• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Following someone.

Is following someone an aggressive act?


  • Total voters
    34
If a kid had thrown a rock at my car, I might try to follow him home. If I saw someone hit-and-run, I might follow him until I could "see" the driver and get the license number of the car. If someone accosted the kids who wait in my drive-way for the school bus? I might follow him (on foot or by car) until the police arrived. I can think of dozens of reasons that don't involve raving nutters.

All the obvious is just out the window on the Zimmerman-Martin matter.

Diametric opposites too. To be against Zimmerman - they claim no right to self defense even if under violent attack. But to be for Martin, they argue you can attack and beat someone to death just for watching where you are going.

They claim Zimmerman started a violent fight by merely trying to see where Martin was headed, but totally discount the first approach was Martin turning to come putting his hand in his pocket as stated in the 911 call at Zimmerman until he saw Zimmerman on the phone.

Yeah, it can be scary if someone is watching you. Welcome to urban life. And if you're poking around the backs of people's homes in the rain hiding your face... hopefully someone is watching you.
 
All the obvious is just out the window on the Zimmerman-Martin matter.

Diametric opposites too. To be against Zimmerman - they claim no right to self defense even if under violent attack. But to be for Martin, they argue you can attack and beat someone to death just for watching where you are going.

They claim Zimmerman started a violent fight by merely trying to see where Martin was headed, but totally discount the first approach was Martin turning to come putting his hand in his pocket as stated in the 911 call at Zimmerman until he saw Zimmerman on the phone.

Yeah, it can be scary if someone is watching you. Welcome to urban life. And if you're poking around the backs of people's homes in the rain hiding your face... hopefully someone is watching you.

Beating to death???

Wait for the EMT report on George Zimmerman's "injuries" that were treated in the back of a police car without even a bandaid.
 
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.


In the absence of other evidence I have to assume, based on available info, that Martin attacked Zimmerman and inflicted substantial injuries to him.


If I detected a person following me in the parking lot, tried to avoid them and they ran after me, then chose to react by rushing them and beating them up....

... then found out too late it was a clerk who was trying to give me my wallet back after I'd left it on the counter....

... I would almost certainly be charged with assault and battery, and probably convicted.

If Martin initiated the attack on Zimmerman with no greater reason than "he was following me", IMO that puts Martin in the wrong, for the same reason I'd be in the wrong in the scenario above.

We lack any evidence to the contrary, and IMO can't convict Zimmerman based on what we DON'T know.

My 0.02.
 
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.
You may think you are being sarcastic, but it really hits home.
There are cases of people on this forum claiming they are threatened to the point of using deadly force, if someone is say, in their garage.
There are periodically cases of people, the foreign kid in Louisiana who was looking for the Halloween party, was knocking on a front door asking for directions/party and the wife got "scared" so the husband shot and killed the kid. Entirely legal there, why not in every context? I think all three are absurd personally.

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.
I don't think the OP mentions legality, Trayvon, or whether it warrants physical violence in retaliation or not. I don't think people on this thread are suggesting being followed means you are justified in physical violence towards the pursuer. Is that your impression?
 
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. :doh )
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.


The standard is "reasonableness" of action. It is pretty clear I could handle any unarmed man or even someone with a knife, so my response in terms of reasonableness is highly different from a 110 little cute blonde female with some minor degree of physical disability. She has been HIGHLY trained and rehearsed to legal standards (in our opinion as cops) and her own sense of fear (well founded) of what to do if being approached by a stranger she senses any danger about and doesn't know.

As you put it, there is no way to know if the guy is a beggar, handing out some religious materials, is trying to sell drugs, is asking for directions, wants to chat, wants to rob her or wants to drag her to her vehicle, rape and murder her. She is unbashful about how strangers feel about her. In those situations, if such an approaching person comes within 30 feet, she is to shout "Stay away from me!" as angrily and loudly as possible. Any normal person would certainly stop. If not, at 20 feet she draws and levels a 5 shot alum. ally 38sp - laser dot on his chest - screaming "Stop or I will kill you!" Only a mentally disturbed person wouldn't stop. At 10 feet she is to fire - but not definitely to kill. That depends upon risk factor. If questionable risk, but no weapon present, she is to blow apart his pelvis with her first shot - but a quick 2nd if failing. If a weapon present or movements indicating going for one of if he charges - 3 shots - chest-head-chest.

She is so skilled I know no cop that can match her speed or accuracy. Amazingly so. But her entire training is within that 30 feet and allowed no other practice or shooting. The training was so repetitious, so intense, and so repeated as to make those instinctive - rather than figure-what-to-do-in-an instant. Since there are over a dozen cops - male and female, County, FWC and State who have all worked with her on this training, added to her "defense" if she ever does shoot is over a dozen cops taking the stand testifying she did exactly what they trained and ordered her to do in such a situation. I know that is not available to most citizens.

One other reason it is maybe reasonable is she was a victim of a horrific assault, thus is fearful. Her being trained in correct response is superior to her reacting in panic. Prior to this training and in part what lead to it, was when she came within 1/10th of a second of shooting some guy point-blank in the face with a derringer for grabbing her breast from behind in a nightclub. There is no way to ever know, but it likely if someone (cop-friend) had not grabbed his hand over the derringer and hammer from her blindside, she would have blown the back of that guy's head out. Whether it from being startled and pulling the trigger or really it was a 1/1000th of a second close call - given the trigger had been pulled and hammer pinched the cop's hand? Can't be known.

Is how she was trained to NOW react (30-20-10 rule) to a man approaching her she perceives in dangerous when in public reasonable?
 
Last edited:
The standard is "reasonableness" of action. It is pretty clear I could handle any unarmed man or even someone with a knife, so my response in terms of reasonableness is highly different from a 110 little cute blonde female with some minor degree of physical disability. She has been HIGHLY trained and rehearsed to legal standards (in our opinion as cops) and her own sense of fear (well founded) of what to do if being approached by a stranger she senses any danger about and doesn't know.

As you put it, there is no way to know if the guy is a beggar, handing out some religious materials, is trying to sell drugs, is asking for directions, wants to chat, wants to rob her or wants to drag her to her vehicle, rape and murder her. She is unbashful about how strangers feel about her. In those situations, if such an approaching person comes within 30 feet, she is to shout "Stay away from me!" as angrily and loudly as possible. Any normal person would certainly stop. If not, at 20 feet she draws and levels a 5 shot alum. ally 38sp - laser dot on his chest - screaming "Stop or I will kill you!" Only a mentally disturbed person wouldn't stop. At 10 feet she is to fire - but not definitely to kill. That depends upon risk factor. If a risk, but no weapon present, she is to blow apart his pelvis with her first shot - but a quick 2nd if failing. If a weapon present or movements indicating going for one of if he charges - 3 shots - chest-head-chest.

She is so skilled I know no cop that can match her speed or accuracy. Amazingly so. But her entire training is within that 30 feet and allowed no other practice or shooting. The training was so repetitious, so intense, and so repeated as to make those instinctive - rather than figure-what-to-do-in-an instant. Since there are over a dozen cops - male and female, County, FWC and State who have all worked with her on this training, added to her "defense" if she ever does shoot is over a dozen cops taking the stand testifying she did exactly what they trained and ordered her to do in such a situation. I know that is not available to most citizens.

One other reason it is maybe reasonable is she was a victim of a horrific assault, thus is fearful. Her being trained in correct response is superior to her reacting in panic. Prior to this training and in part what lead to it, was when she came within 1/10th of a second of shooting some guy point-blank in the face with a derringer for grabbing her breast from behind in a nightclub. There is no way to ever know, but it likely if someone (cop-friend) had not grabbed his hand over the derringer and hammer from her blindside, she would have blown the back of that guy's head out. Whether it from being startled and pulling the trigger or really it was a 1/1000th of a second close call - given the trigger had been pulled and hammer pinched the cop's hand? Can't be known.

Is how she was trained to NOW react (30-20-10 rule) to a man approaching her she perceives in dangerous when in public reasonable?



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. :)
 
yes ,it is certainly aggressive act.any action against my freedom and safety can be regarded as a kind of aggression.
 
I'm asking you.
You appear very resistant to adressing this question (the OP) in the abstract, not sure why that is.

I addressed the OP, so maybe I just don't understand what you are asking?

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.

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?

Yes. I think you got it right.
 
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.

Its not a simple question or a simple answer.

If you don't know you are being followed then no
coincidentally following someone, no

following someone, being made that you are following someone, maybe
following someone, being made that you are following someone, then trying to give them the slip but some sporadic behavior, running through bushes, running into a building, maybe

point is I know what you are getting at but every circumstance is different, it could very well be an aggressive act and it could also be innocent as pie.

I remember when I was little (different times) maybe I was like 10-12, my dad was shopping and I was playing in the toy department.

Every isle i went into this man followed me, he was sneakily observing me but I noticed so I kept going to different isles to see if he continued to follow. He always did.

SO I decide to go to electronics to see if he kept his pursuit. He did. SO I immediately went back to toys to give him one more chance, there he was again eye balling me like a Christmas turkey.

Soooo I left toys AGAIN but this time I took a route through mens clothes where I knew my dad would be :D

Walking down the ilses I peeked back he was to close for comforted so I started to run, once I got to my dads ilse he was jogging down it behind me. As soon as I got to my dad I stopped grabbed my dad, pointed to the guy and said "dad that man is following me!!!!! By time I did that the man stopped his jog/pursuit/following me right next to us.

My Dad 6' 4 big guy stood up, grabbed the guy up because he had some clear explaining to do and NOW hahahahaha

turns out the poor guy was store security LMAO BUT nobody knew this and I at 10-12 I certainly didnt know. He flat out told my dad he was following me because he thought I looked "suspicious" 10-12 yr old kid by himself with probably no money why am I looking at stuff by myself, he wanted to make sure I wasnt stealing.

Well that certainly wasnt good enough for my dad, my dad was pissed, dragged him to the magers office and want an explanation. HEHEHEHE

ill never forget how scared that dip**** looked when he got grabbed up by my dad and he realized he was no longer the one in charge LOL

so yes following someone CAN be aggressive

was this guy in my story just doing his job? yep but he was doing it very piss poorly and without any real reason or probably cause and it almost got his head beat in lol luckily he had an ID he could whip out quick.
 
also I answered yes in the poll only because there are only two options.

It most certainly is not a yes/no question.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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?
 
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:
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:
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)
 
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:
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.
 
Thanks, Maggie.. I wonder where his father heard it??

I think he said he'd talked to his son, and his son told him that. But since that fits the classic definition of hearsay, I doubt it's admissible.
 
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.



You know, so many things have been said (and mis-said, and assumed, and mis-quoted, and mis-represented) about this case that I can't remember if that's what Zimmerman said or not.

If that is indeed what happened, it could bolster the claim that Martin was acting in reasonable self-defense... a tense confrontation is a bad time to reach into your pockets! Regardless what you were reaching for.


Good lord, sometimes I think the twists and turns of this thing, the way that so many opportunities for it to have ended short of someone dead were narrowly missed by the antagonists, is only matched by Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. Martin could have walked straight home instead of meandering around; Zimmerman could have stayed in his truck; Martin could have just took off running and kept running (chubby Zimmerman could never have caught him on foot); either could have defused the final confrontation with a few well-chosen words, probably; Martin could have refrained from attacking Zimmerman, and if Zimmerman had been a better hand-to-hand fighter or had Pepperspray as a less-lethal backup weapon he could have done something short of killing Martin.

It's a disgusting series of mistakes, bad assumptions, poor choices and hot-headedness, on both sides, that culminated in a needless death.

Even so, I have trouble seeing it as Murder 2. At absolute most, manslaughter.
 
Last edited:
You know, so many things have been said (and mis-said, and assumed, and mis-quoted, and mis-represented) about this case that I can't remember if that's what Zimmerman said or not.

If that is indeed what happened, it could bolster the claim that Martin was acting in reasonable self-defense... a tense confrontation is a bad time to reach into your pockets! Regardless what you were reaching for.


Good lord, sometimes I think the twists and turns of this thing, the way that so many opportunities for it to have ended short of someone dead were narrowly missed by the antagonists, is only matched by Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet.

Martin could have walked straight home instead of meandering around; Zimmerman could have stayed in his truck; Martin could have just took off running and kept running (chubby Zimmerman could never have caught him on foot); either could have defused the final confrontation with a few well-chosen words, probably; Martin could have refrained from attacking Zimmerman, and if Zimmerman had been a better hand-to-hand fighter or had Pepperspray as a less-lethal backup weapon he could have done something short of killing Martin.

It's a disgusting series of mistakes, bad assumptions, poor choices and hot-headedness, on both sides, that culminated in a needless death.


Even so, I have trouble seeing it as Murder 2. At absolute most, manslaughter.

Amen to that total waste and stupidity ... and I agree about manslaughter.........
 
Look at the damn votes. Why are liberals always threatened by everything? Frankly I'm getting a little sick of it.
 
Back
Top Bottom