• 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
lpast said:
Ive read this entire post twice and I agree with it....one point I would like to stress...Zimmerman being told to back off and WAIT for the police to arrive by the dispatcher before the shooting took place in my mind makes him culpable to a degree...if he had obeyed the dispatcher and backed off martin the shooting may very well have never had to occur....So far I have not read nor seen any reason that zimmerman was forced to have physical contact with martin after the warning by the dispatcher.
Click to expand...

I completely agree.

Although I personally think murder 2 is too strong of a charge. I think a voluntary manslaughter charge based on imperfect self-defense is appropriate.
 
Tucker Case said:
I completely agree.

Although I personally think murder 2 is too strong of a charge. I think a voluntary manslaughter charge based on imperfect self-defense is appropriate.
Click to expand...

I dont think he will get convicted of 2nd degree...as to what he should be charged with Ill hold my opinion until the trial brings out ALL the facts and nuances that none of us can know.

Id like to say I dont view this as a black and white issue...I dont consider the color of individuals in my personal determinging of right and wrong or guilt or innocense...I view it strictly from a law enforcement viewpoint....
 
voluntary manslaughter charge based on imperfect self-defense is appropriate.
Click to expand...


Manslaughter for "imperfect self-defense" ?

hahahaha







Forcible felony = *bang*

End of story
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
Manslaughter for "imperfect self-defense" ?

hahahaha


Forcible felony = *bang*

End of story
Click to expand...

Imperfect self-defense is a legal term for situations like this. Cases where a person incorrectly assumes they have a right to self-defense. This is usually applied in cases where either the defendant is actually the initiator of the confrontation by performing some form of threatening act or the defendant is mistaken to believe that their life is being threatened (shooting a person that someone thinks is a mugger when they actually are not a mugger).
 
Tucker Case said:
Imperfect self-defense is a legal term for situations like this. Cases where a person incorrectly assumes they have a right to self-defense. This is usually applied in cases where either the defendant is actually the initiator of the confrontation by performing some form of threatening act or the defendant is mistaken to believe that their life is being threatened (shooting a person that someone thinks is a mugger when they
actually are not a mugger).
Click to expand...

Belief of intent which can be a legitimate defense
 
Tucker Case said:
Imperfect self-defense is a legal term for situations like this. Cases where a person incorrectly assumes they have a right to self-defense. This is usually applied in cases where either the defendant is actually the initiator of the confrontation by performing some form of threatening act or the defendant is mistaken to believe that their life is being threatened (shooting a person that someone thinks is a mugger when they actually are not a mugger).
Click to expand...

http://www.3dca.flcourts.org/opinions/3D06-0468.pdf
Click to expand...

Florida law doesn't recognize imperfect self-defense.
 
Florida Statutes

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
 
joko104 said:
and juvenile deliquent punk.
Click to expand...

People don't have a neon sign floating over their heads with their juvenile record on it.

Dion said:
An adult following an unarmed minor
Click to expand...

Similarly, people don't have a neon sign floating over their heads with their age recorded on it.

One question for some of the more legal minded in this thread. I know in some places you can go from being the person being attacked to actually being the aggressor, depending on the situation. Does Florida's "Stand your ground" law essentially negate that notion?
 
Zyphlin said:
One question for some of the more legal minded in this thread. I know in some places you can go from being the person being attacked to actually being the aggressor, depending on the situation. Does Florida's "Stand your ground" law essentially negate that notion?
Click to expand...

From what I have read, SYG doesn't negate that possibility. The switch from attackee to aggressor appears to come when the threat to person is already clearly negated, yet the attackee continues to "defend" themselves.

For example, if I get punched in the face by someone and I defend myself by punching them back and my punch knocks said person unconscious, I would become the aggressor if I continued to pummel their unconscious body or pulled out a gun and shot them. Once they are no longer conscious, the threat to my person is gone.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
People don't have a neon sign floating over their heads with their juvenile record on it.



Similarly, people don't have a neon sign floating over their heads with their age recorded on it.

One question for some of the more legal minded in this thread. I know in some places you can go from being the person being attacked to actually being the aggressor, depending on the situation. Does Florida's "Stand your ground" law essentially negate that notion?
Click to expand...


Zimmerman told the 911 dispatcher that Trayvlon was a TEEN

As for SYG.. Evidently police chiefs hate it.

'A recipe for disaster'

To understand why these laws are insane, I'll yield the floor to John Timoney, the former Philadelphia police commissioner and former Miami police chief, who addressed it last week in a New York Times guest column.

Cops and prosecutors hate Stand Your Ground; that fact alone should give pause to anyone who might be tempted to jerk his knee for the NRA.

Here's Timoney: "Trying to control shootings by members of a well-trained and disciplined police department is a daunting enough task.

Laws like 'stand your ground' give citizens unfettered power and discretion with no accountability. It is a recipe for disaster."

Timoney, as Miami chief, lobbied against the Florida law prior to passage. As he wrote last week, "I pointed out at the time that even a police officer is held to account for every single bullet he or she discharges.

So why should a private citizen be given more rights when it came to using deadly physical force?...The only thing that is worse than a bad law is an unnecessary law."
 
Tucker Case said:
From what I have read, SYG doesn't negate that possibility. The switch from attackee to aggressor appears to come when the threat to person is already clearly negated, yet the attackee continues to "defend" themselves.

For example, if I get punched in the face by someone and I defend myself by punching them back and my punch knocks said person unconscious, I would become the aggressor if I continued to pummel their unconscious body or pulled out a gun and shot them. Once they are no longer conscious, the threat to my person is gone.
Click to expand...
That's pretty much the way it works in Louisiana, I may end aggression but go no further than any reasonable person would to defend their person or the person of a third party. If I have incapacitated an attacker, i.e. broken limbs, unconsciousness, stunned beyond ability to defend, or if the attacker tries to run away then I am the aggressor if I continue further and it would be possible for both parties at that time to face charges. As well, the rule of thumb here is that the minute an ambulance ride is necessary the charges are upgraded.
 
sharon said:
Zimmerman told the 911 dispatcher that Trayvlon was a TEEN
Click to expand...

He also apparently thought the guy looked criminally suspicious as well, he also indicated he was unsure of the whole "unarmed" part. My point is that while a person can make assumptions and guesses about an individuals age, criminal record, armerment, etc...they're just that, assumptions and guesses, unless they have a means of absolutely knowing it. So attempting to use absolute knowledge as a means of clearing him, in the case of joko, or condemning him, in the case of Dion, is a bit off base
 
Zyphlin said:
He also apparently thought the guy looked criminally suspicious as well, he also indicated he was unsure of the whole "unarmed" part. My point is that while a person can make assumptions and guesses about an individuals age, criminal record, armerment, etc...they're just that, assumptions and guesses, unless they have a means of absolutely knowing it. So attempting to use absolute knowledge as a means of clearing him, in the case of joko, or condemning him, in the case of Dion, is a bit off base
Click to expand...
These days it's prudent to assume a person is armed until they prove otherwise, I have seen people arrested for threatening to use a weapon in a bar, or using a weapon in a bar fight too many times to ever assume a bare knuckle fight is a given. As well, not condemning the "hoody" look but loose, baggy clothing is used by many people who legally and illegally conceal weapons so it isn't that much of a stretch to be concerned about an unknown person in an area late possibly carrying.
 
Zyphlin said:
He also apparently thought the guy looked criminally suspicious as well, he also indicated he was unsure of the whole "unarmed" part. My point is that while a person can make assumptions and guesses about an individuals age, criminal record, armerment, etc...they're just that, assumptions and guesses, unless they have a means of absolutely knowing it. So attempting to use absolute knowledge as a means of clearing him, in the case of joko, or condemning him, in the case of Dion, is a bit off base
Click to expand...

The fight on the ground only last 20-40 seconds before the gunshot was heard. Either GZ already had his gun out of the holster or he was trying to get it out of his holster.

From the time GZ called 911 (7:09 PM) to the first officer on the scene (7:17 PM)
 
Since this is obviously about what it is about - YES - following someone can indeed be an agressive act. It has been known to get people killed.
 
sharon said:
The fight on the ground only last 20-40 seconds before the gunshot was heard. Either GZ already had his gun out of the holster or he was trying to get it out of his holster.

From the time GZ called 911 (7:09 PM) to the first officer on the scene (7:17 PM)
Click to expand...
It doesn't take long to unholster a gun, even under duress if you are somewhat capable. It also doesn't take long to get injured in a ground fight, I've seen people end up in the hospital in less than 5 seconds.
 
And I'm still not sure how whether or not GZ had his gun out has any relevance to the notion that he did not know for sure that MARTIN was an "unarmed minor"
 
LaMidRighter said:
It doesn't take long to unholster a gun, even under duress if you are somewhat capable. It also doesn't take long to get injured in a ground fight, I've seen people end up in the hospital in less than 5 seconds.
Click to expand...

If YOU were in a fist fight would you try to stop your opponent from pulling a gun or try to wrest it from him?
 
sharon said:
If YOU were in a fist fight would you try to stop your opponent from pulling a gun or try to wrest it from him?
Click to expand...
First off, you don't know how things went down and neither do I, that's why we have courts.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Yes - people such as that have already assumed innocence or guilt.
Click to expand...
That's the point, I am not on the jury and will not be. I wasn't at the incident and wasn't charged with determining what happened or what charges to file. As a news consumer and a gun rights advocate it concerns me that both parties seem to have made very poor choices which ended in a tragic death and possibly the survivors life being ruined(probably actually) but all of this is based off of the information at hand which seems to be contradictory dependent on the source. I have zero clue as to who the guilty party is so I try to stay away from the issue.
 
LOL all these off topic debates, does any of this change the fact that following someone COULD be aggressive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom