So, I Have The Right To Stalk Someone and If They Fight Back, I Can Kill Them, Claiming Self Defense

[Yavin4]

Is that what some DUers here are arguing?

Do I have that right?

[dkf]

1. If they attack you first and you are in fear of your life as your face gets pounded then maybe so.

[vaberella]

9. Huh...maybe I should have stayed in my car since I told the dispatcher the man looked suspicous.

and on drugs. Then I wouldn't have my face being pounded and I wouldn't have had to kill him.

[ScreamingMeemie]

12. +1

[randome]

26. Unfortunately, it's not illegal to disobey a dispatcher.

At the very least, Zimmerman should get manslaughter. There are no laws against being an ass unless you cause someone's death or injury. Which is what Zimmerman did.

[vaberella]

57. I'm not talking about disobeying a dispatcher. I'm talking about finding the kid a threat.

But still persuing the threat. If I am threatened. I don't persue.

[noiretextatique]

73. he was not threatened

he was emboldened enough to get out of his car. then the coward claimed he was "afraid." his story is complete bullshit.

[randome]

82. I completely agree.

But you know what the narrative will be at trial? That he didn't feel threatened until he and Martin began mixing it up.

I want to see Zimmerman in jail like most people. I want to see Florida's SYG law tossed in the trash where it belongs. But there are too many avenues that a good defense attorney can take to expect this to end in anything but, at most, manslaughter.

[noiretextatique]

85. i pray for a good, aggressive prosecutor

who will bring up zimmerman's history of targeting black males. even if he didn't feel threatened until he confronted Martin, he had the option of staying in the car. and frankly, i think reasonable people will see through his claim. let's hope there are some reasonable people on the jury.

[randome]

93. Bringing up his past should help the FBI if they want to pursue this as a hate crime.

Which it sounds like they are considering.

[noiretextatique]

16. "fear for your life" = scary black man

code language that murderers routinely use to get away with murder. from cops to cop wannabees, these folks know exactly what to say to get a portion of americans to support them. " i was afraid" is bullshit. if he was so scared, he would have kept his ass in the car. once he got out of that car, his "fear" claims = a big, fat, racist LIE.

[PotatoChip]

22. Yes. That's pretty much what it all boils down to -imo (nt)

[StarryNight]

165. how many men, black or otherwise, do you let beat on you before you fight back?

hey, if you want to wait until you're "sure" he's gonna kill you before you do anything, that's your choice. of course it may be too late then....

[noiretextatique]

187. if he had stayed in the car

as he should have done since he was so afraid, he wouldn't have been in an alleged fight that supposedly made him fear for his life.

[uponit7771]

20. If you chase someone down you become the agressor in a sane state

[Blue_Roses]

33. Bullshit

Trayvon's girlfriend will be a powerful witness. She was talking to him when the phone went dead. Before it went dead, she said he told her someone was following him. She then heard shoving and rustling. Then the phone went dead. I have no doubt Zimmerman shoved him and put this whole thing in motion and I'm sure a jury will have no doubt once ALL the evidence comes to light.

[amandabeech]

170. The girlfriend's testimony about what Trayvon said is second-hand and may be excluded

under the hearsay rule, unless exceptions apply.

For example, his final comments may be found to be "excited utterances" and thus allowable at trial, but much of T's conversation may be out.

The girl can testify about what she said, and her impressions, but T's words cannot be put into evidence by the girl as facts.

[riverwalker]

50. "face gets pounded"?

please. That is not a "face pounding", trust me. At most maybe one punch. Manly macho man Zimmerman killed an innocent person, because he couldn't take one punch from a skinny scared kid. In fact. that one punch scared the bejeezus out of him, so he used his gun.
Most cowards are also domestic abusers, and their tune will dramatically change if suddenly women are allowed to shoot and kill any man who slaps them "as self defense".

[noiretextatique]

76. zimmerman apologists

are fond of using colorful language to blame Martin for his murder. if only...
he had been polite
he had not "attacked" zimmerman


the only thing that would have saved Martin is if zimmerman had not been on the street that night.

[Yavin4]

56. In your world, a rapist can stalk and attack someone

kill the victim in the process, and then claim self-defense because they "feared for their life".

Is that right?

[noiretextatique]

68. YES...especially if the rapist is white

and the victim is not. because you know how aggressive those non-white people are

[kestrel91316]

86. You again. Taking up for another RW freak.

Color me surprised.

I sure hope the mods eventually catch on.

[CatWoman]

102. it does get tiresome, doesn't it?

[HughBeaumont]

132. I and many, MANY others have tried alert after alert.

This one's bulletproof, for some weird reason. Not at all Democratic, let alone progressive. Sad.

[JustAnotherGen]

2. I want to know the answer to this question too!

[slackmaster]

3. No, that's not how it works.

[ScreamingMeemie]

4. Apparently so. Even if you have been told that the police don't need you to stalk

the person. Hey, they had it coming.

[True Earthling]

5. Where is the evidence that Zimmerman attacked Trayvon

prior to shooting him? Stalking is not attacking.

[noiretextatique]

14. stalking is illegal in some places

but apparently perfectly okay for whites and white latinos in florida.

[stevenleser]

75. It's illegal in all 50 states and in the Military's UCMJ.

FYI

[amandabeech]

171. In Fla, "stalking" requires repeated actions. SEe. Fla. crim law. 784.048 (2) (3). nt.

[kestrel91316]

87. Ok, fess up. You're Zimmerman's dad, right?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

113. OK, fess up. You are Martin's 1st cousin twice removed right?

Come on Kestrel...you can do better than name calling. Your posts are normally much much better than that.

There is still a lot we don't know and may never know. Its pretty clear that Zimmerman started things and in the end Martin was killed. What happened in between has considerable fuzz on it, at least from what has been released publicly. Those details have tremendous legal importance. If Martin physically attacked Zimmerman is quite different than if Zimmerman gunned him down.

I still see something along a manslaughter charge out of this. Moreover even though I am a RKBA and CCW supporter here on DU, I strongly believe this was an uncalled for shooting. Zimmerman should have kept the situation under control. Regardless of who threw the first punch, he should have never allowed it to escalate.

[Romulox]

6. You ABSOLUTELY can approach anyone in your neighborhood and ask them questions.

I have no idea where this idea that the very act of human contact can be met with physical violence comes from...

It has no bearing in reality.

[noiretextatique]

11. sure...and if the suspicious person kicks your ass

you can claim you were "afraid" and pull out the loaded weapon you just happen to be carrying and kill him. white people can do that in america.

[StarryNight]

34. if you attack someone who has not put their hands on you first,

you take what you get and like it.

[noiretextatique]

37. any evidence that Martin attacked first?

except from zimmerman's account? no. and even if Martin did punch him, do you believe he "feared for his life" and had no choice but to shoot? losing a fight you started is not an excuse to pull a gun and shoot.

[StarryNight]

163. didn't say that. we don't know who touched who first. and neither you nor I know

what someone is going to do once they start a physical altercation. that's why it's a very dangerous thing to do. violence isn't a game; it's a slippery slope that all too often ends up with somebody dead. just can't believe the number of people here justifying violence if somebody asks the wrong questions or seems suspicious of you. by that logic, anyone would be justified in throwing the first punch.

[obamanut2012]

134. No one has a right to creep a stranger

No one has a right to follow and confront a stranger, unless they are a LEO.

Trayvon Martin was Standing His Ground.

[StarryNight]

164. well, if they don't have a right to do that, then they sure don't have a right to attack someone

who has not used or credibly threatened violence against them. again, we don't know who first touched who, but i have no problem putting the blame on that person, be it Martin or Zimmerman. Maybe Trayvon was following your advice, though.

[Mariana]

41. Sure, and if they run away from you,

you can take off after them and try to chase them down. Then, f you catch up with them/you cut them off/they stop running because they don't want you to know where they live, you shouldn't expect to be met with violence. Heavens, no.

Please.

[Romulox]

80. Lots of "ifs" there. I'm not here to defend Zimmerman, just to get basic premises correct. nt

[Mariana]

104. Not too many "ifs".

We know from the 911 tapes that Zimmerman pursued Martin, first in his car, then on foot. That is threatening behavior. Kids are (correctly) taught to regard strangers who follow them and/or chase them as dangerous. We also know that Zimmerman was agitated, babbling on about "fucking coons/punks" and "these assholes, they always get away".

Certainly, Zimmerman had the right to approach Martin and ask questions, but that isn't what happened.

[obamanut2012]

131. No, you can't

I had a man arrested for obviously following me on a city street. You aren't allowed to do that, so matter how many DUers say you can.

[Blue_Tires]

138. I get the feeling that Zimmerman wasn't exactly looking like a Mr. Rogers type that night

and as for the "approach", well I guess it's all in the manner of how it's conducted, right??

Zimmerman took Martin as a criminal and approached him as a threat...

[Logical]

148. And I can tell you to FUCK OFF also. So what??

[vaberella]

7. Isn't great?! That's what Florida grants you and DUers support it. n/t

[noiretextatique]

8. only if you are white or a white latino...close enough

into tap into the deep-seated fear of black men. then you can stalk and murder and claim self-defense, and have the support of a good chunk of the white population, regardless of political affiliation.

[obamanut2012]

135. +1

[bowens43]

10. apparently there are DUers who beleive

stalking and murder are fine and dandy. I am just sickened by the support I see for this murderer.

this in conjunction with the unlimited support lavished on the gun/death merchants by so many here have made DU a very different place from the early days.

[randome]

29. I think of a lot of what you're interpreting as 'support'...

...is just DUers trying to come to grips with the reality.

[kestrel91316]

89. Well, GZ has at least two who show up on every thread

vigorously defending him and slandering Trayvon.

My theory of the whole thing? GZ grabbed Trayvon to demand he identify and explain himself, and Trayvon made a move to protect himself or get GZ to let go, and that's when GZ attacked him in earnest and then shot him.

[randome]

95. That's how it sounds to me, too.

Hopefully, a jury will see it that way.

[Hugabear]

120. There has always been a segment on DU that supports the gun/death merchants

Most of the time, it's confined to the gun forum. If you want to see some callous disregard for human life, take a scroll through there sometime.

[smokey nj]

13. Pretty much.

Apparently the only people who are allowed to defend themselves are gun-toting, superhero wannabes whose racism leads them to believe that every young, black man they see is up to no good.

[StarryNight]

39. seriously, what was Martin "defending himself" against? someone asking him

unwanted questions? obviously, we don't know what happened, but the person who first turned to violence is to blame. sadly, a lot of people here can not even agree with that.

[smokey nj]

48. Um, George Zimmerman. You know the man who'd been following him.

[StarryNight]

167. why do you need to "defend" against following? you just keep walking. especially if you are a

healthy young man a few blocks or less from your home. now, if zimmerman followed martin on multiple occaisions with no good reason and/or threatened violence against him, it would be another story.

[Dragonfli]

53. He was defending himself (a child) from a creepy stalker that may or may not have been a sexual

predator.

What is a kid supposed to think about an older, very unfriendly guy stalking him and chasing him down?
Is the child to assume for some reason he was there to give him candy and a ride the rest of the way home?

[kestrel91316]

90. FAIL. A single punch doesn't justify a shooting, particularly if

you think you are hitting someone who is stalking you.

Trayvon had EVERY RIGHT TO STAND HIS GROUND AND PROTECT HIMSELF.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

99. So you think it is find to physically attack someone you believe they are following you?

What kind of verbal provocation should be the threshold for punching some one?

[CatWoman]

103. I think it's FINE to verbally attack someone I believe is following me

and ask him or her what the fuck is the problem.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

105. There those here saying the Martin had the right to PHYSICALLY attack Zimmerman

since he believed that he was being followed and there had been a verbal confrontation. I don't think they realize the actual implication of their statements.

[Blue_Tires]

141. ok, so explain it to me

What do YOU do if some stranger follows you in a car to and from the store, you ditch him, but he sees you again, gets out of the car, and starts coming your way on foot, without a single word or signal of his intentions (but hazard a guess that they aren't friendly)??

NOW think about what you would have done if you were 17...You either would have fled or attacked the threat...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

151. You do realize that your are making the reasonable person case, just like Zimmerman

As a young HS athlete I would have hauled ass (and did a few times). Later I stood up to such people, inflamed them enough to physically attack me, and then hammered them. I was young and stupid then.

[Blue_Tires]

139. it's all in the manner of how you're being followed...

and yes, it's perfectly fine to attack that person in a bunch of situations...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

150. Not legally...

I have been followed in public, called n*****, and told I have no business being where I was. There were sometimes more than one person doing it. Would it have been to strike my harrassers?

BTW you are making the reasonable man argument...the very one many have derided in FL law.

[Blue_Tires]

173. So why did it work for Bernie Goetz?

He fired first and got off...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

179. The jury believed that he had been threatened with IIRC the screwdrivers that were being carried.

[Blue_Tires]

181. just how martin had been threatened....

If Zimmerman gets off, an ugly precedent of "provoke an innocent racial minority into a legally justifiable homicide" will be written into law, and now you don't even need to be a cop to instantly get off the hook...

guess it's time to finally arm myself...whole lot of wannabe Zimmermans in my area; carrying stronger hardware than that little plink toy he was using...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

183. Not sure where you are getting that...

No one knows when Zimmerman drew his weapon.

[Blue_Tires]

184. it's a fine line...

Zimmerman does seem like the wannabe crimefighter tit who would have approached Martin with his hand already on the holster...And why not? It's not like he saw Martin as anything other than a dangerous criminal to begin with...

But like I said, the real key to this is Zimmerman's official statement to the cops that night (assuming they were competent enough to take a statement)

[Blue_Tires]

186. you're african-american?

(meant to ask this earlier)

[ProgressiveProfessor]

188. Yes, as was my late wife

[Blue_Tires]

189. Stop by sometime...

(I'm the mod)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1187

[ProgressiveProfessor]

190. I'm subscribed there

[hack89]

15. You can follow and verbally accost someone in a non-threatening manner.

as long as you are not threatening i.e. pull a gun or make violent threats they have no legal grounds to "fight back".

If you are threatening then they have a legitimate right to self defense.

I would suggest you stop using the word "stalk" - it has a specific legal meaning in Florida law and is not applicable to the Zimmerman case. He broke no laws by getting out of his truck and accosting Martin.

[noiretextatique]

18. but he did accost him, according to you

therefore Martin had every right to stand his ground.

[hack89]

23. Accost =/= threaten or assault

following someone and asking them to explain what they are doing is perfectly legal if done in a non-threatening manner.

How the situation escalated from there is the issue.

The question is "who committed the first illegal act"?

There is no question that Zimmerman's actions led to Martin's death. That doesn't mean he is at fault in the eyes of the law.

[Fumesucker]

27. How do you know any accosting was done in "a non threatening manner"?

If someone follows me on foot in the dark after doing the same thing in their vehicle I'm going to have the idea they're up to no good in the back of my mind and I'd be surprised if you didn't too..

It may not be illegal to "accost" someone in a dark area after obviously following them but it's hardly a friendly act.

Given the results of the encounter I would say that any fear Martin may have felt while being followed and accosted was fully justified.

[noiretextatique]

51. zimmerman went from "these people always get away" and "fucking coons"

to: "excuse me young, man, but i am an unofficial official neighborhood watch guy, and i think you are suspicious, so i am politely stalking you and now i must ask you to quell my suspicions about you, if you don't mind...sorry to bother you, but i do this with all black males, so don't take it personally."
sure...given everything on the 911 tape, it is clear that zimmerman was a perfect gentleman.

[hack89]

72. I don't know. Just pointing out what the jury will hear from his lawyers.

I hope Zimmerman will be convicted. But that does not mean his trial will be a slam dunk. What the law says and what evidence is provided is all that will ultimately matter.

[noiretextatique]

43. you used the word accost, not me

the question is not "who committed the first illegal act." the question is: which story is more plausible? zmmerman's story is not plausible simply because: he got out of the car. that act, though not illegal, most definitely lead to everything else that happened. and given that he did get out of the car, i don't buy his "i was so afraid" excuse.

[hack89]

78. Your logic makes perfect sense and I agree with it

but that is not necessarily how the law and the court will see it.

Read the law - it specifically lays out circumstances where the aggressor can claim self defense.

[noiretextatique]

79. i understand...i also know that juries are comprised of people

so the legal statutes will be filtered through human beings. i think everything will boil down to zimmerman's credibility.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

106. So you are good with someone escalating a verbal confrontation to physical violence?

That is the essence of your statement

[Fumesucker]

19. Is it possible to put a reasonable person in fear of their life without breaking any law?

[hack89]

24. That is a question for the jury

the problem is we have no real insight into Martin's emotions. Beyond a reasonable doubt is hard when there is only one side of the story being presented.

[TBF]

44. The "other side of the story" is the dead child.

Which y'all conveniently like to ignore.

[hack89]

64. I don't ignore it.

but how does a dead child testify as to his mental state?

[TBF]

92. Well then we'll ignore that dead child and go with the badass.

*sarcasm tag for the impaired*

[hack89]

94. Look - explaining what the law actually says is not justifying Trayvon's death

I agree that Zimmerman should do serious prison time. But what the law says is all that matters in a courtroom.

[TBF]

96. How the judge/jury interprets the law is what matters counselor. nt

[hack89]

101. No shit - but the law cannot be stretched beyond recognition to get "justice"

if it strays too far from established precedent then all you have done is provided the defendant grounds to successfully appeal the conviction.

There are limits on how far the judge will allow the jury to "interpret" the law.

[TBF]

117. I don't think they have a problem here. The only folks stretching are the

Zimmerman apologists (who are likely being paid by the word by the NRA).

[hack89]

121. They have a hell of a problem

the DA has the burden of proof - why are you so sure she can refute everything Zimmerman claims. Look at the evidence that was just released - it does nothing to clarify the situation.

[TBF]

122. Zimmerman can talk about ponies prancing in the sky if he wants to -

doesn't change the fact that the child was unarmed, he pursued the child after being told not to by authorities on tape, and he proceeded to shoot the child.

[hack89]

123. Zimmerman does not have to say a word

the DA has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

[TBF]

124. Zimmerman being told on tape to stay in his vehicle & the dead child.

The defense may come up with all kinds of imaginative scenarios but those key facts are not going to change.

[hack89]

125. Ignoring the 911 operator is not a crime

it was not a crime to follow Martin. It was not a crime to question Martin.

It was stupid. It was antagonistic, It was wrong. But it was not illegal.

So the question is who committed the first illegal act. That is what the trial will center on.

I hope they find Zimmerman guilty but it will not because he ignore the 911 operator.

[Blue_Tires]

176. all i want is Zimmerman's official statement to police that night

which is almost certainly rife with inconsistencies...I'm betting it will sink him like an anchor...

and it's pretty much out of the DA's hands anyway...No all-white jury would convict anyway no matter what was presented...

the trial will be won or lost at jury selection...end of story

[noiretextatique]

47. of course it is

per the conversation with his girlfriend, she was concerned enough to tell Martin to run.

[obamanut2012]

136. Nope, I had someone arrested for following me

Arrested and charged and convicted. By your definition, he wasn't being threatening.

I am a white woman and not a black teenaged male, though.

[hack89]

146. What was the exact charge that he was convicted on? nt

[ctaylors6]

17. Under florida law

if a person "stalks" someone else, that's a 3rd degree felony and would almost certainly negate any claim of self-defense.

Definition of stalk (felony version) under FL law: Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury of the person, or the person's child, sibling, spouse, parent, or dependent, commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree.

Edited to add: There's also misdemeanor stalking, defined as "Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree"

[uponit7771]

21. +1

[hack89]

25. "Repeatedly follows" is why Zimmerman was not charged with stalking. nt

[Fumesucker]

30. We are not in court and stalking has another meaning besides the legal definition..

In this case it's stalking as in stalking a deer, which you can do with a camera just as readily as a gun.

[hack89]

35. Yes - but what happens in court is all that matters. nt

[Fumesucker]

42. Then why worry about how people are using language outside of court? n/t

[hack89]

67. Because it contributes to unrealistic expectations as to what will happen at trial.

what is wrong with trying to understand what the real legal issues are? It does not minimize the tragedy nor Martin's memory.

[uponit7771]

46. He did repeatedly follow, it doesn't have to happen over days hours or weeks

...and that's why he is charged with

[hack89]

62. He was not specifically charged with stalking

which, when you think about, would have been the smart thing for the DA to do. The more separate charges, the more likely it is to get at least one guilty verdict. It would appear that the DA did not think Zimmerman stalked Martin.

[uponit7771]

65. True, they don't have to charge him to prove the chain of events and whos at fault

...afterwards.

The initial act of felon aggression was the stalking, they don't have to charge and convict him of this to prove that he started the crap and killed the kid during Martins acts of self defense

[hack89]

88. "The initial act of felon aggression was the stalking" is a huge assumption on your part

unless the DA can show specifically what law Zimmerman broke. Following someone is not stalking unless you can show criminal intent. Can you show Zimmerman intended to kill or assault Martin? His lawyers will argue that all he wanted to do was to find out what Martin was up to.

In the law, words have precise meaning.

[amandabeech]

174. Florida Stalking Statute

The 2011 Florida Statutes

Title XLVI
CRIMES Chapter 784
ASSAULT; BATTERY; CULPABLE NEGLIGENCE View Entire Chapter

784.048 Stalking; definitions; penalties.—
As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose.
(b) “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of “course of conduct.” Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests.
(c) “Credible threat” means a threat made with the intent to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety. The threat must be against the life of, or a threat to cause bodily injury to, a person.
(d) “Cyberstalk” means to engage in a course of conduct to communicate, or to cause to be communicated, words, images, or language by or through the use of electronic mail or electronic communication, directed at a specific person, causing substantial emotional distress to that person and serving no legitimate purpose.
(2) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

*snip*

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0784/Sections/0784.048.html


Note the requirement for repeated conduct in (2).

[intheflow]

147. I think a case could be made that Zimmerman had a habit of stalking people of color.

He certainly had a history of calling the police about suspicious black men in his neighborhood, and I read today about a former co-worker who said that Zimmerman bullied him with racial slurs. Treyvon wasn't repeatedly stalked by George Zimmerman because to George Zimmerman, one black man is the same as all others. Or so it seems.

[Aerows]

28. I'd keep my ass in the car

Like the 911 dispatcher advised me to do. Then I wouldn't have any problems.

How the simple fact of KEEPING HIS ASS in the car would have prevented the entire situation escapes so many people is beyond me. You don't go hunting trouble, particularly after you have already called the police. You wait for the police so that you don't have to shoot people.

Poor judgment, and Zimmerman certainly used poor judgment, is not an excuse. Fire arms are not toys, and they aren't to be used to grant you super powers and aid you in being a vigilante. But apparently, that's exactly what some people think they are, rather than a self-defense mechanism to be used as a last resort.

He needs to do some time for two reasons 1) To deter other people from deciding that it is okay to do what he did. If he does no time and gets wealthy off of this, and he apparently is on track to do so because of donations, you can be sure others will do it, too. 2) We need to reaffirm as a society that it is NOT okay for people to run around trying to play superhero with firearms and killing people just because they SUSPECT they are doing something wrong.

[ArcticFox]

31. That seems to be the case

If you provoke someone to "stand their ground," then your right to "stand your ground" arises. Then one of you has the right to kill the other. One dies, one lives happily ever after.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

32. Falsely framed, but you already knew that

Last edited Fri May 18, 2012, 11:24 AM - Edit history (1)

Let me turn this around for you...

If I am being confronted in a public place, possibly called names and otherwise being harassed, am I legally entitled to physically attack the other person? That is in essence what you are saying.

[Yupster]

40. I had the same thought professor

If a businessman was followed for three blocks by a card carrying protester who kept getting in his face calling him a fascist tool of corporate interests, a poisoner of the rain forests and an oppressor of the indigenous peoples, and then the businessman turned around and broke the protester's nose, and bashed his head against concrete, I tend to think DU would have a very different opinion of whether a person being followed has a right to turn on his stalker.

I think the biggest lesson of politics is just

"It depends on whose ox is being gored."

[Aerows]

63. The situation with Zimmerman and Martin, though

isn't political. This entire situation was avoidable had Zimmerman just stayed in his vehicle. That's not political, Zimmerman just used poor judgment. Unfortunately when people use poor judgment while carrying deadly weapons, you end up with tragedies.

[Yupster]

70. No doubt about that

Zimmerman certainly made a poor judgement by following Martin, or for sure following him so closely.

Is that second degree murder though?

If he says he was being beaten to the point where he feared for his life, and to me that seems a pretty easy case to make, then I don't see a jury convicting him of second degree murder.

Now a lesser charge Ican see. Negligent homicide? I don't know what choices the jury will have so I can't really speak on it.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

84. Cops, who tend to overcharge only asked for manslaughter

and they based it on a chain of events not who attacked who first

[Ikonoklast]

107. "Cops" tend to overcharge no one, as they do not have the capacity to do do.

I'm not a 'Professor' nor do I pretend to be one on TV, but even I know that a legal representative of the political jurisdiction brings charges forth in alleged criminal matters such as this.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

110. Ok, cops tend to recommend/request charges on the high side

[Ikonoklast]

115. Cops give evidence, reports, and testimony to a DA or a grand jury.

They can request a charge be added later as more evidence of further criminal activity comes forth, but it is solely up to the DA to decide what, if any, criminal charges will be made based on the law as written.

Unless the PD wants to intentionally piss off the DA by trying to influence any decision they make, that is where it ends.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

116. IIRC the Sanford PD requested/recommended that Zimmerman be charged with Manslaughter

that evening and followed it with formal paperwork later.

[obamanut2012]

137. Law enforcement do not charge anyone

[ProgressiveProfessor]

152. Already discussed several posts up

[ProgressiveProfessor]

81. Make it not political

A racist bigot is harassing me in public, calling me n*****, telling me I should not be there etc. When if ever would it be legal for me to physically attack him?

Note that I have been in just such situations.

[Aerows]

91. I don't see that as political

And I don't see Martin/GZ as political. I see it as a tragedy that could have been avoided if GZ hadn't decided to play superhero with a firearm and waited for the police.

I don't know that GZ did any of those things to Martin. What I do know is that by following him around, he intimidated the kid, most likely and scared him - which is why he should have kept his ass in the car after he called the police.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

97. I too believe that Zimmerman should be found guilty, most likely of manslaughter

but some of the screeds here are pure hyperbole...ignoring facts, the lack of public evidence, and the basics of legal procedure.

In the past I have had exactly what I described done to me and there has been violence. I have never been the one to throw the first punch and made sure there were witnesses before I hammered the idiot. I was younger and more foolish then.

[Yavin4]

60. Incorrect. We have clear evidence that Zimmerman Pursued Martin.

You don't have the right to stalk, confront, and engage someone, and then claim self-defense when you kill them.

[Kaleva]

36. Here's how Florida defines stalking:

"Willful, malicious, and repeated following or harassing. (704.048(2)); Aggravated stalking: willful, malicious and repeated following or harassing another with credible threats with the intent to place person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury; or willfully, maliciously, repeatedly follows or harasses minor under 16; or after injunction for protection or any court-imposed prohibition of conduct, knowingly, willfully, maliciously and repeatedly follows or harasses another person."

http://law.findlaw.com/state-laws/stalking/florida/

[uponit7771]

38. Yeap, ZMans following was willful and malicious and he followed him for a while

[Kaleva]

52. But it wasn't repeated following of Trayvon.

[uponit7771]

55. Yes it was, he was even told at one time to stay in the car...repeated doesn't have to happen over..

...hours, days or weeks

[Kaleva]

69. He wasn't told to stay in the car.

This is what the dispatcher said:

"OK, we don't need you to do that."

[noiretextatique]

71. he had a pattern of stalking black males

including a 9yo black boy.

[Kaleva]

83. Which would be profiling and he may be charged with that.

[Oneka]

77. Z took more than

1 step, that's repeatedly, in my book.

[Dragonfli]

45. Yes, it is that simple, I disagree but I lack the proper pistol to be manly enough for them

to take seriously.

[ZombieHorde]

49. Stalking is illegal in Florida, but no one was stalked in the Martin/Zimmerman case.

Stalking requires repeated instances, and I have not heard any claim that Martin and Zimmerman has had any contact with each other before the day of the shooting.

Also, fighting back implies one was being fought in the first place. I don't know if this has been established yet.

I am not sure what arguments you have been reading, but it doesn't seem right. Seems to me either the posts you have been reading are very misguided, I am very misguided, you are misunderstanding the arguments, or most likely, a combination of the three.

[uponit7771]

54. The "repeated instances" can happen in a short time, stalking DOES apply here....

....repeated instances doesn't have to be over hours days or weeks, there's nothing in the law defining that

Regards

[ZombieHorde]

58. How does the law define a single instance? nt

[uponit7771]

61. The act itself and then the continuation is repeated

[ZombieHorde]

74. Is that the law? That seems extremely silly.

Using that logic, every act would be a repeated act.

[amandabeech]

175. Can you cite a case or reg for that?

Seriously.

[Yavin4]

156. See Serial Killer Richard Ramirez

He followed his victims only once, and he was labeled the Night Stalker.

[ZombieHorde]

168. He was called the Night Stalker because it sounds catchy, not necessarily because

his actions matched Florida's definition of stalking.

The best evidence would be to find someone who was charged with stalking in Florida after only one incident, but that would probably be extremely time consuming.

[fascisthunter]

59. yes.... according to some, you should be free to kill others

when you "feel" threatened after initiating a situation.

[CreekDog]

66. yes, that's exactly what some DUers are arguing

but i don't think they would argue that had a white person ended up dead.

so be aware of that loophole.

[HockeyMom]

98. If Zimmerman was on the ground,

with Trayvon pounding his head, that is when his life would have been in danger. However, that would have been a gunshot at close range. The report said the shot was at intermediate range. Zimmerman was found standing over Trayvon. Intermediate range? If Zimmerman had managed to get up and put Trayvon on the ground, and THEN shot him, how could that still be self defense, or "SYG"?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

100. You might want to review the earlier posts on what intermediate range means

Close range would be a contact wound

[Kaleva]

111. "Intermediate range" could be anywhere from 1 to 18 inches according to one source.

Did a google search on the definition of "intermediate range" and this is what came up:

"Dr. Michael Baden, the former New York City medical examiner, said "intermediate" in such cases is defined as the muzzle of the gun being one to 18 inches away from the entry point when fired.

"If the muzzle is right against the skin, that’s a contact wound," Baden said. Anything beyond 18 inches is considered "distant" range in coroner's parlance, Baden said."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/17/autopsy-reportedly-shows-trayvon-martin-died-from-single-gunshot-wound-fired-at/

[Bake]

108. Apparently so. Both in Florida and on DU.

The Zippy apologists make me want to puke.

Zippy walks scot-free. And that, my friends, is a crime! He walks. You heard it here first.

All I can say is when he does walk away from the legal system, I hope he gets some real karma. Which is justly due him.

Bake

[socialist_n_TN]

129. Nah. I said that a month and a half ago.........

That Zimmerman walks that is. Actually, I qualified it some by saying that they were setting it up for "reasonable doubt" and that it was POSSIBLE that he would get charged for manslaughter or whatever the applicable FL term is, but that I didn't think he would ever spend any time in jail.

[Blue_Tires]

109. It depends on the colors of the persons involved

And don't worry too much about it; most of the DUers parroting that point have low post counts and/or joined the site in March...I'm sure it's just a coincidence, though

[La Lioness Priyanka]

126. +1

[La Lioness Priyanka]

112. only if you are white. really doubt it would work if you were black.

[Life Long Dem]

114. Number one

Trayvon was NOT stalked. Number 2. If someone broke your nose, will you defend yourself?

[socialist_n_TN]

130. NOT WITH DEADLY FORCE........

I'd break a few more of his bones, but I WOULD NOT KILL SOMEONE OVER A FISTFIGHT.

The only time I'd use deadly force is if he reached for his pocket or waistband. At THAT point I would figure it had moved into the area of deadly force necessary.

[obamanut2012]

140. Trayvon was stalked

I do not understand why so many posters say he wasn't. It is possible to use the term STALK and not have it mean the statute definition. Trayvon was stalked.

[Rex]

118. Yep that is EXACTLY what they are saying

and tripping all over their feet while doing so. It is kinda pathetic to watch.

[uppityperson]

119. Yes. That is it indeed. Incredible.

[Taitertots]

127. Zimmerman didn't "Stalk" Martin

http://www.ncvc.org/src/main.aspx?dbID=DB_Florida108

Walking up to someone to talk to them isn't "Stalking"

[fascisthunter]

133. yuh... he just "walked up to him"....lol

[Taitertots]

144. Well, he certainly wasn't on horseback

[Blue_Tires]

142. what about the following in the car before that?

[Yavin4]

155. So, Serial Killer Richard Ramirez Didn't Stalk Anyone??

He followed random women on a nightly basis.

[Nine]

157. thank you!

This "Zimmerman didn't stalk Martin" notion is garbage. You follow someone by car, get out and follow them by foot, chase them down a dark, deserted street when they run away, and finally find a way to catch up with them again... you're a stalker. Before the Zimmerman case became publicized you would not have been able to find one person in a thousand who would not call that stalking.

[Taitertots]

161. WTF does Richard Ramirez have to do with this case and/or the laws of Florida?

Read the laws. The conclusion of any reasonable interpretation is that he was not (In a legal sense) stalking Martin.

Why are you intentionally derailing a reasonable discussion of the topic? Why don't you show some intellectual honesty and actually discuss the case and laws at hand?

[just1voice]

128. I believe whatever my TV tells me. Is that what some DUers here are arguing?

Every single day.

[Vattel]

143. If you follow someone because you mistakenly or even stupidly suspect they may be up to no good,

and without any violent behavior or threat of violent behavior on your part, they respond by punching you in the nose, jumping on top of you, and banging your head against the concrete, so that you reasonably fear grave bodily harm, then legally you do have a right to shoot them in self-defense. Is that what happened in the Zimmerman case? I dont pretend to know.

[Yavin4]

153. So, How Does The Person Being Followed Know That The Stalker Is Non-Violent?

Does not the person being followed have a reasonable fear for their life? And the right to self-defense?

[Vattel]

159. You tell me.

Do you think being followed in itself makes it reasonable to fear grave bodily injury? I don't think so, although what it is reasonable to fear will depend on a variety of particular circumstances, and I can't say that Martin didn't reasonably fear being attacked by Zimmerman.

[eridani]

191. If you are female, certainly.

Any male running after a female at night is a physical threat by definition.

[JI7]

145. depends on what the Race of the person you are going after is

[hfojvt]

149. No

but you probably know that

"So, I have the right to stalk someone"

You have the right to follow somebody, I would not equate that with stalking.

"and if they fight back"

fight BACK? From what?

I can just see Frazier-Ali. Ali follows Frazier. Frazier counters with a jab. Ali responds with a devastating combination of following. Down goes Frazier! Down goes Frazier! Wow, he got the crap followed out of him.

But other DUers do seem to be asserting that I have the right to beat the crap out of anybody that I perceive to be following me, or who in any other way seems frightening.

[Yavin4]

154. There Is A Famous LA Serial Killer Named Richard Ramirez

He would drive along at night. Find a woman and follow them home. He would then kill them in their home. He would only follow his victims once.

He was labeled the Night Stalker. You don't have to follow someone repeatedly in order to stalk them.

Other DUers are asserting that you have the right to defend yourself against someone who stares at you from their car, gets out of their car and follow you as you walk home.

[soccer1]

158. Maybe Zimmerman put his hands on Martin and Martin responded?

Apparently, Trayvon's girlfriend said that before she lost phone contact with him she heard Trayvon say " get off, get off". So maybe Zimmerman was the first to make physical contact with Trayvon.

[slackmaster]

162. Yes, that is definitely possible.

[amandabeech]

177. Maybe, but, again, the hearsay rule prevents a third party from reporting what Trayvon said to her.

The only exception to that rule that I can think of would be, "excited utterance."

Not all relevant information will make it to the jury's ears because of the rules of evidence and objections for relevance.

[soccer1]

178. Hearsay exceptions

When the declarant is dead (Trayvon) I believe testimony of what Trayvon said directly to his girlfriend would (might) be admissible. That could be one of the exceptions to the Hearsay Rule.

[amandabeech]

180. Are you thinking about "dying declaration?"

I don't think that would cover anything, unless Z. was waving the gun in Martin's face at the time M. made the statement.

I'm thinking that some of the last words may come in as "exited utterance," which are words blurted out under stressful or surprising circumstances.

It's been ages since I studied or used the law of evidence (business lawyer here), but Wiki didn't show a general rule for admitting hearsay uttered by a dead declarant, and I can't remember one.

Well, at some point we'll find out.

[soccer1]

182. Exceptions to hearsay rule

I'm not an attorney but I've done some research on when hearsay might be allowed in a criminal trial. I don't know if federal law differs from Florida law in hearsay rule exceptions but I was basing my previous response on what I've read about exceptions to the hearsay rule. So, unless I'm misunderstanding the applicable of the hearsay exceptions I would think that Trayvon's girlfriend would be able to testify about her conversation with him as long as she is available for cross examination. Please correct me if I'm misinterpreting this info as it would relate to Florida law.

I found this:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_804


Federal Rules of Evidence
ABOUTSEARCH
RULE 804. HEARSAY EXCEPTIONS; DECLARANT UNAVAILABLE

(a) Criteria for Being Unavailable. A declarant is considered to be unavailable as a witness if the declarant:

(1) is exempted from testifying about the subject matter of the declarant’s statement because the court rules that a privilege applies;

(2) refuses to testify about the subject matter despite a court order to do so;

(3) testifies to not remembering the subject matter;

(4) cannot be present or testify at the trial or hearing because of death or a then-existing infirmity, physical illness, or mental illness;

[treestar]

160. We don't know what happened

Nothing but Zimmerman's word and some injury evidence - as to what happened and who did what first. But Zimmerman could have avoided the killing.

[soccer1]

169. Yes, Zimmerman could have avoided shooting Trayvon. No doubt about that.

Also, there is more evidence than just Zimmerman's injuries and his word: Trayvon's friend's phone conversation with him, the 911 calls, eye witnesses. But, who will the jury believe is more credible: Zimmerman's version, Trayvon's friend's account of what she heard over the phone, and who of the eye witnesses will they find more credible? Who knows. But, as you've said, the shooting could have been avoided, without much effort on Zimmerman's part.

[daaron]

166. Lax gun laws mean bullies are armed.

Used to be, a bully confronted a kid in the street, and a fight broke out. Someone's nose was broken. Someone's knee scraped. Maybe a black eye or a missing tooth.

Thanks to the NRA, ALEC, and Blue Dog Dems, the cowardly bullies of the world are armed and dangerous. First they pick a fight, and when you don't roll over and play the good victim, they blast you in the chest.

Gun laws, bad cops, and racist bullies are all to blame for the death of Trayvon Martin. I just wish could put them ALL on trial.

[gulliver]

172. You need to be a non-minority and have some pretext, but yes.

More people will start to understand what the Republicans have done with these Stand Your Ground laws when it starts resulting in white-on-white killings.

For example, if you are having an affair with someone's wife, you are now essentially dead meat. The husband can walk up to you and spit in your face. You take a swing. The guy lets you hit him and then blows you away. Bye-bye. Spit dries up by the time the cops get there.

Lots and lots of scenarios. You just need to get your victim to take a swing.

[flvegan]

185. The dumbing down of DU continues.

Shame that.