View Poll Results: Is following someone an aggressive act?

Voters
44. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes.

    27 61.36%
  • No.

    17 38.64%
Page 12 of 35 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 349

Thread: Following someone.

  1. #111
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 12:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,536
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Following someone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    Is following someone an aggressive act?
    I don't believe so. If it seems that a person is chasing you, with what appears to be the intent to harm you, then yeah I'd say that's an aggressive act. But when it comes to following you, while unsettling, isn't necessarily aggressive.

  2. #112
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Following someone.

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    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.
    Who's saying that nonsense?
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  3. #113
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Following someone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    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.
    What would you assume if you attempted to flee but the person continues to follow you?
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  4. #114
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,157

    Re: Following someone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    What would you assume if you attempted to flee but the person continues to follow you?


    It depends on the exact circumstances. In most cases, it would certainly cause me to "raise my alert level" and assign a higher value to "probable ill intentions".


    There are a lot of variables to this however. If I were walking in a suburban development at night wearing a hoodie and had been meandering around looking at things, it might well occur to me that I had aroused some private citizen's suspicions.... no, I'm not blowing smoke. I've been in similar situations where I was on private property for business reasons, meandering around because I was legitimately looking for something, and spotted a local following me in a suspicious manner. My usual reaction to this, KNOWING I look suspicious, is to move into the open and call out to the person, and explain my presence and show my ID.

    I also make sure I've got something to duck behind if they start shooting. Ya never know.





    Granted the Martin/Zimmerman case isn't the same thing, and that would be pretty clear thinking to expect of the average 17yo.


    If it is as Z asserts, that he was walking back to his vehicle when M came up behind him and attacked him, that's a dramatic overreaction to Z's actions IMO and clear aggression on Martin's part. Do we have any evidence suggesting that things went down any other way? Not that I know of. Z and M know the truth, and M ain't talking since he's dead.... but I don't see convicting a man because of what we don't know.

    Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.... not "guilty unless you can prove you aren't."
    Last edited by Goshin; 04-16-12 at 08:40 PM.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: 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.'.."

  5. #115
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Following someone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    Granted the Martin/Zimmerman case isn't the same thing, and that would be pretty clear thinking to expect of the average 17yo.


    If it is as Z asserts, that he was walking back to his vehicle when M came up behind him and attacked him, that's a dramatic overreaction to Z's actions IMO and clear aggression on Martin's part.
    The problem is that Zimmerman's account of things doesn't make any sense and doesn't completely coincide with witness accounts.

    Do we have any evidence suggesting that things went down any other way? Not that I know of.
    I believe some of the witness testimony provide reasonable evidence that Zimmerman's story isn't entirely true. That, and the fact that Zimmerman's story about being attacked from behind doesn't really make any sense.



    Z and M know the truth, and M ain't talking since he's dead.... but I don't see convicting a man because of what we don't know.
    And you don't let a person go because of what you don't know either.

    What's important is what we do know. We do know that Zimmerman shot Martin. We do know that Zimmerman engaged in behaviors that would cause a reasonable person to feel threatened. We also know that Zimmerman did have ill-will directed at Martin. Zimmerman's own words damn him in this regard. He had already tried and convicted Martin of wrongdoing in his mind.

    He stated quite clearly that he considered Martin an Asshole and he felt that Martin was going to "get away with it". The fact that Zimmerman had ill-will for martin is very important because such things would have shown up in Zimmerman's body language and non-verbal communication with Martin. When someone who does mean you ill-will is following you, you will certainly feel threatened. And people instinctively pick up on this body language. It's all part of our biological wiring. This is very important because it establishes ground to argue that any aggression Martin displayed towards Zimmerman was actually based on Martin's right to stand his ground.

    The facts are what we should be looking at, not speculation, and certainly not the unsupported claims of the defendant. The facts don't help Zimmerman's case at all.

    Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.... not "guilty unless you can prove you aren't."

    This is a little different than that. He is guilty of killing Martin. That much is known. What needs to be ascertained is whether or not Zimmerman has a legitimate claim to the stand your ground defense. That doesn't require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It's an affirmative defense which places some degree of the burden of proof on the defense. His word is certainly not enough. If it was, anyone could get away with murder provided that they claim self-defense. That claim would always create a reasonable doubt if we always assume the claim is true without requiring any evidence that it is true.

    Zimmerman must provide reasonable evidence of a few different things:

    1. that he killed Martin it in self-defense (this could mean that he has to prove that he did not provoke Martin into defending himself) AND
    2. He needs to establish that Martin was not the person who was in a position to stand his ground from the threat to Martin posed by Zimmerman.


    The second one is where Zimmerman will have trouble. This is because even is 1 is true, 2 being false would mean that Zimmerman didn't have any right to stand his ground. Martin would have had that right. Zimmerman would have essentially waived his right to self-defense if he made himself enough of a threat to martin. The very act of following Martin means that Zimmerman was already very, very close to waiving his right to a stand-your-ground defense before the altercation even began.

