• 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
Mensch said:
Perhaps. But if we're trying to compare the bases of the left and right, it does us no good to compare moderate vs. moderate. What's the point? We are looking at differences, not commonalities.
Click to expand...
What possible good does it do to start with a false premise that "I believe X, therefore you must believe Y"?
And not for nothing...but it seems to me we should celebrate our commonalities, not try to fabricate 'differences'.
 
Following some one is illegal activity. If a police is following some on is means that's a legal because he is on duty.
 
henrypanda said:
Following some one is illegal activity. If a police is following some on is means that's a legal because he is on duty.
Click to expand...

No, I assure you. Following someone in itself is NOT an illegal activity.
 
henrypanda said:
Following some one is illegal activity. If a police is following some on is means that's a legal because he is on duty.
Click to expand...

Actually no it is not illegal. Paparazzi do it all the time and so do private investigators.
 
Caine said:
No, I assure you. Following someone in itself is NOT an illegal activity.
Click to expand...

How can you say this ?
If you are doing you are daily activities and you are observing that some on is shadowing you and what do you think on him ?
 
Kal'Stang said:
Actually no it is not illegal. Paparazzi do it all the time and so do private investigators.
Click to expand...

If Private investigators will following some one and giving report to his client, They are having any license to do this work ? Then what about the police man's ? and what they will do ?
 
Kal'Stang said:
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.
Click to expand...

Pants following Hoodie did not initiate the conflict there by making Pant's use of lethal force illegal.
 
VanceMack said:
What possible good does it do to start with a false premise that "I believe X, therefore you must believe Y"?
And not for nothing...but it seems to me we should celebrate our commonalities, not try to fabricate 'differences'.
Click to expand...

There is no false premise. There is no fabricated differences. You have already conceded that the extreme, or what I prefer to call ideologically-driven, left does not support the 2nd Amendment, does not support military expansion (here, you might have the most diverse opinions on the far left, with anarchists staunchly opposed and militant socialists staunchly in favor), and does not support a heightened police state.

You have already conceded this fact. Let us please move forward, not backward. I am not trying to denigrate the commonalities, but in an objective socio-political analysis, they're simply irrelevant. You can't logically use Zell Miller to represent what is "left" just like it would be impossible to use <insert name here> to represent what is "right" (I have more trouble finding moderate names on the republican side as I do on the democratic side...and Zell Miller is what is known as a DINO).
 
LaMidRighter said:
Nope, sure wouldn't be. I have had a gun pointed at me for just that reason and never felt threatened, in fact I watched the chamber being cleared and the breach doubble checked and looked straight down the barrel. Never felt it a threatening or aggressive action.
Click to expand...

I take it you knew the person doing the pointing. What if you didn't?
 
Goshin said:
Pointing a gun at someone is most definitely an aggressive action, and liable to get someone killed.

It can also be a negligent action, such as the time a fellow cop, showing off his new Glock 45, pointed it at me carelessly.... "Fin," says I, "point that at somebody else, why don't ya? If I get shot, I'd rather it be on purpose..."
Click to expand...


Exactly. It's inherently aggressive. Intent doesn't change that. My position is that, just because someone is too stupid to realize it is an aggressive act, it doesn't mean it isn't an aggressive act. The "intent" argument is one that allows stupidity to be in control.
 
Caine said:
I'd consider it a "dangerous" act. Not an "aggressive" one though.
Click to expand...

Kal'Stang said:
So long as the intent was just to show then nope. But I would call it stupid and I might be alarmed by such stupidity.
Click to expand...

So you both believe that stupid people should be in charge of determining what is or is not an aggressive act in the world. Even if the perosn who is being threatened by their stupidity has no idea that the real problem is that they are dealing with an idiot?
 
Mensch said:
There is no false premise. There is no fabricated differences. You have already conceded that the extreme, or what I prefer to call ideologically-driven, left does not support the 2nd Amendment, does not support military expansion (here, you might have the most diverse opinions on the far left, with anarchists staunchly opposed and militant socialists staunchly in favor), and does not support a heightened police state.

You have already conceded this fact. Let us please move forward, not backward. I am not trying to denigrate the commonalities, but in an objective socio-political analysis, they're simply irrelevant. You can't logically use Zell Miller to represent what is "left" just like it would be impossible to use <insert name here> to represent what is "right" (I have more trouble finding moderate names on the republican side as I do on the democratic side...and Zell Miller is what is known as a DINO).
Click to expand...
Sure...if by conceding you mean that we agree that you are referring only to extremists when you say 'liberals' then we should definitely move on. Im sure the liberals here that support gun ownership, police, and have actually served in the military will be comfortable with your description.
 
henrypanda said:
Following some one is illegal activity. If a police is following some on is means that's a legal because he is on duty.
Click to expand...

That's just false.
 
Tucker Case said:
I take it you knew the person doing the pointing. What if you didn't?
Click to expand...
Different story altogether, fully admit that. I guess the overall point is that pointing the weapon is not equal to the intent, if I didn't know someone pointing a gun at me then most probably it is an aggressive act. Again though it's all about the intent.
 
Pointing a gun at someone in a manner reasonably believed to be a threat is not merely an aggressive act, it is assault with a deadly weapon. Apparently Zimmerman knew that, why he did not pull or even let it be known he had a gun both times Martin approached him.

If it is true that Martin came up to Zimmerman as Zimmerman was returning to his truck, it was Martin, not Zimmerman, who was then following someone.
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
Pointing a gun at someone in a manner reasonably believed to be a threat is assault with a deadly weapon.
Click to expand...
Absolutely correct, of course if the intent is 100% to kill then it's of little comfort to the victim.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Absolutely correct, of course if the intent is 100% to kill then it's of little comfort to the victim.
Click to expand...

