• 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
I agree, which is why what happened after Martin fled is so important. If Z pursued him, M reacting violently is not unreasonable due to simple fight or flight instincts. When flight is taken away as an option, the fearful only have the fight option. Z pursuing Martin would have taken away his ability to engage in a flight response.

But if it was just an exchange of words that turned violent, it comes down to both people making egregious mistakes.
I still have a problem with the 911 operator asking him to back off BUT report on the situation. That kind of bugs me from a standpoint that if I were Zimmerman I would think "well, how can I do both? I have to have eyes on him to report the situation." but if Zimmerman took it upon himself to confront Martin then it changes things drastically.
 
Not if there have been documented reports of burglary and other crimes which from what I understand is the case. Every stranger is a suspect when your area has been victimized, and sometimes your neighbors are "strangers" then too.

Were all the burglaries committed by black males?
 
I still have a problem with the 911 operator asking him to back off BUT report on the situation. That kind of bugs me from a standpoint that if I were Zimmerman I would think "well, how can I do both? I have to have eyes on him to report the situation." but if Zimmerman took it upon himself to confront Martin then it changes things drastically.

One of my sons is in NW in his neighborhood in Charlotte.. He think GZ is a raving nutter.

They don't do "patrols".. or chase people.. They observe and report. SOP.
 
Were all the burglaries committed by black males?
Doesn't matter. Zimmerman was watching a stranger to the neighborhood, I'm pretty sure the guy wasn't thinking about the race at the time. There were two versions of the audio of the call and the unedited one shows that the only time Z spoke of the possible race was when asked, and then when asked specifically if he could determine that he said "he looks to be black" if he wasn't giving a positive like "yeah, he's black" I believe race was the last thing he looked at. That being said, I don't care who the person in my neighborhood is or what they look like, I'm making sure they aren't casing anyone's property, of course this comes down to when I notice anything because there is no NW on this block.
 
One of my sons is in NW in his neighborhood in Charlotte.. He think GZ is a raving nutter.

They don't do "patrols".. or chase people.. They observe and report. SOP.
Well, GZ may be a raving nutter. He may have a hero complex, but even then that doesn't make what he did illegal but I will grant if he stepped beyond self defense that would be. Following the kid though was not relevant to the charges IMO.
 
Why do you think that matters?

Do you think all facts are relvent to all discussions? Did you know Aardvarks are the last species of the order Tubulidentata? That's a fact, and by your logic, it's also relevant.
Because it speaks to intent.

As such, it may be demonstrated that aggression may indeed be unlawful.

We've covered this.
 
Well, GZ may be a raving nutter. He may have a hero complex, but even then that doesn't make what he did illegal but I will grant if he stepped beyond self defense that would be. Following the kid though was not relevant to the charges IMO.

Actually it does.. It goes to reckless disregard.

So everything GZ did was legal, yet he failed to meet the standard of what a reasonable man would do "under the circumstances".

That is the language of various degrees of manslaughter and reckless homicide.

That is compounded because he was armed and Trayvon wasn't doing anything unlawful.
 
Actually it does.. It goes to reckless disregard.
Nope. Reckless disreguard would show that he had no regard for the consequences of his actions, he was trying to comply with the orders of the 911 operator. The charge doesn't fit.

So everything GZ did was legal, yet he failed to meet the standard of what a reasonable man would do "under the circumstances".

That is the language of various degrees of manslaughter and reckless homicide.

That is compounded because he was armed and Trayvon wasn't doing anything unlawful.
There was a communication lag. Based on what the police have released, no one can make affirmative charges, period.
 
no, he was pursuing him.

watching is passive....following is not.
Pursuing, following, whichever way you want to call it the 911 operator asked him to report......kind of hard to do that when you lose sight of the person.
 
Nope. Reckless disreguard would show that he had no regard for the consequences of his actions, he was trying to comply with the orders of the 911 operator. The charge doesn't fit.

There was a communication lag. Based on what the police have released, no one can make affirmative charges, period.

Zimmerman will have to assert self defense which means he will have to take the stand.. and the prosecution will rip him apart on cross.

The 911 dispatcher should have been more specific.. Don't follow, just keep your eyes open.

The problem here is that GZ identified himself as Neighborhood Watch.. which means he had been instructed in NO uncertain terms that they were to observe and report NOT follow.