    Like I said, if we operate under the assumption that everything the shooter says is always true until proven false, we set a precedent that would allow murder to happen so long as the murderer claims self-defense.
    Last edited by Tucker Case; 04-16-12 at 09:25 PM.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  6. #116
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Goldsboro,PA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,595
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Following someone.

    other
    none of the above
    depends.
    But, if we definitely have "following"., then in the mind of the "followee", it can be aggressive.
    If its a bad or semi-bad neighborhood, it would pay NOT to be alone and to know self-defense...
    As a last resort... a gun, but only in the hands of the completely sane (leaves me out....probably should have left a few others out as well)

  7. #117
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,157

    Re: Following someone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    The problem is that Zimmerman's account of things doesn't make any sense and doesn't completely coincide with witness accounts.



    I believe some of the witness testimony provide reasonable evidence that Zimmerman's story isn't entirely true. That, and the fact that Zimmerman's story about being attacked from behind doesn't really make any sense.





    And you don't let a person go because of what you don't know either.

    What's important is what we do know. We do know that Zimmerman shot Martin. We do know that Zimmerman engaged in behaviors that would cause a reasonable person to feel threatened. We also know that Zimmerman did have ill-will directed at Martin. Zimmerman's own words damn him in this regard. He had already tried and convicted Martin of wrongdoing in his mind.

    He stated quite clearly that he considered Martin an Asshole and he felt that Martin was going to "get away with it". The fact that Zimmerman had ill-will for martin is very important because such things would have shown up in Zimmerman's body language and non-verbal communication with Martin. When someone who does mean you ill-will is following you, you will certainly feel threatened. And people instinctively pick up on this body language. It's all part of our biological wiring. This is very important because it establishes ground to argue that any aggression Martin displayed towards Zimmerman was actually based on Martin's right to stand his ground.

    The facts are what we should be looking at, not speculation, and certainly not the unsupported claims of the defendant. The facts don't help Zimmerman's case at all.




    This is a little different than that. He is guilty of killing Martin. That much is known. What needs to be ascertained is whether or not Zimmerman has a legitimate claim to the stand your ground defense. That doesn't require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It's an affirmative defense which places some degree of the burden of proof on the defense. His word is certainly not enough. If it was, anyone could get away with murder provided that they claim self-defense. That claim would always create a reasonable doubt if we always assume the claim is true without requiring any evidence that it is true.

    Zimmerman must provide reasonable evidence of a few different things:

    1. that he killed Martin it in self-defense (this could mean that he has to prove that he did not provoke Martin into defending himself) AND
    2. He needs to establish that Martin was not the person who was in a position to stand his ground from the threat to Martin posed by Zimmerman.


    The second one is where Zimmerman will have trouble. This is because even is 1 is true, 2 being false would mean that Zimmerman didn't have any right to stand his ground. Martin would have had that right. Zimmerman would have essentially waived his right to self-defense if he made himself enough of a threat to martin. The very act of following Martin means that Zimmerman was already very, very close to waiving his right to a stand-your-ground defense before the altercation even began.

    Like I said, if we operate under the assumption that everything the shooter says is always true until proven false, we set a precedent that would allow murder to happen so long as the murderer claims self-defense.


    You have some points there, I admit, but you're putting too much burden of proof on the defense.




    There is no way Zimmerman can prove he didn't provoke Martin because there are no eyewitnesses to the beginning of the physical fight.

    #2 is also dubious because it involves the mental state and thought processes of a man who is dead, as well as because there are no eyewitnesses to the moment things went physical. All we know is Z told 911 he was trying to keep watch on M so he didn't get away after acting in a manner Z thought suspicious enough to call 911 about.


    If you held every self-defense case to the same sort of burden of proof, a lot of innocent people would be convicted.

    The only provocation we KNOW Zimmerman made to Martin was following him. Following someone doesn't give the followed person the right to physically assault them absent other signs of threat.

    What are the requirements for self-defense? I know 'em by heart....

    1. You must be without legal fault in provoking the incident. (IE you weren't doing anything illegal.)
    2. You must have believed yourself to be in imminent danger of bodily harm.
    3. A reasonable man in the same situation would also believe #2.


    Further, the reasonable-man standard of believing yourself in danger of bodily harm is that three elements must be present: Opportunity, Ability, and Jeopardy/Intent.
    -The subject must have the Ability to do you harm.... okay, both Z and M qualify in that regard.
    -The subject must have the Opportunity to do you harm right NOW.... if Z was walking away from Martin, this puts Martin's supposed SD claim in serious jeopardy. Contrariwise, we have an eyewitness that Martin was on top of Z, and Z had injuries of some kind.
    -The subject must demonstrate Jeopardy behaviors or Intent.... the subject must do things indicating that an attack is imminent, like cocking a fist and moving towards you, or verbally threatening and reaching for a weapon, that sort of thing. Again, we have eyewitnesses saying Martin was beating Zimmerman, but we have no eyewitnesses that say Zimmerman exhibited Jeopardy behavior towards Martin.... unless you count following him and keeping him under observation, and if that is ALL then we're REALLY opening a can of worms for people to make spurious SD claims!

    Available info indicates that Martin moved to confront Z and backed off when he saw he was on the phone (to 911). Do we have any evidence that Zimmerman directly confronted (provoked) Martin? Not that I know of, other than following him, and that isn't a crime in itself, unless we start making assumptions about Z's body language or facial expression.


    IMHO both Treyvon Martin and George Zimmerman are (were) a pair of overly-aggressive dipsticks who BOTH turned a misunderstanding into a homicide by their poor choices.... but I can't see convicting Z of Murder-2 simply for following someone he deemed suspicious.


    We don't have to assume that what the shooter said was true.... but we DO have to have some kind of evidence that it ISN'T.
    Last edited by Goshin; 04-16-12 at 09:47 PM.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: 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.'.."

  8. #118
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    08-09-13 @ 08:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,600

    Re: Following someone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    You have some points there, I admit, but you're putting too much burden of proof on the defense.




    There is no way Zimmerman can prove he didn't provoke Martin because there are no eyewitnesses to the beginning of the physical fight.

    #2 is also dubious because it involves the mental state and thought processes of a man who is dead, as well as because there are no eyewitnesses to the moment things went physical. All we know is Z told 911 he was trying to keep watch on M so he didn't get away after acting in a manner Z thought suspicious enough to call 911 about.


    If you held every self-defense case to the same sort of burden of proof, a lot of innocent people would be convicted.

    The only provocation we KNOW Zimmerman made to Martin was following him. Following someone doesn't give the followed person the right to physically assault them absent other signs of threat.

    What are the requirements for self-defense? I know 'em by heart....

    1. You must be without legal fault in provoking the incident. (IE you weren't doing anything illegal.)
    2. You must have believed yourself to be in imminent danger of bodily harm.
    3. A reasonable man in the same situation would also believe #2.


    Further, the reasonable-man standard of believing yourself in danger of bodily harm is that three elements must be present: Opportunity, Ability, and Jeopardy/Intent.
    -The subject must have the Ability to do you harm.... okay, both Z and M qualify in that regard.
    -The subject must have the Opportunity to do you harm right NOW.... if Z was walking away from Martin, this puts Martin's supposed SD claim in serious jeopardy. Contrariwise, we have an eyewitness that Martin was on top of Z, and Z had injuries of some kind.
    -The subject must demonstrate Jeopardy behaviors or Intent.... the subject must do things indicating that an attack is imminent, like cocking a fist and moving towards you, or verbally threatening and reaching for a weapon, that sort of thing. Again, we have eyewitnesses saying Martin was beating Zimmerman, but we have no eyewitnesses that say Zimmerman exhibited Jeopardy behavior towards Martin.... unless you count following him and keeping him under observation, and if that is ALL then we're REALLY opening a can of worms for people to make spurious SD claims!

    Available info indicates that Martin moved to confront Z and backed off when he saw he was on the phone (to 911). Do we have any evidence that Zimmerman directly confronted (provoked) Martin? Not that I know of, other than following him, and that isn't a crime in itself, unless we start making assumptions about Z's body language or facial expression.


    IMHO both Treyvon Martin and George Zimmerman are (were) a pair of overly-aggressive dipsticks who BOTH turned a misunderstanding into a homicide by their poor choices.... but I can't see convicting Z of Murder-2 simply for following someone he deemed suspicious.


    We don't have to assume that what the shooter said was true.... but we DO have to have some kind of evidence that it ISN'T.
    Very good... but a minor point.. Didn't Z say that TM decked him when he REACHED for his phone?

    Remember, TM was also on the phone with his GF.

    I would NOT have hit GZ if I thought he was calling the police.. I would have been relieved. I would have hit him if I thought he was reaching for a gun.

  9. #119
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,243
    Blog Entries
    43

    Re: Following someone.

    Quote Originally Posted by sharon View Post
    Very good... but a minor point.. Didn't Z say that TM decked him when he REACHED for his phone?
    No. Zimmerman did not say that. His father said that.
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  10. #120
    Professor

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    MI and AZ
    Last Seen
    03-15-15 @ 01:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,581

    Re: Following someone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    Is following someone an aggressive act?
    ...
    Why are you following me? Simple question, but may answers are possible and valid.
    So, again, WHY ARE YOU FOLLOWING ME!?

Page 12 of 35 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •