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 14 of 35 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 349

Thread: Following someone.

  1. #131
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    06-04-18 @ 07:26 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,569
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Following someone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    Pretty reasonable on the whole, yes. My own risk tolerance is a little higher but then again, as you say, there is a big difference between a 110# woman with a minor disability and a burly ex-cop with plenty of experience in violence.

    I convinced my mother to carry pepperspray in her later years (70s). I told her that if any stranger approached her and acted the least bit suspicious, don't just spray him hose his eyes down like watering the yard. A little ninety-pound widow woman in her seventies can get away with zero-tolerance for risk.
    Civilized life brought many improvements, wonderful ones, to my life. But one of the things that I don't like about "civilized society" I entered about 4 years ago is the cowardice of so many of the men. The expressions - ragingly - of so many men on this forum of how totally terrified they would be at someone following them or watching them is truly disgusting to me - and all the absurdity arguments of "intimidation" really founded in such cowardice in them.

    There are very few men on this forum I would trust with my children or wife in terms of danger. I think most would instead flee - maybe dialing 911 when he found a safe hiding place - maybe - and even then most would insist on not giving their name. I would trust the women on the forum for my loved one's safety more. Curiously, it was 2 women who came out on Zimmerman-Martin, not the men. The men all stayed hiding in their houses.

    I've been meaning to note this for some time as the contrast is stark from my 3rd eye viewpoint.

    From messages I've seen on the forum, I would trust Caine and you with my children's and wife's life in terms of safety. From so many internal clues in both your message across the forum, I somehow really believe that if in your care no man would hurt them but over your dead body. I feel that way definitely about Caine too. Doesn't mean you'd win or succeed, but you would give it your best and go down fighting for them if need be because that is what men do. I think that would be both your core instinct. Just who you are. Just like I think cowardice is at the core of so many younger men today. Then again you and Caine are of the previous generation.

    I don't understand the source of the strange mix of apathy, cowardice and rudeness that make so many men today the cowards they are. Ten times quicker to rage and insult behind the safety of an ID and at their computers locked inside safely as you and Caine. 1/10th the courage in terms of the real world. They have unlimited introverted egos, but very little self pride. I doubt they understand the distinction.

    I think that is what some women mean when they ask where have all the real men gone? I think many women see that distinction about men that men don't want to see about themselves.
    Last edited by joko104; 04-16-12 at 11:25 PM.

  2. #132
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    57,932

    Re: Following someone.

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    Martin wasn't a 17 year old teenage girl. He was a 6' 3" 160 pound football player male andjuvenile deliquent punk. I think on his 3rd explusion from school for the reasons he was makes that description accurate.
    I didnt ask about Trayvon Martin and this thread is not about him. It is about 'following' someone. So...Im guessing you AGREE as a father you might be inclined to see it as a threatening act and one where your response, based on concern for your daughter, might be leading to at least the potential of some major medical care...correct?

  3. #133
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    01-05-17 @ 01:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,479

    Re: Following someone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    Is following someone an aggressive act?

    Simple question, simple answer.

    I don't believe that it is. If it was then police would not be able to legally follow people. Investigators (PI's) would not legally be able to do it. Paparazzi would not be able to do it.
    An adult following an unarmed minor and continues to follow in an isolated neighborhood in the dark ... even after the minor is running away and is not breaking any law and the person chasing gets close enough to touch the minor ... to me that is disrespecting another person's boundaries to the point of aggressive and they might get shoved, punched or kicked in the balls if they get close enough.

    Sure if I follow a person for a city block and keep my distance because I think they have a cool dog and I want to watch ... that is not pressing boundaries.

    If my children were walking and an adult followed them (especially in the dark in an isolated area) ... even got out of the car and continues following them when they ran and then became within arms length and it was not someone they knew I would instruct them to defend themselves. I taught my children to kick in the balls or punch in the eyes.


    If that guy followed me and got out of his car and kept after me on a dark rainy night and came up to me within arms length and I would turn and kick him in the balls or try to poke his eyes out.

    Now if I was walking on a populated city street and noticed him or anyone just simply at a fair distance following I would probably just be wary or move into a public store, bank or populated place until he moved on.

    So depending on the time of day, the situation, how isolated the area is, how the person being followed tries to get away ... following can be an invasion of boundaries and aggressive. At some point you would need to turn around and face the person ... and stand your ground. I would have been scared to death if some big husky dude with a shaved head followed me or my children on an isolated dark area and kept chase getting out of his car. Eventually you cannot keep acting like victim and once they are on you within arms length you need to turn and face the person chasing or following.
    Last edited by Turin; 04-16-12 at 11:31 PM.

  4. #134
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    08-09-13 @ 07:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,600

    Re: Following someone.

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    Martin wasn't a 17 year old teenage girl. He was a 6' 3" 160 pound football player male andjuvenile deliquent punk. I think on his 3rd explusion from school for the reasons he was makes that description accurate.
    That's true and since he was doing NOTHING criminal or even questionable, he must have initially been very confused as to why this stranger was following him..

    You KNOW when someone is coming after you because you left your glasses or a package.. You know when someone wants to hand you a religious tract.

    Most people have VERY good instincts for that..

  5. #135
    Sage
    Lord Tammerlain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:32 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    11,681

    Re: Following someone.

    Context

    It can be most definately considered an agressive act, or it could be seen as harmless

    Imagine you are a women walking alone at night and she notices someone follow her for many blocks, even if she cuts through a couple houses yards. She also notices that the person get out of their car to continue to follow her.

    If I was a woman, I would most definately consider that an agressive act, by someone out to cause me personal harm (perhap rape and murder) If I noticed that person doing that and trying to get within physical contact range, I would be deathly afraid for my life, even if that person, after being confronted seemed to be walking back to his carr. If armed I would seriously consider shooting that person
    Conservatives believe that the government is incompetent, and seek to elect people who will ensure it is

    sofa king we todd it

  6. #136
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    07-11-14 @ 05:21 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    1,025

    Re: Following someone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    Is following someone an aggressive act?

    Simple question, simple answer.

    It is possible that your question could get answered, if the person you are following turns around and fires on you, because they had a reason to believe that their life was in danger - because they believed that you were out to kill them - because you were following them and that's what some people do in places like Florida, or Oklahoma, as just two examples.

    So, if there is precedent for someone being aggressive towards you by following, and you respond by turning around the firing on them, in an attempt to protect yourself from an already established potential threat, then you might have the answer to your question - though I do not believe that it was the answer you were looking for, however.

    Do you see just how quickly that whole notion can get out of control?

    I hope you do. Because, if other people don't believe that such a notion can get out of control, you might just be walking behind somebody one minute and lying on the ground the next, all because that person had good cause to believe (established by precedent) that their life was in danger, all because you were following them and because such precedent has already been laid.

    This is what happens when stupid people do stupid things, without thinking the consequences through to their logical conclusion.

  7. #137
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    07-11-14 @ 05:21 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    1,025

    Re: Following someone.

    I think the Mods need to create a Thread Category simply called: Paranoia.

  8. #138
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    06-04-18 @ 07:26 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,569
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Following someone.

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    I didnt ask about Trayvon Martin and this thread is not about him. It is about 'following' someone. So...Im guessing you AGREE as a father you might be inclined to see it as a threatening act and one where your response, based on concern for your daughter, might be leading to at least the potential of some major medical care...correct?
    Yes, of course.

  9. #139
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    06-04-18 @ 07:26 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,569
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Following someone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Tammerlain View Post
    Context

    It can be most definately considered an agressive act, or it could be seen as harmless

    Imagine you are a women walking alone at night and she notices someone follow her for many blocks, even if she cuts through a couple houses yards. She also notices that the person get out of their car to continue to follow her.

    If I was a woman, I would most definately consider that an agressive act, by someone out to cause me personal harm (perhap rape and murder) If I noticed that person doing that and trying to get within physical contact range, I would be deathly afraid for my life, even if that person, after being confronted seemed to be walking back to his carr. If armed I would seriously consider shooting that person
    You would shoot the person in the back as that person was walking back to his/her car?

  10. #140
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 04:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    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.
    There is an "earwitness" account, though. Martin was on the phone with his girlfriend when things went physical. That has been confirmed by the phone records. From her testimony we can learn a lot about Martin's mental state (nervous about the stranger following him) and a little bit about how the altercation began (We know that Martin verbally confronted Zimmerman before the altercation began). We have to throw out the girlfriend's conjecture about Zimmerman pushing Martin because there is no way she could know who did the pushing based on what she heard. But we do now that her testimony contradicts Zimmerman's claims about being attacked from behind.



    If you held every self-defense case to the same sort of burden of proof, a lot of innocent people would be convicted.
    Actually, all self-defense cases are held to the same burden of proof I am talking about. It prevents guilty people from lying their way free. We have a contradiction in reports of how the initial confrontation went down. The more credible account is Martin's girlfriend's account because it makes sense in the circumstances. Zimmerman's account doesn't make any sense given teh facts that are known.

    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.
    That's not an entirely accurate portrayal. You are completely ignoring out Martin's clear attempt to flee from Zimmerman. That's a very important fact that should not be discounted. The fact that he first attempted to flee indicates that he meant Zimmerman no harm. Zimmerman continuing to follow Martin after Martin attempted to flee does give Martin the right to physically defend himself. It goes back to biology. Fight or flight. If you remove the flight option by negating it's efficacy, you limit it to a fight response.

    That's why backing any frightened animal into a corner is a guaranteed way yo be attacked by an animal. Humans are no different.

    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.
    And this applies to Martin, first and foremost. It is an undeniable fact that the initiator of threatening behavior in this situation was Zimmerman.

    Martin did not provoke the incident (he was doing nothing illegal).

    Martin did believe himself in imminent danger (as evidenced by his fight or flight response). This is also confirmed by the girlfriend's testimony.

    Biologically speaking, once flight is removed as an option, any threatened animal (including humans) will resort to fight responses. That's a perfectly reasonable response.

    Martin met all three criteria for self-defense in this situation. That's based entirely on the facts. Even if we remove the girlfriend's testimony and focus entirely on Zimmerman's own words from the 911 call, we can see that Martin met all three criteria.

    Martin's attempt to escape from Zimmerman is of absolute importance.

    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.
    Again, your analysis ignores a major piece of evidence. Martin's attempt to flee, reported by Zimmerman himself. You make a major unsupported assumption as well, one that is especially ironic given the fact that you seem to be demonizing making assumptions about body language (despite the fact that most body language is both universal and predictable once the emotional frame of mind is known, as it is here for Zimmerman).

    You claim, without any evidence, that the reason that Martin "backed off" was because he saw that Zimmerman was on the phone to 911. This is complete conjecture on your part. You claim one second that we cannot know Martin's state of mind, but then you say that "available info" allows us to understand his motivations.

    At least my assumptions are based on known psychological phenomenon that are relatively universal (body language, fight or flight responses). Your is complete nonsense. You cannot possibly know why Martin backed off. But when you say he backed off because he saw Zimmerman on the phone, it gives the false impression that he was guilty of something. That something about Zimmerman being on the phone made Martin nervous in and of itself (i.e. that Zimmerman is calling the cops).

    There's nothing wrong with making certain assumptions, but only if those assumptions are reasonable in nature. An assumption based on known biological reactions to certain stimuli, for example, is a perfectly reasonable assumptions. An assumption about motivations based on nothing but imagination, however, is not.






    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.
    I think you demonize Martin for having a reasonable biological response to a threat. Zimmerman was the instigator, that much is known.


    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.
    Exactly. And there is plenty of evidence indicating that in this case. In fact, Zimmerman's own account of events helps build a case against him having a right to self-defense.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

Page 14 of 35 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... 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
  •