin, You can not violently assault some just because the person is stalking you - rather you can call the police and press charges - and obviously TM lost the fight because TM's dead.

What lie?

 

[Buckworth]

No, TM was not going home when he approached GZ either time. No TM was not going home by the timeline. No, you can post that falsity 1000 times and it is false every time.

I only accept that Trayvon approached Zimmerman the first time. The second time was alleged to have happened after Zimmerman lied about walking back to his truck after the 911 call ended. Besides, Trayvon had no duty to go home...especially if he was being followed. And he was on the phone for the entire time, so it's not believable that he was scheming some sort of revenge plan.

NO, Zimmerman did not stalk Martin. Not by a dictionary definition. More importantly not by the legal definition. NOR is there evidence that GZ followed Martin at all. The evidence - if any at all - is that GZ stayed to the sidewalk and TM didn't.

Stalking is "unwanted or obsessive attention by an individual or group toward another person". Zimmerman states he was following Trayvon, and Zimmerman also states stat Trayvon knew he was following him. This is corroborated by the person Trayvon was talking to, and I believe that Trayvon did not want to be followed. I find that to be generally accepted by everybody.

Then again, what lie are you talking about anyway?

One lie is that Zimmerman only left his vehicle and went in the same direction to look for an address, when he himself agreed that he was following Trayvon. Another lie is that after the 911 call ended, he was simply walking back to his truck, the walk takes less than a minute and the encounter took place 3-4 minutes afterwards. Yet another lie is that Trayvon 'ambushed' him from behind a non-existent bush. Another is that he was struck on the face and fell backwards, because Trayvons body was found 40 yards from where Zimmerman said he fell down.

I suggest that Zimmerman took a left off the cut through to look for him. Which is supported by an eyewitness that claimed there was a fight moving towards the 'T' where Zimmerman claimed he was surprised.

I contend that Zimmerman changed the facts to preserve his claim of self defence.

 

[Buckworth]

And I pointed that you selected the OJ case because he was black. Thus a racist view. There are thousands of cases since then to prove the obvious that different judges and different jurors will have different perspectives, just as people have different perspectives of this case. All that adds up to nothing.

I don't think the standard of proof of guilt in Canada is as strict, but this isn't about Canada.

Anybody I mention will have a colour. What case could I bring up that wouldn't label me as a racist, in your eyes? lol. I don't know what you're trying to say.

And yes, that was my point each juror has a different perspective. That was my point.

You're trying to suggest that we find people guilty easier? Based on what? The fact that we have a lower murder rate...? But yes, if you don't know anything about Canada, don't bring it up.

 

[ChrisL]

LOL, I'm automatically racist if I talk about OJ? That's awesome.

I was talking about jury prejudice, and was using the OJ Simpson case to illustrate that he was found not guilty, but then subsequently found criminally responsible. Both were jury trials, and they came to different conclusions from the same evidence. Which punctuated my point that the law is not always served in a jury trial.

When did I mention race?

Dude, this is just . . . so wrong.

 

[Buckworth]

There is NO evidence that Zimmerman profiled TM, it was not illegal if he did, no evidence that GZ stalked Martin, You can not violently assault some just because the person is stalking you - rather you can call the police and press charges - and obviously TM lost the fight because TM's dead.

What lie?

Zimmerman profiled Trayvon, full stop. Why else would he follow him? Answer: because he assumed he was a criminal. He was mistaken.

My entire point in posting on this thread is that I do not believe Zimmermans account of events, which is the notion that Trayvon started the fight. There's no reason to take Zimmermans testimony at face value, in my opinion.

 

[Buckworth]

Dude, this is just . . . so wrong.

Dude...people aren't robots who spit out perfect legal decisions every time. We're all human, and we all make mistakes. Get over it.

 

[ChrisL]

Dude...people aren't robots who spit out perfect legal decisions every time. We're all human, and we all make mistakes. Get over it.

No, I mean your whole post. It's wrong. OJ was never found criminally responsible for those murders. :shock:

 

[ChrisL]

Zimmerman profiled Trayvon, full stop. Why else would he follow him? Answer: because he assumed he was a criminal. He was mistaken.

My entire point in posting on this thread is that I do not believe Zimmermans account of events, which is the notion that Trayvon started the fight. There's no reason to take Zimmermans testimony at face value, in my opinion.

What's with the "full stop?" You're not dictating this to someone you know! :lol: That's pretty funny though!

 

[CRUE CAB]

Zimmerman profiled Trayvon, full stop. Why else would he follow him? Answer: because he assumed he was a criminal. He was mistaken.

Who made the bigger mistake? Zimmerman following and calling the police, or Trayvon punching Zimmerman?

 

[Buckworth]

No, I mean your whole post. It's wrong. OJ was never found criminally responsible for those murders. :shock:

I already admitted I mis-spoke. He was found 'legally responsible' or 'liable for wrongful death' or whatever. My point stands. Two different juries saw the case two different ways. Maybe it was a bad analogy...but do you really not get my point...?

I think he was guilty all around, personally. He just got off cuz of a racist in the LAPD.

 

[Buckworth]

Who made the bigger mistake? Zimmerman following and calling the police, or Trayvon punching Zimmerman?

LOL, depends on why Trayvon punched Zimmerman. I do know that if Zimmerman didn't incorrectly profile Trayvon, Trayvon would have just gone home and we wouldn't have anything to bicker about.

 

[Buckworth]

What's with the "full stop?" You're not dictating this to someone you know! :lol: That's pretty funny though!

I'm not sure what you meant but "full stop" is just another way of saying "period" (as in: Zimmerman was acquitted and can not be put on trial again for the same crime, Period.) Sorry for the confusion, I'm from a commonwealth country.

 

[ChrisL]

I already admitted I mis-spoke. He was found 'legally responsible' or 'liable for wrongful death' or whatever. My point stands. Two different juries saw the case two different ways. Maybe it was a bad analogy...but do you really not get my point...?

I think he was guilty all around, personally. He just got off cuz of a racist in the LAPD.

You're right about the two different juries seeing the evidence in a different light, but those are two completely different trials. Of course it depends upon the jury, but the jury has to reach a unanimous decision. It has nothing to do with racism. That is the point of jury selection. The prosecution and the defense both get to ask potential jurors questions, and they feel a juror is questionable, that juror can be disqualified. The system is more than fair and takes as much precautions against such things as humanly possible.

 

[Buckworth]

You're right about the two different juries seeing the evidence in a different light, but those are two completely different trials. Of course it depends upon the jury, but the jury has to reach a unanimous decision. It has nothing to do with racism. That is the point of jury selection. The prosecution and the defense both get to ask potential jurors questions, and they feel a juror is questionable, that juror can be disqualified. The system is more than fair and takes as much precautions against such things as humanly possible.

Nods, it's the best system we have, but it doesn't always work. Especially in Florida.

 

[ChrisL]

Nods, it's the best system we have, but it doesn't always work. Especially in Florida.

Well you're entitled to your opinion of course, and I'm entitled to disagree with you.

 

[joko104]

LOL, depends on why Trayvon punched Zimmerman. I do know that if Zimmerman didn't incorrectly profile Trayvon, Trayvon would have just gone home and we wouldn't have anything to bicker about.

There is no evidence that GZ incorrectly profiled TM.

We ALL know you have ZERO interest in accuracy and that you are completely motivated by racism and prejudice because you always refer to George Zimmerman by his last name and Trayvon Martin by his first name. That makes it clear you absolutely do not care about accuracy or truth and will slant, distort and falsify anything to justify your rants and incessantly declaring as facts even what is known to be exactly false. Nor do you have ANY evidence of what TM would have done I in alternative speculations. Everything you write is based upon false facts, bad law, and speculations about what didn't happen and what is known.

 

[joko104]

I already admitted I mis-spoke. He was found 'legally responsible' or 'liable for wrongful death' or whatever. My point stands. Two different juries saw the case two different ways. Maybe it was a bad analogy...but do you really not get my point...?

I think he was guilty all around, personally. He just got off cuz of a racist in the LAPD.

No, you absolutely are committed to no integrity and falsification. THERE IS NOTHING - EXACTLY NOTHING - to indicate the jury in the criminal case of OJ Simpson and the jury in the civil case against OJ Simpson saw the case differently at all.

I explained the distinction between civil and criminal proof and burdens - and despite what I presented is understood by essentially everyone - you instead continue your false rants it appears no literally calculating every false statement you can imagine.

In your message, despite everyone knows different, you continue to insist that the criminal jury and the civil jury were making 100% identical decisions on 100% identical evidence and 100% identical law - and IN FACT - FACT EVERYONE INCLUDING YOU KNOW - the jury did not and could not follow the same legal standards in those 2 cases.

 

[274ina]

Zimmermans face says he had trauma to the face. It doesn't say anything about who started the fight.

No. There's no laws that specifically allow you to follow another person. There are laws that prevent you from doing so, and it all depends on the situation.

My entire argument is that Zimmerman lied repeatedly, and there are far too many inconsistencies with his version of events and the facts for him to be considered believable. Something else happened that lead to the fight (and during the fight) that we don't know about.

And who started it is not relivant except to children in school yards. TM was not injured, therefor no assult on his part at all.

Yes there is a law, its called being in a public space. I can follow, I can photograph, I can video you up untill I meet the state stalking or harrasment statutes......to bad you cant read the laws and
your cling to school yard ideas.

His story is not perfect, and no ones is.
Facts are.
1: 776.013
2: Z's face
3: his right to shoot because of 1 and 2. GET OVER IT.

I went over too a TM protester and said "Hey great, now I can smash your face in and you cant defend yourself" ..........They did not want that, LOL, but they
still clung to emotional thinking and could not get the legal point in their thick heads.

 

[sharon]

there is no evidence that gz incorrectly profiled tm.

We all know you have zero interest in accuracy and that you are completely motivated by racism and prejudice because you always refer to george zimmerman by his last name and trayvon martin by his first name. That makes it clear you absolutely do not care about accuracy or truth and will slant, distort and falsify anything to justify your rants and incessantly declaring as facts even what is known to be exactly false. Nor do you have any evidence of what tm would have done i in alternative speculations. Everything you write is based upon false facts, bad law, and speculations about what didn't happen and what is known.

most people profile to one degree or another.. And know that they could be in error.. So they don't act on it.

 

[Compatibilist]

most people profile to one degree or another.. And know that they could be in error.. So they don't act on it.

I agree... Most all people profile others. However, your simply looking at the negative side of profiling...

DEF: the use of personal characteristics or behavior patterns to make generalizations about a person

As an optimist, I think people profile the positive's in others just as much or more than criminal or racial profiling. For example I profile the positives with all races of people I meet or notice everyday... and when I see a hard working and successful person, I tend to try and follow the factors that seem to work to their advantage. Like smiling, physical fitness, giving genuine compliments, helping someone in a difficult situation...etc

 

[Geoist]

You don't know what started the fight. You have to take the killers word for it.

What we do know is that Martin did confront Zimmerman in an aggressive manner. Who threw the first punch, idk.

 

[onlinebackgroun]

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.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

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.

Try again....
If someone is following you, either get to somewhere lighted and call 911, or get someone to assist you home. Never ever approach the person you suspect is following you. You may open yourself to attack.