• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is physical assault justified if you're being followed?[W:263]

Is physical assault justified if you're being followed? (Public poll)


  • Total voters
    52
Is physical assault justified if you're being followed?

excuse me sir.. how do you know martin started the fight.?.. because zimmerman said so... dam i would say someone hit me first to if i was on trail for murder and no one saw what happened .. i would also say that the person told me they are going to kill me too...QUOTE]

Good point, however Z's case was supported by the fact that T's body did not show physical signs of a fight (ex gunshot wound); yet Z had multiple bruises and a broken nose. Therefore the reasonable doubt standard compelled the jury to adjudicate the case in his favor. It was a fairly technical adjudication.
 
This seems to be the lynchpin question that apparently both sides have different answers for.

While I agree that Zimmerman following Martin put him in an uncomfortable situation, an assault on Zimmerman in response to that was not justified. At all. Martin initiated violence where there was none, and thus he made himself the aggressor.

What do you think? Even if you believe it was wrong for Zimmerman to follow Martin, was it wrong for Martin to initiate violence just because he was being followed? Would it be acceptable for anyone and everyone to initiate violence for simply being followed?

Absolutely not... If you feel threatened by someone following you, call the police.

Nobody has the right to physically attack anyone.
 
No, size, age, apparent strength also can factor in.

I think there have been a few people found not-guilty who were in wheelchairs/disabled who have shot and killed someone harassing them who had not physically assaulted the disabled person. There are many factors as to what constitutes "reasonableness."
Note in my post I mentioned disparity of force. ie a 280 lb man vs a 98 lb woman.
 
How much should we protect someone's right to follow you?

It is like the old saying your freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. How much is one allowed to follow you before it becomes harrassment?

If you see a guy following some kid walking home from school do you wait until you see him grab the kid or do we just dismiss it as his legal right?

Hard questions and a very gray area.

And like I said, if you see something that worries you, call the police.
 
T ended up dead b/c he acted in the same manner as thousands of young Black men do every day. The 'think' with their fists and ****** and not with their brains. And every day some of them end up dead....almost exclusively at the hands of other young Black men. Too bad the Black community has no leaders. Even the President went on national TV and basically told young Black men to "man-up". My God when the President has to address one segment of the population like that you know things are VERY wrong and that the Black community is failing to deal with their own problem/s.
How many young Black men have been killed in Chicago alone just since the trial started?Four Children Gunned Down in Chicago During Zimmerman Trial | CNS News
 
Neither the question you ask or any answer to it are relevant to the case.

This is not a matter of individuals making free will decisions in an environment so conducive.

This is a matter of two people caught up in a dysfunctional environment of over-population and under-supply of needs that thereby creates a collective neuroticism in the population resulting in boundary violations and suspicions that are compelled upon the minds of the inhabitants.

This is a systemic problem, solely.

No amount of searching for specific idiosyncratic culpability in the matter is of any value.

We need to focus on solving the causitive systemic problem before the number of such tragic events continues an even greater ascent rate than present.

Nothing whatsoever can be gained by polarizing with scapegoats.

Both Martin and Zimmerman are tragic victims of a systemic problem, the responsibility of the solution to which lies squarely with elected and appointed officials with the authorization to do something about it.
What you are saying is there are too many people living in too small an area with too few resources/opportunities AKA "undersupply.
The problem with your argument, while basically an accurate appraisal of what things are like in every inner city in the world is this: You could bull-doze' down every inner city and move every inner city resident out to a nice town with lots of job opportunities and good schools etc etc and within five years each one of those nice little towns would have their own 'mini inner-city' to have to deal with.
I'll leave others to come to their own conclusions why this is so.
To believe otherwise is simply to continue to keep ones head up ones bum.
 
Your disconnect here implies, perhaps, that this statement was meant as a reply for someone else's post.



Again, you over-simplify, this time as a rationalization for your subsequent unjustified ad hominem.

You may find social science, and getting to the bottom of complex problems to create solutions that millions would cheer because tragedies were avoided, to be of little use in your ideology, but fortunately for the future of our people and our planet, there are those with a differing point of view.
Yes yes we all know that 'inner cities' are the rats Plexiglas box and they are too many 'residents' in the box and the resulting Black on Black endemic violence is the result. What the 'social scientists' need to understand is the vast majority of the 'residents' are in no way interested in leaving. THAT is the reality no one is willing to address. The 'hood' is where they want to be. You could move every one out of the 'hood' and tear down the rat's nests AKA 'projects' and give every man women and child twenty grand to help them find a nice peaceful prosperous place to live and within a few years they would have turned downtown Kalispell into a ghetto.
 
Grey area.

In most cases I would say it's a POOR decision, but at the same time being an "understandable" or "justifiable" one.
 
What you are saying is there are too many people living in too small an area with too few resources/opportunities AKA "undersupply.
The problem with your argument, while basically an accurate appraisal of what things are like in every inner city in the world is this: You could bull-doze' down every inner city and move every inner city resident out to a nice town with lots of job opportunities and good schools etc etc and within five years each one of those nice little towns would have their own 'mini inner-city' to have to deal with.
I'll leave others to come to their own conclusions why this is so.
To believe otherwise is simply to continue to keep ones head up ones bum.

Yes yes we all know that 'inner cities' are the rats Plexiglas box and they are too many 'residents' in the box and the resulting Black on Black endemic violence is the result. What the 'social scientists' need to understand is the vast majority of the 'residents' are in no way interested in leaving. THAT is the reality no one is willing to address. The 'hood' is where they want to be. You could move every one out of the 'hood' and tear down the rat's nests AKA 'projects' and give every man women and child twenty grand to help them find a nice peaceful prosperous place to live and within a few years they would have turned downtown Kalispell into a ghetto.
Under-supply of needs is addressed by bringing out- and in- sourced American jobs back to Americans.

But over-population is not solved by merely spreading everyone out, though that does tend to reduce the population change rate and the quantity of tragic crime.

Over-population is solved by reducing the population change rate to a negative value, and then, over time, a few generations or so, production and supply for consumption balances.

People do not "want" to be in the "hood" where there is neuroticism, boundary violations, suspicions, and many tragic crimes -- they have simply come to cope with it in typical "first we hated and rejected it, then, when it didn't go away, we were compelled to tolerate it, and, after a time, as it became like a culture, part of life, we simply accepted it, and, eventually, sad to say, many of us have coped to the degree that we've embraced it, we've embraced something that is so unhealthy and damaging for us".

There are instrinsic healthy norms of human living-space.

Too little space, or too much space, and neuroticism develops, complete with attendant tragedies.
 
This seems to be the lynchpin question that apparently both sides have different answers for.

While I agree that Zimmerman following Martin put him in an uncomfortable situation, an assault on Zimmerman in response to that was not justified. At all. Martin initiated violence where there was none, and thus he made himself the aggressor.

What do you think? Even if you believe it was wrong for Zimmerman to follow Martin, was it wrong for Martin to initiate violence just because he was being followed? Would it be acceptable for anyone and everyone to initiate violence for simply being followed?
Nope, and neither were the perscription meds in Martin's systom which made him prone to violent outbursts.
 
Nope, and neither were the perscription meds in Martin's systom which made him prone to violent outbursts.

Martin didn't take any prescription meds.
 
How much should we protect someone's right to follow you?

It is like the old saying your freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. How much is one allowed to follow you before it becomes harrassment?

If you see a guy following some kid walking home from school do you wait until you see him grab the kid or do we just dismiss it as his legal right?
Hard questions and a very gray area.

You have the freedom to get out of your car and follow the guy to make sure the kid gets to his destination safely. However, if the guy turns around attacks you and you pull your gun and shoot him as he is straddling you and beating you MMA style, don't complain when people tell you that you should have minded your own business. They will probably also call you a "wannabe cop."
 
Martin didn't take any prescription meds.
That's right, my bad, FL isn't a medical Marijuana state. Martin's drugs were straight-up illegal. I stand corrected.
 
If following someone else was enough reason to physical attack them, there'd be a lot more police officers getting attacked by civilians.
 
This seems to be the lynchpin question that apparently both sides have different answers for.

While I agree that Zimmerman following Martin put him in an uncomfortable situation, an assault on Zimmerman in response to that was not justified. At all. Martin initiated violence where there was none, and thus he made himself the aggressor.

What do you think? Even if you believe it was wrong for Zimmerman to follow Martin, was it wrong for Martin to initiate violence just because he was being followed? Would it be acceptable for anyone and everyone to initiate violence for simply being followed?


Yes it was wrong, in the hypothetical, for Martin to initiate violence.

I take issue with your question, however, because one can not say with certainty that he did. The only evidence we have is that he won a fight. We do not know how that fight started. I, for one, do not take the word of a man who incorrectly profiled and stalked an unarmed teenager, who nobody is disputing was just on his way home from the store. A man who had months to prepare his defence and was facing a long jail term.

I say again: I think the critical mistake made in the decision was the assumption that Trayvon Martin started the fight, or started it with no provocation other than being followed. I think it is very reasonable to assume that if the dead could testify, we would hear a different version of the incorrect assumption that Martin was the aggressor in the fight.

Winning a fight is not tantamount to starting a fight. I believe the judge made an error in law when the jury was instructed not to consider the events that lead up to the fight as justification for the melee.

Admitted profiling (I didn't see hear enough evidence for me to be convinced that he was in the act of a burglary) is not sufficient reason to infringe on a persons civil right to move about freely. Again: his defence was never that he 'just happened to follow him', it was that he intentionally and incorrectly followed him.
 
Yes it was wrong, in the hypothetical, for Martin to initiate violence.

I take issue with your question, however, because one can not say with certainty that he did. The only evidence we have is that he won a fight. We do not know how that fight started. I, for one, do not take the word of a man who incorrectly profiled and stalked an unarmed teenager, who nobody is disputing was just on his way home from the store. A man who had months to prepare his defence and was facing a long jail term.

I say again: I think the critical mistake made in the decision was the assumption that Trayvon Martin started the fight, or started it with no provocation other than being followed. I think it is very reasonable to assume that if the dead could testify, we would hear a different version of the incorrect assumption that Martin was the aggressor in the fight.

Winning a fight is not tantamount to starting a fight. I believe the judge made an error in law when the jury was instructed not to consider the events that lead up to the fight as justification for the melee.

Admitted profiling (I didn't see hear enough evidence for me to be convinced that he was in the act of a burglary) is not sufficient reason to infringe on a persons civil right to move about freely. Again: his defence was never that he 'just happened to follow him', it was that he intentionally and incorrectly followed him.

There was no profiling. Martin had bruises on his knuckles but was otherwise unmarked except for the gunshot wound. Zimmerman had numerous cuts and bruises on his face and head. Martin was the aggressor.:peace
 
Unless you are in your own home or cannot physically avoid the situation, you have a duty to retreat. If and only if the pursuer continues to chase you and you physically cannot get away, or starts shooting at you, you have the right to defend yourself with force.
 
There was no profiling. Martin had bruises on his knuckles but was otherwise unmarked except for the gunshot wound. Zimmerman had numerous cuts and bruises on his face and head. Martin was the aggressor.:peace

We don't have any way of knowing what happened before Trayvon ended up on top of Zimmerman. Winning a fight doesn't mean you started it. Being a bad fighter doesn't mean you didn't.

He had to have profiled Trayvon, or he wouldn't have followed him. It is very clear that Zimmerman incorrectly assumed that he was in pursuit of a criminal.
 
We don't have any way of knowing what happened before Trayvon ended up on top of Zimmerman. Winning a fight doesn't mean you started it. Being a bad fighter doesn't mean you didn't.

He had to have profiled Trayvon, or he wouldn't have followed him. It is very clear that Zimmerman incorrectly assumed that he was in pursuit of a criminal.

Neighborhood watch . . . watches. That's not profiling. There's no evidence that GZ fought at all. There's only evidence that he was attacked.:peace
 
Neighborhood watch . . . watches. That's not profiling. There's no evidence that GZ fought at all. There's only evidence that he was attacked.:peace

Yeah, watch...don't profile and follow. You don't get any special rights above an ordinary citizen.

Evidence he got his ass kicked, no evidence of anything else. You have to assume that he didn't start it, because he's a crappy fighter. Assumptions aren't evidence. You're taking the word of a guy who was following an innocent kid, and was facing jail time for killing him.
 
This seems to be the lynchpin question that apparently both sides have different answers for.

While I agree that Zimmerman following Martin put him in an uncomfortable situation, an assault on Zimmerman in response to that was not justified. At all. Martin initiated violence where there was none, and thus he made himself the aggressor.

What do you think? Even if you believe it was wrong for Zimmerman to follow Martin, was it wrong for Martin to initiate violence just because he was being followed? Would it be acceptable for anyone and everyone to initiate violence for simply being followed?

Not in my opinion. If I was being followed, I would have called 9-1-1 and kept moving, probably head towards a populated area, a store, or the police department, which was closer.
 
You're taking the word of a guy who was following an innocent kid, and was facing jail time for killing him.

There's nothing wrong with checking out a stranger in ones community.
 
There's nothing wrong with checking out a stranger in ones community.

It's not against the law. I just can't understand why the two of them couldn't communicate like human beings instead of fighting like they did.
 
It's not against the law. I just can't understand why the two of them couldn't communicate like human beings instead of fighting like they did.

The only thing I can figure is that M thought someone was after him for some reason and Rachael egged it on. That's more likely than Z starting the fight, given evidence.
 
The only thing I can figure is that M thought someone was after him for some reason and Rachael egged it on. That's more likely than Z starting the fight, given evidence.

That sounds reasonable. Her and her "creepy ass cracker" comments probably started freaking him out.
 
Back
Top Bottom