The liaison officer who met with GZ's NW group.. said it couldn't be more clear.. They also had a slide presentation.
 
Zimmerman will have to assert self defense which means he will have to take the stand.. and the prosecution will rip him apart on cross.

The 911 dispatcher should have been more specific.. Don't follow, just keep your eyes open.

The problem here is that GZ identified himself as Neighborhood Watch.. which means he had been instructed in NO uncertain terms that they were to observe and report NOT follow.

The liaison officer who met with GZ's NW group.. said it couldn't be more clear.. They also had a slide presentation.
You've already made up your mind, don't know that there's anything else to discuss here.
 
So are you trying to say that in order to be an aggressive act, it must be unlawful?
Not of necessity. As I've previously mentioned, self defence may easily entail aggression, yet comprise extenuating circumstances. Indeed, self defence may be a legal defence in itself.

My point is that, aggression alone needn't vitiate nor validate an action in legal terms. Because the act itself is but one half of the equation. The mens rea/intent is what's decisive. Which brings us right back to my original post.
 
As for the suggestion that aggression can't necessarily be implicated, where one might reasonably expect such behaviour, we should recognise how being followed by someone in a car, before the occupant of said vehicle then disembarks to follow on foot, is hardly a reasonable expectation.

I would expect that the majority of people in such a situation, would experience the gravest pf misgivings, upon being confronted with such behaviour. For myself, it would certainly give me pause for thought. Pedestrian setting or no.
 
Not of necessity. As I've previously mentioned, self defence may easily entail aggression, yet comprise extenuating circumstances. Indeed, self defence may be a legal defence in itself.

My point is that, aggression alone needn't vitiate nor validate an action in legal terms. Because the act itself is but one half of the equation. The mens rea/intent is what's decisive. Which brings us right back to my original post.


So basically your original post was off topic, which brings us right back to my first question/response.
 
So basically your original post was off topic, which brings us right back to my first question/response.
Translation: You have now come to the realisation that there was nothing to dispute.

Let the backtracking begin in earnest.

We might draw an analogy with legality, whereby a crime constitutes both an act and an intention.

The actus reus and mens rea, respectively.

Nope. Same position.
 
Translation: You have now come to the realisation that there was nothing to dispute.

Let the backtracking begin in earnest.



Nope. Same position.

Let's do that:

What's the point of discussing legality in this thread? Aggressive =/= illegal.

Hey, what a coincidence! It's same position!
 
Let's do that:



Hey, what a coincidence! It's same position!
And?

I've explained just how legality is relevant. Despite the lengths you've gone to, you cannot refute it's relevance.

That, my friend, is called being pwned. :prof
 
I've explained just how legality is relevant.

No you didn't. Legality has absolutely no bearing at all on whether or not following someone is aggressive. Aggressive behavior can be, and often is, quite legal.
 
No you didn't. Legality has absolutely no bearing at all on whether or not following someone is aggressive. Aggressive behavior can be, and often is, quite legal.
As I myself was forced to point out to you, remember? And yes, the legality is evident. As I've said previously, I won't rephrase a thing, until such time as you deem that it passes muster. Or, as you do here, attempt to pass off my original position as your own.

I see how it is with you.

Btw, don't become another Thunder. There's little point in omitting my comments, if your fans can read them for themselves.
 
As I myself was forced to point out to you, remember?

Considering that I made that point in this thread well before you even posted in it, it's really quite delusional of you to assume you made pointed it out to me. Exceptionally delusional.

And yes, the legality is evident. As I've said previously, I won't rephrase a thing, until such time as you deem that it passes muster. Or, as you do here, attempt to pass off my original position as your own.

Your original position was to say that we can draw an analogy to legality. I have never tried to pass that irrelevancy off as my own, nor would I ever do such a thing because it would be stupid to try and take credit for such a position.

Btw, don't become another Thunder. There's little point in omitting my comments, if your fans can read them for themselves.

I know that people can read them. That's why I only quote that which I am responding to.

The point of doing it so that you know exactly what it is I am responding to in your post to avoid confusion. Unlike you, I truly don't give a **** about what others observing our conversation think of it.

The fact that you have become so obsessed with the imaginary belief that I care about what viewers think, to such an extreme degree that you are constantly bringing it up belies how insecure you are about what others may think of you. If people like what I say, so be it. If they don't, so be it. I'm not the one who is obsessing over the perception of others.
 
Back
Top Bottom