Makes a huge reaction potential. Same if someone pulls a knife in many ways. At the club if someone pulled a weapon - gun or knife, we (bouncers/enforcers) would go way out of our way to bust up the guy really extra bad to make a point to everyone else there. We'd carefully preserve the weapon for prints in a baggy for when the ambulance and cops arrived. Once we gave them the weapon and some witnesses confirmed the person had pulled it, the police no longer cared how much we messed that guy up as long as we didn't kill him. If it had been a woman, if one or more of us guys had first reacted, it would be up to a couple of the women to bust up that woman to avoid the issue of a man beating up a woman. A person bringing a weapon was way up the punitive actions list. Many big warning signs about that.
 
Last edited:
henrypanda said:
How can you say this ?
If you are doing you are daily activities and you are observing that some on is shadowing you and what do you think on him ?
Click to expand...

Just because you are suspicious of a person does not mean they are committing a crime.

Legal/Non-Criminal.

Illegal/Crime.
 
Tucker Case said:
Exactly. It's inherently aggressive. Intent doesn't change that. My position is that, just because someone is too stupid to realize it is an aggressive act, it doesn't mean it isn't an aggressive act. The "intent" argument is one that allows stupidity to be in control.
Click to expand...

So I was being aggressive when my wife and I followed a girl and her boyfriend who we did not know because they seemed to know which way the elevator at the parking garage was? A parking garage we had never been to?

I was being aggressive when my wife and I then after exiting the parking garage had no clue which side of it we were on and were all turned around, but we saw people wearing apparel for the minor league hockey team we had tickets to see so we followed them to the stadium?

God... Im such an aggressive asshole. :roll:

And.... its apparently stupid for anyone to tell me otherwise....
 
LaMidRighter said:
Again though it's all about the intent.
Click to expand...

Not really. You just admitted that the person's intent is only a factor when it's already known to you. When it isn't known beforehand, it becomes an aggressive act by default. If you pulled out a gun and shot a stranger who pointed a gun at you with the intent of showing you how nice the gun is (but failed to let you know this beforehand), you'd be able to claim self-defense and few would disagree with your actions, even though they didn't have any intent to shoot you.
 
Tucker Case said:
So you both believe that stupid people should be in charge of determining what is or is not an aggressive act in the world. Even if the perosn who is being threatened by their stupidity has no idea that the real problem is that they are dealing with an idiot?
Click to expand...

There is a difference between "danger" and "aggression".
 
Caine said:
So I was being aggressive when my wife and I followed a girl and her boyfriend who we did not know because they seemed to know which way the elevator at the parking garage was? A parking garage we had never been to?
Click to expand...

That's a situation where one expects others to follow them, since everyone is presumed to be headed in the same direction in a parking garage. If you followed them to their car, however, it could have been aggressive.

I was being aggressive when my wife and I then after exiting the parking garage had no clue which side of it we were on and were all turned around, but we saw people wearing apparel for the minor league hockey team we had tickets to see so we followed them to the stadium?
Click to expand...

Same situation as above. People expect others to be following them in those situations since everyone is already known to be headed the same direction.

Context is far more important than intent. You can ignore it, but that won't make you right.
 
In addition to it being their profession, a paparazzi, PI, and a police detective are all asked to perform their function by someone else, their boss/client/society, and may partly be allowed to slide from their behavior being stalking simply because doing so was not their private-personal idea.

We often can think like we have to let people slide when they are compelled to do something we don't like if we think they were acting under the direction of a "higher" authority. Then we may "go after" the higher authority.

Regardless, stalking is what makes the person being stalked uncomfortable, and stalking involves 1) stealth of process and harassing or 2) persecuting with unwanted or obsessive attention.

If someone follows another out in the open and the person being followed claims that is stalking, they have a valid point still with respect to "2)".

Thus though the police detectives in the function of their protection of society have understandably a right to do follow people, and such following may border on being stalking, providing their behavior is ethical, I would not argue against the ethicalness of it.

I would, however, argue that both a PI and a paparazzi are stalkers and are not ethically justified in their stalking.

The paparazzi behavior clearly violates both "1)" and "2)".

And the PI behavior clearly violates "1)" and can lead to a result of "2)".
 
Ontologuy said:
In addition to it being their profession, a paparazzi, PI, and a police detective are all asked to perform their function by someone else, their boss/client/society, and may partly be allowed to slide from their behavior being stalking simply because doing so was not their private-personal idea.

We often can think like we have to let people slide when they are compelled to do something we don't like if we think they were acting under the direction of a "higher" authority. Then we may "go after" the higher authority.

Regardless, stalking is what makes the person being stalked uncomfortable, and stalking involves 1) stealth of process and harassing or 2) persecuting with unwanted or obsessive attention.

If someone follows another out in the open and the person being followed claims that is stalking, they have a valid point still with respect to "2)".

Thus though the police detectives in the function of their protection of society have understandably a right to do follow people, and such following may border on being stalking, providing their behavior is ethical, I would not argue against the ethicalness of it.

I would, however, argue that both a PI and a paparazzi are stalkers and are not ethically justified in their stalking.

The paparazzi behavior clearly violates both "1)" and "2)".

And the PI behavior clearly violates "1)" and can lead to a result of "2)".
Click to expand...

Using the non-legal definition of the word, of course. Legally, they would not be considered stalkers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom