He ran from Zimmerman. According to Zimmerman's own account of events from the 911 call we know that Martin ran. He clearly felt threatened as evidenced by his fight or flight response. When he found that Zimmerman was still following him, he realized his previously attempted flight response had failed. Instinct takes over in such situations. When flight fails, fight is all that remains.
Was it dangerous? Absolutely. When one has a fight or flight reaction it usually is dangerous.
But it's also a very reasonable biologically induced reaction on Martin's part. There's nothing at all suspicious about it.
Tucker Case - Tard magnet.
Thank you, Quazi!
No Lives Matter
Yes, that is what the Trayvon Martin case should establish as law. If anyone is following you - or even just trying to watch here you are going - you have an absolute right to go beat that person to death. I think even if just someone looks at you in an intimidating way you should be able to beat that person to death. I mean no one should have to take any intimidation.
Afterall, the crap about there is no such thing as verbal provocation justifying violence or reasonableness really needs to go. Tough guys like me really should rule the world anyway. In fact, STG really should be changed to AWI - Attack When Intimidated. The Trayvon Martin way.
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"
Cicero Marcus Tullius
I found my self incapacitated in a straight skirt and high heels.. Guess who pulled the Spaniard off of me and threw him bodily off the train?
The Texan in the boots.
You appear very resistant to adressing this question (the OP) in the abstract, not sure why that is.
That's precisely the point though, we are talking about their perception of their own risk/safety. They cannot know, by virtue of being non-omniscient, if they are REALLY at risk or not. That's a philosophical question, it has nothing to do with how we operate in the real world.If they are put "at risk" yes. Simply following someone does not put anyone at risk automatically.
I think you are sort of agreeing that being followed is suspicious, a "potential risk", and otherwise should put someone "on guard" so to speak. But that it's not a sufficient threat to warrant physical retalation. I think in general, I'd agree to that...is that your view?
I have no clue what transpired after he was told to back off and wait and neither does anyone else at this point....but I believe the jury will consider that aggressive...i agree with your post
I've had people follow me for the following reasons:
To hand me back my wallet I'd forgotten.
To give me a religious tract.
To give me a brochure, sales paper, or similar.
To get me to sign their petition.
To try to sell me something.
To ask me for a handout.
Because they thought I was someone else.
Because they thought I was cute and wanted to catch up with me and talk to me. (women, mostly... but a couple gay guys too. )
Misunderstanding like the anecdote I told a page ago.
and yes... at least a couple of times people were following me with criminal intent.
When I turn to confront a follower, I keep the potential threat in mind but don't assume they must have ill intent.... you never know.
Fiddling While Rome Burns
Carthago Delenda Est
"I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."