General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsZimmerman apologists always run into same problem. Person minding their own business ended up dead.
Trayvon was walking though a neighborhood, minding his own business and not breaking any laws.
That part is not in dispute.
Someone suggested that everyone has the right to approach other people on the street and ask them what they are doing. Let's say I accept that for the moment. Anyone so approached by someone then also has the right to say, "If you are not a police officer, get lost" or various variations thereof.
It is then incumbent on the approacher to back off or produce official credentials.
I can accept that anyone has the right to approach anyone on the street and greet them or ask them certain questions, but they do not have the right to any particular response or any response at all. AND, my opinion is that responsibility for any violence that occurs after that moment will generally fall onto the approacher unless there is strong evidence to the contrary.
Those attempting to apologize for Zimmerman have several problems that in my opinion they cannot solve.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)
MH1
(17,600 posts)is why we have courts.
But there is NO DOUBT he is morally responsible, and I sure as hell hope he pays in some way.
If he personally had any bucks, at least they could get him on a wrongful death suit. But I expect 'can't get blood from a stone' applies here, and anyway he should get at least a little prison time. IMHO. If I understand the facts of the case correctly.
belcffub
(595 posts)should have stayed in his car... I bet at this point he wishes he did...
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Getting out of his car was just one of them.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)I don't think that very much moral blame could be attributed to Zimmerman. Most of it would fall on Martin for physically assaulting someone just because he was being followed by him. If I had to guess (and it would merely be a guess), I would guess that in this case two idiots collided with tragic consequences for one if not both.
treestar
(82,383 posts)And you wouldn't be frightened by someone following you?
Vattel
(9,289 posts)yardwork
(61,599 posts)That is the most absurd statement I have seen on this. It's the fault of the person who was shot and killed? How did you come up with that? Seriously?
Vattel
(9,289 posts)If (notice the word if) Martin tried to beat the shit out of Zimmerman simply because Zimmerman was following him, then what happened is partly his fault. That's obvious.
JI7
(89,248 posts)why did she have to be out at that time. she was she drinking. why did she have to wear that .
Vattel
(9,289 posts)I am not blaming anyone cuz i don't know what happened.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,181 posts)The "idiot" who appointed himself neighborhood watch captain yet chose to carry a weapon while doing such duties (contrary to watch SOP), constantly pestered 911 and his neighbors over petty issues, harassed co-workers over their ethnicity, got arrested for assault on a police officer, assaulted an ex-girlfriend, and when instructed not to leave his vehicle said "okay" and then proceeded to leave his vehicle while carrying a loaded weapon...
...or....
The "idiot" who was walking home in the rain from a 7-11. Wearing a hoodie.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)My point is that if Martin, without any physical assault by Zimmerman, decided to beat the shit out of the idiot that was following him, then he behaved idiotically too. I don't know if that's what he did, though, because I wasn't there.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)This X 1000.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)and I've only had to repeat the point (with no response) 11 times in the past 36 hours...
"BUT ITZ NOT ILLEGAL TO FOLLOW SOMEONE!!!111" DERP
1monster
(11,012 posts)Several years ago (before cell phones were ubiquitous), I was driving home with my then young son after dark. For whatever reason, I decided to take the long way home. While driving around, a big white pick up truck pulled up behind me and started following me.
My neighborhood is a rabbit warren of twising interconnected roads that all lead to a half circle outer road that ends in a highway on both ends.
After making several turns down different roads, it was obvious that the guy in the truck was following me. I was afraid to pull into my driveway and passed it by. Likewise, I was afraid to stop at any of my neighbors or friends homes in case they were not home or that I couldn't get to their doors fast enough. So I kept driving around, knowing that my husband was on his way home from another point.
Finally meeting up with him, I pulled into my driveway with him behind me. He called 911 to report and the truck driver, now seeing that I was no longer alone, took off.
If we had been able to get a license tag number, or had the driver been stupid enough to hang around, he could have been arrested for stalking.
It is illegal to stalk people in Florida. Zimmerman could probably have been charged with stalking too.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)especially (2) and (3).
Florida requires repeated actions before someone can be charged with stalking.
Sorry, I lost the link, but it was easy to find on Google.
1monster
(11,012 posts)I think you missed Section 1, part b. "pattern of conduct... however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose.
Fla. Stat. § 784.048. Stalking; definitions; penalties. (2008)
(1) 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.
(3) 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, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(4) Any person who, after an injunction for protection against repeat violence, sexual violence, or dating violence pursuant to s. 784.046, or an injunction for protection against domestic violence pursuant to s. 741.30, or after any other court-imposed prohibition of conduct toward the subject person or that person's property, knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(5) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks a minor under 16 years of age commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(6) Any law enforcement officer may arrest, without a warrant, any person he or she has probable cause to believe has violated the provisions of this section.
(7) Any person who, after having been sentenced for a violation of s. 794.011, s. 800.04, or s. 847.0135(5) and prohibited from contacting the victim of the offense under s. 921.244, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks the victim commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(8) The punishment imposed under this section shall run consecutive to any former sentence imposed for a conviction for any offense under s. 794.011, s. 800.04, or s. 847.0135(5).
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)If so, could you please turn yourself in to the police, because under your definition your a STALKER! 
1monster
(11,012 posts)Last edited Sun May 20, 2012, 12:00 PM - Edit history (1)
doing several quick turns on those rabbit warren roads, only to have him pick up at another point and continue following me. He was playing cat and mouse with me.
It was during one of those short periods when he was not right on my tail that I met up with my husband. The guy knew my neighborhood at least as well as I did. At best, he was just a jerk trying to freak out a lone woman with a small child. At worst, I don't even want to think about it.
PS: This went on for about a half an hour... It was stalking.
Solomon
(12,310 posts)That's a crime. Did you think the expression was an exaggeration?
asjr
(10,479 posts)vet the jurors extensively? Sanford FL seems to be a place one would want to erase from the map. If Zimmerman had followed orders from the 911 people we would not be going through all this.
Sancho
(9,069 posts)I don't have any doubt that a jury in Sanford would acquit Zimmerman.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)since just about everyone in the Sanford area has had saturation coverage of this trial, and seating an impartial jury will be nearly impossible.
No matter where the trial is held, the attorneys will vet each juror carefully, perhaps by engaging professionals who do background checks on prospective jurors. The jury selection process is called "voir dire" in the legal professions, FYI.
Uncle Joe
(58,355 posts)Thanks for the thread, stevenleser.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)public? How much provocation is enough justification to start throwing punches?
Regardless. you and Slackmaster is quite correct, Zimmerman owns Miller's death morally. Not sure where it will end up legally. A conviction, I hope.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)You, like others, seem to assume that Trayvon touched or hit or grabbed GZ first. Why on earth would you so eagerly and unquestioningly assume that???
Of course I assume the reverse: that GZ followed then verbally confronted then physically grabbed Trayvon. Then Trayvon tried to stand his ground and protect himself and got shot. It's a scenario that makes a whole lot more sense given what we DO know.
belcffub
(595 posts)but unless there is evidence that shows zimmerman made the first physical contact we only have one version of the story... way to much reasonable doubt here...
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Many here have said that the following/confrontation justified Martin attacking Zimmerman physically. My question is: if true what level of verbiage is required to justify hitting someone.
All we really have are the start and end points. The events inbetween are still fuzzy (at least based on what was released publicly.
lukkadairish
(122 posts)If Zimmerman began only asking questions (AFTER GETTING OUT OF HIS CAR AGAINST LAW ENFORCEMENT DIRECTIVE), the fact remains that he was armed. Whether he was brandishing the weapon from the first word, or if he pulled the weapon out afterward, Trayvon is the one who claims 'stand my ground'. The kid was walking while black, minding his own business, and an obsessed wannabe law and order crime-a-phobe decided it was his job to take back the concrete from the throes of a young teen with iced tea and candy. Even IF the Martin boy began hitting first.......if a man were waving a 9mm in my face, and the only recourse I had was my fist, YOU CAN BE DAMNED SURE I WOULD GO DOWN SWINGING
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)911 operators can not give out law enforcement directives. The advice given was clearly the best approach
You seem to be saying a verbal confrontation alone can justify a physical response. Is that really your intent and what limits would there be on it?
We have no independent source as to when Zimmerman drew his weapon.
lukkadairish
(122 posts)any independent witness needed, it is factual that Zimmerman drew his weapon and shot an unarmed minor due to Zimmerman's false analysis of the boy's fabricated threat, all derived from Zimmerman's own mental processes. 911 dispatchers are placed in either the police and first responder facilities, or in a building specificially built and managed for emergency and law enforcement response. They do not dispatch taxis, they do not dispatch messages to the mayor, they did not dispatch Zimmerman.
Zimmerman cannot and should not give out law enforcement directives either,but he surely as Hell did didn't he? He gave out the ultimate directive, in the form of a 9mm death sentence
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Martin was on top of Zimmerman, hitting him with MMA like punches [sic]. After seeing that, the witness then heard the shot. If true, there was a real threat, not fabricated. However, there are other statements that disagree.
Assumptions about his state of mind are good internet fodder, but will hard to prove in court.
911 operators are basically call centers workers. They have no legal authority. That is by design to limit civil liability if nothing else. The advice was sound, but it was just advice. Their role is to parse out calls and maintain comms as needed. They are not always dispatchers.
Shooting someone is not any form of law enforcement directive, though the police rightly get upset when civilians do it.
treestar
(82,383 posts)There is a period of time for which there is no account but Zimmerman's. And Zimmerman is not a very credible or objective witness.
911 operators should be considered at least marginally trained in how to handle threats.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)if not confrontation, at least being in the same location at the same time.
And won't the profiling by Zimmerman of Trayvon Martin as looking suspicious influence a jury's thoughts about why Zimmerman followed Trayvon Martin. As I pointed out in my post above, "following" someone can be a helpful act, but it can also be a criminal act. Depends on the intentions and state of mind of the person doing the following. Evidence that indicates the states of minds of Trayvon Martin and Zimmerman will be important here.
Usually, if there is a murder, evidence regarding statements of the murderer prior to the act are relevant to determine intent.
A few years ago, Dick Cheney shot a hunting partner --in the fact, I think. Now, that could have been viewed as attempted homicide, but it wasn't because the circumstances and statements of the parties were apparently deemed to suggest that there was not intent to attempt homicide.
Here, the jury will have to decide what the intentions of the parties were based on what they said before their tragic encounter. This will be a very interesting case. No question. If it really gets beyond the stage of plea bargaining.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)One evening as I walk home from my bus, I observe a teenager spraying graffiti on a wall.
Let's say I don't have a gun. What do I do?
(I have been in a similar situation.) I assure you that I do not follow the kid. Nor do I talk to him. I call the police and leave it to them. Although the kid is committing a crime (at least it is a crime here), I would be wrong to engage him in any way.
Let's say I do have a gun. What do I do?
The common-sense answer is: Call the police. Do not follow. Do not take matters into your own hands. You could end up being shot yourself or shooting the kid and responsible for that shooting. If he really is part of a gang, he could have buddies nearby. Your first responsibility is to avoid causing a confrontation in which someone's life could be endangered.
No one has the right to take law enforcement into their own hands. In my opinion, Zimmerman did not have the right to follow Trayvon Martin in order, as he suggested in his first 911 call, to prevent Trayvon Martin from getting away.
The problem here is that Zimmerman did not just follow Trayvon Martin. Before following Trayvon Martin, Zimmerman (carrying a gun), made a phone call in which he profiled Martin as suspicious.
The jury will not just be dealing with the fact that Zimmerman followed Trayvon Martin but with Zimmerman's statement about Trayvon Martin in that phone call before following him.
In addition, the jury will have to deal with the question as to why in the world Zimmerman would follow Trayvon Martin if he thought Trayvon might be up to no good. I would not follow a kid who was carrying a spray paint can. I would call the police (and that is what I have done under those circumstances).
So, is following someone OK? Depends on the circumstances. Depends on your reasons for following the person. Depends on whether you have already called the police. Depends on whether you are out "looking for action" or just trying to help the person.
Depends on whether you profiled the person as "dangerous" but followed him anyway.
And that is what the jury will have to decide.
I think that, in the state court, the defense is going to do everything it can to keep the first 911 call out of court. Which is why the case may be tried as a profiling case in a federal court at some point.
Of course, the defense asked to delay the trial -- probably to remove some of the focus of the public from it -- and maybe to negotiate some kind of deal. That would not surprise me at all.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)Probably being the "whiter" survivor is meaningful too.
Flatulo
(5,005 posts)GZ left his vehicle. We do know for a fact that if he had stayed in his vehicle, per the PD request, Trayvon would be alive. GZ set into motion a chain of events that ended up with the kid getting killed. That sure sounds like wrongful death to me.
Cave_Johnson
(137 posts)... after reading this.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)
sendero
(28,552 posts)... whether Zimmerman initiated the physical part. He provoked a fight, and a defensive one at that.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)
tblue37
(65,340 posts)that Zimmermann shoved Trayvon at the beginning of the struggle.
Cave_Johnson
(137 posts)... to what you are talking about?
The last story I saw yesterday had something along the line of her saying that she heard someone say "Hey, what are you doing here?" and then a scuffle and then a dead line.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)While he was fighting for his life being assaulted so viciously that he actually got those tiny little scratches on his head and nose? So while he was being pummeled by Trayvon, Zimmerman was able to reach for his hidden gun and aim it point blank at Trayvon's chest instead of fighting back?
That's really stupid thinking.
treestar
(82,383 posts)We don't know who did the first blow in the flight.
But it would be justifiable to be angry about it. If I'm on a public street, I have a right to be there. If I'm black and someone is asking me why I'm there, I know why they are asking.
Rex
(65,616 posts)of him in the SPD with no visibile signs of an altercation. Not a mark on his body. From head to toe. I mean, they cannot lie away that footage.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Assuming the pictures are accurate and timely, why does the video show what it does...at some point that kind of evidence should all align.
Rex
(65,616 posts)then someone explaining that Zimmerman changed clothes (and cleaned up) before being 'detained'...that is all I can come up with.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)I also thought that his nose looked a little puffy, but the angle wasn't so good on that.
There is a police record that states that the paramedics worked on him at the scene, reporting injuries to the head and nose, I believe. There is also a cell-phone photo taken at the scene by an officer that shows blood running down from the head, but it is hard to see how many wounds there were.
Z visited the doctor the next day, allegedly to get clearance to return to work. The doctor reported a broken nose, two black eyes, two lacerations on the back of the head and some minor back injuries.
Neighbors reported seeing Z. the next day or thereabouts, and reported that Z.'s face looked banged up and that he had two bandages on the back of his head.
Rex
(65,616 posts)For a broken nose and two black eyes.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)but when I've been injured my doc usually tells me to take naproxen sodium.
Perhaps there is something in the medical report.
Rex
(65,616 posts)and two black eyes. Little more then just a simple injury. Maybe he did not need meds.
maddezmom
(135,060 posts)
Romulox
(25,960 posts)The legal standard for self-defense is not "responsibility for any violence that occurs after that moment will generally fall onto the approacher unless there is strong evidence to the contrary"; rather it's whether the person had a reasonable apprehension of bodily harm.
That's not a defense of anyone. It's basic common law.
edit: It's also important to note that the fact pattern in the OP does not rule out such a "reasonable apprehension". It's just not enough, by itself, and other facts become crucial.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Trayvon in his first 911 call.
So the question will be whether his apprehension was reasonable.
Further, a question will be if Zimmerman really felt adequate apprehension to justify a defense of self-defense, why did he follow Trayvon Martin when he knew the police were on the way?
And how did it happen that Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin were just a few feet away at the time of the shooting when Zimmerman stated that Trayvon Martin was running from the location of the truck and when the maps I have seen indicate that they were many feet and on a different path from the location Zimmerman described in his call?
All of these facts will clarify Zimmerman's intent and may have some impact on the issue of reasonable doubt.
Let's remember, Zimmerman could also face a lesser charge of some sort including manslaughter as I understand it.
Zimmerman will take a big risk if he goes to trial.
hack89
(39,171 posts)the real problem is that the only person who has to prove anything is the DA. That is how trials work.
Zimmerman does not have to prove a thing. So it will come down to what the DA can prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" and that is a very high bar with only one participant alive to tell their side of the story.
Explaining the law and the reality of trials is not apologizing for Zimmerman. It is perfectly reasonable to think, like I do, that Zimmerman is guilty of at least manslaughter but that it will be very difficult for the DA to get a conviction.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)in which nearly all lay people assumed OJ had to be found guilty. But the prosecution's theory of the case especially with regard to the timing of the crime and OJ's travels just left too much doubt for the jury.
But here, we know the murder happened. It's a matter of whether Zimmerman will be completely exonerated by the self-defense argument or whether perhaps he will be found to have committed a lesser crime of some sort.
It will be interesting if it really goes to trial.
treestar
(82,383 posts)In some states that is an affirmative defense and the defendant does have a burden of proof.
The prosecutor may only have to prove Zimmerman killed Martin and Zimmerman admits that.
hack89
(39,171 posts)776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.041.html
The DA will have the burden to show this doesn't apply to Zimmerman.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Justification is usually considered an affirmative defense.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)That would be nuts.
At common law, the defendant has the burden of proof on affirmative defenses.
That's why there is a special hearing before the judge on the validity of the self-defense claim. Z. will be required to prove his claim *by the preponderance of the evidence*, which is the standard of proof in civil claims like wrongful death, not *beyond a reasonable doubt* which is the criminal standard.
If Z wins that hearing and survives the inevitable appeal, then he walks free with complete immunity. That means that he does not go to trial and cannot be sued by Trayvon's family. He then will be able to sue Sanford for malicious prosecution, something that I think was on the mind of the original Sanford prosecutor who did not charge.
I suspect that the reason for this procedure is that a self-defense claim proved by a preponderance of the evidence would be sufficient to instill reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors.
If Z. loses the at the hearing or appeal, then he will proceed to trial, where he may again assert his defense, but if not found guilty, will be subject to civil proceedings for wrongful death. Recovering anything in a wrongful death action will probably be akin to squeezing blood from a stone after Z. pays his legal bills and expenses.
Kaleva
(36,298 posts)There are several who do point out the complexity of the case.
Edit: It's one thing to try and convict a person in an internet forum and quite another to do so in court.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)edited for clarity
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)There are at least 5-6 people who show up in most of the Trayvon threads who seem to think Zimmerman is innocent.
Kaleva
(36,298 posts)1st degree murder? 2nd degree murder? Manslaughter?
Solomon
(12,310 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)I have been called an apologist for saying that.
Kaleva
(36,298 posts)In a previous thread, I asked the question of another member who posted there and he told me to look in a mirror. I then replied with links to numerous other posts I made where I stated I believed he was guilty and entirely responsible for Trayon's death. The other member didn't reply to that.
I thought both OJ and Casey Anthony were guilty but the juries thought otherwise. I think Zimmerman is guilty of at least manslaughter and possibly 2nd degree murder but what the PA can prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt is another thing.
peace pilgrim 19
(6 posts)Is that like "domestic terrorists" that are picked up and sent away forever with no trial? 
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)anyone who feels like alerting on this, please note the person I am replying to has been banned as "troll".
treestar
(82,383 posts)On DU bringing up an issue sometimes results in posters assigning you to the opposite side of the question.
Kaleva
(36,298 posts)
nxylas
(6,440 posts)The far right has plenty of experience in diverting attention away from the real issues and their standard playbook comes into operation here:
1) Talk in vague insinuations about how The Other is up to something and, when confronted with facts;
2) Change the subject and turn up the volume.
They do it with global warming, they did it with Obama's birth certificate, it comes as naturally as breathing to them.
barbtries
(28,789 posts)many people seem to want to confer some sort of authority onto zimmerman; he had NO such authority.
hack89
(39,171 posts)what the law actually says and how it is interpreted through precedence is the only thing that matters. All we are saying is that this case is not clear cut and it will be hard to get a conviction.
Zimmerman can be responsible for Martin's death and still be found innocent - "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a very high bar to clear, especially in a case where only one side of the story is being told.
barbtries
(28,789 posts)and if the case is presented properly the jury should agree, and convict.
i know that's not a gimme; i watched the simi valley jury acquit in the rodney king case. i watched casey anthony get away with murdering her own daughter.
i say he murdered an unarmed 17-year-old who was just minding his own business. i don't need to be constantly reminded that justice in this country is imperfect at its very best, and that juries are unknown quantities. it's not "only" about the law - it's about how the law is applied, how the law is presented, how the law is interpreted.
sometimes justice does happen. let this be one of those times.
hack89
(39,171 posts)barbtries
(28,789 posts)
frylock
(34,825 posts)it would never occur to them to tell a stranger that followed tham in a car and then demanded to know what they were doing there to fuck themselves. they live to comply.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)them their business.
My standard answer to someone who does that is "Who in the fuck are you?", closely followed by "None of your damned business".
hack89
(39,171 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)If you follow someone and then shoot the person you happen to have been following, odds are pretty good, you might be found guilty of some crime or other.
If you follow someone and return the person's wallet with several thousand dollars intact, you may be handsomely rewarded.
So, following is a neutral act. But what happened before and after the following determine whether you get a prison sentence or a reward for the following.
hack89
(39,171 posts)that is perfectly legal.
Now, it might devolved into something much worse but that does not automatically mean that the person doing the following is guilty of any crime.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Would you?
hack89
(39,171 posts)it is not illegal for that stranger to follow me and ask me. That is all.
lolly
(3,248 posts)But it's also not very conducive to a self-defense claim.
And that's what the issue is. The prosecutor isn't claiming that Zimmerman should be arrested for following Martin and asking what he was doing there.
The question is to what extent this behavior negates the self-defense claim.
hack89
(39,171 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)but if the following or running away is an indication of the state of mind of the person following or running, it can be some evidence of a person's guilt or innocence. It could affect what the intention of the person is determined to be.
For example, in California, if a person, a suspect, runs from a crime scene, there may be a presumption of guilt.
If you run, your behavior suggests that you have a reason to run, therefore, you will probably have to explain why you decided to run away if did.
So, a suspect's actions before and after a crime are very important in determining what the suspect's intentions and even guilt were.
Also, even though not always and strictly a criminal act, following someone can be an actual part of a crime.
If, for example, a group of criminals decide to rob a bank, and they send one of their group to observe the bank, take notes on the behavior of the employees and the times of the employees' comings and goings, etc. the scout who observes the bank will be just as guilty of the crime, just as much a part of the crime as the guy who goes into the bank and pulls a gun on the teller.
A crime can begin when a burglar parks his car, takes his gun or his bag out of the glove compartment of his car, opens his car door and starts walking to the crime scene.
So following a person is not always a crime, but it can be part of a criminal act or a criminal enterprise. If you follow a person in order to stop them and harass them and perhaps touch them in an unwanted fashion, then it can be part of a crime if your touching, leads to an assault or to a homicide.
Another example is a situation in which three guys decide to rob a shopkeeper, let's say the owner of a jewelry store, who is on his way to the bank. (Unlikely nowadays, but this used to happen.) One guy follows him with a gun, and two guys run ahead and wait for him to stop him and hold him. The guy following is just as guilty of whatever crime may occur as are the two who grab the guy and hold him.
At least this is the way I see it. Actions have consequences.
A person can be placed in jail for harassment -- simply for, for example, frequently sitting for long periods outside a former boyfriend's house.
So following is not always a crime, but it can be a crime or a part of a crime.
hack89
(39,171 posts)it is not as clear cut as many here believe. It will come down to which side has a more convincing case.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)But that is always the case. You cannot predict the outcome.
And the evidence that the jury hears and sees is not what we hear and see and imagine on the internet.
The prosecution always has a tough job, always carries the heavier burden. Nevertheless, the prosecution tends to win most often.
Also, while the prosecutor has to prove the charge which will be 2nd degree homicide, I think (and I could be mistaken but I believe) that the defendant has the burden to prove his defenses. Self-defense is a defense. I think the defendant has to prove that he was reasonably in fear for his life. That is actually pretty tough to prove.
hack89
(39,171 posts)having his headed pounded into the pavement then it.may not be that hard.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)It is also not very prudent, smart, safe, or intelligent to approach a person you deem to be committing a possible crime and ask them their business, but it is entirely legal.
hack89
(39,171 posts)it may not be wise depending but it is not illegal.
frylock
(34,825 posts)
RagAss
(13,832 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)DLevine
(1,788 posts)
eyewall
(674 posts)Zimmerman was ordered by the police dispatcher to stop the pursuit. He wasn't, the dispatcher only said that they didn't need him to do that.
What I found damning about that exchange is that Zimmerman changed his mind and said instead of meeting the police at the mailboxes they should call him when they arrive on the scene. That means he intended to continue pursuing Trayvon Martin. The stalking behavior is what resulted in Martin's death. This makes the SYG law irrelevant.
I appreciate the OP's reminder of how simple the basic premise is. Trayvon Martin was walking home from the store and a self appointed neighborhood vigilante followed him in a menacing way and ultimately killed him with a bullet from a handgun. I don't see any controversy other than there should be a lot Florida public officials being indicted as well.
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)The reality is that in the English language we generally don't give direct orders in civilian life.
In fact, it's very rude to give a direct order to another adult, which is why it's fairly rare.
For most people who are fluent in English "we don't need you to do that" is pretty clear.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)See Fl. crim statutes 784.048 (2) and (3.
eyewall
(674 posts)substitute the word "following" for "stalking" if it helps.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)
CatWoman
(79,301 posts)a broken nose is a RESULT of someone fucking with one who was minding his own business.
FUCKING with that person for no reason at all.
Other than the one with the broken nose is a worthless fuck out looking for trouble, Barney Fife style.
Too bad the nose was the only thing broken.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)The result is Trayvon dead.
Rex
(65,616 posts)He was not the guard captain commander, was not a paranoid vigilante, not worried about being told his attention was unwarranted. Had no reason to be carrying a gun. Not with his record.
Strange business this killing in cold blood is.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)I will add I have little patience for anybody who tries to justify Zimmerman's actions that night. In my opinion most of that is rooted in racism.
libodem
(19,288 posts)Is a felony. Maybe that ought to be one of the charges against Zimmerman. He had to be hopped up on dope or he's just a common insane gun nut. Criminal stalking and harassment.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)They assume that following someone because you mistakenly or even stupidly think they might be a criminal means that you can't possibly claim justifiable self-defense if the person you follow, though unarmed, physically assaults you and you shoot him. I don't know whether Zimmerman's actions constituted justifiable self-defense under the law, but neither do you.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)No there is not. It's an established fact that Zimmerman is guilty. Of what and to what degree is the only thing still in question.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)and i've never fucking assumed anything in this after the first week...
Vattel
(9,289 posts)does not by itself entail that you cannot justifiably defend yourself if they assualt you. Did Zimmerman do more than just follow Martin? Did he try to detain him? Did he threaten him? I have no idea. I wasn't there.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Assuming Zimmerman has a brain, he should have been able to determine in the first ten seconds that Martin was not "up to no good", despite his appearance fitting Zimmerman's preconceived stereotypical notion of a 'ghetto thug'...
Once I know why Zimmerman continued to follow him and call 911 even after knowing this, I'll know everything...
treestar
(82,383 posts)And we'll never have anyone but Zimmerman's word on who started the violence. And given the situation, it is likely that it was Zimmerman.
If Z had the right to approach a stranger and ask what he was doing there, he may have done it politely or not. We can figure based on Z's known history that he was not.
yardwork
(61,599 posts)The Zimmerman apologists always fall back on Zimmerman fearing for his life. The flaw in this logic is that Trayvon had much greater reason to fear for his life long before Zimmerman did, so even if Trayvon did try to defend himself, that defense was protected by SYG.
If it is ok to follow somebody and then pull out a gun and shoot them then it is certainly ok to fight back.
hack89
(39,171 posts)776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.041.html
The DA will have the burden to show this doesn't apply to Zimmerman. I have no idea whether it will be easy or hard.
daaron
(763 posts)That should be factored into your moral analysis, as well.
It's a gun control issue. The stalker (aggressor) was armed, and bent on forcing a confrontation. This wasn't just about a random stranger approaching someone in the street and chatting it up.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts) daaron
(763 posts)Can't defend yourself without getting blasted at point-blank by some gun-nut with an ax to grind.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)
daaron
(763 posts)Corresponds roughly with the increase of self-identified "non-religious" persons in the U.S., too. Correlation? Causation?
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)...In the median age.
daaron
(763 posts)Youngat50
(17 posts)Hi all. I'm a new participant here at DU. I have taken a great interest in the Zimmerman/Martin case since it became news, for reasons I'll explain below. First allow me to say that while trying to keep up with all that is out there on the topic, I kept being coming back to conversations here at DU that have proven to be a great source of links to articles, etc. You guys rock at keeping up with information as it is released, and the format of your forum makes it so easy to follow the conversations. I've also found that some posts have made me think twice about opinions I had that were (I thought) solidly entrenched - in this and other topics.
Allow me to explain my interest in one aspect of this case...
In 2009, my neighborhood began experiencing a rash of break-ins and thefts. I had been the victim of a break-in twice in a six-month period. I can't begin to explain the sense of violation, fear and helplessness that comes from having a stranger break into your home and steal your property. I am a single woman, and the brazen manner in which the perpetrators ransacked my home while searching for valuables the 2nd time was astounding and frightening. Some of the items stolen were keepsakes that had been given to me by my father right before he passed away 2 months before, making the thefts all the more emotionally crushing. After the second break in, during which the house was ransacked, I commenced to living in a spare room of the house, the one room that had very little in it, and appeared to have been untouched. I could not bring myself to be in the rooms where a stranger had walked through them with such malice and criminal intent. I lived in fear all the time, could not sleep, could not eat. Just being in those rooms in the house would cause me to break out in a sweat and have a panic attack. I could not afford to rent somewhere else while paying the mortgage on the house, so I had to live there until the house sold, which took almost 8 months. I even considered getting a dog for protection and alarm, but I felt that the hair and smell might deter from selling the house, so I didn't. It was the most awful experience of my life.
Thanks to a diligent neighbor reporting a kid not known in the neighborhood suspiciously walking around our street, the perpetrator was eventually caught. He wasn't really doing anything, but he was meandering, if you can understand that. And my neighbor did not recognize him as being from our neighborhood. When my neighbor walked out and pretended to get something from his car, the kid was still there. The kid then walked through a side yard across the street and disappeared into the backyard. My neighbor called 911 and followed the kid on foot for over 4 blocks, leading the police to the kid. The police found that the kid had a heavy-duty screwdriver and gloves such as those used in a doctor's office on him. A subsequent search of his home found items stolen during thefts in our neighborhood, including two of my belongings. Sadly, the items from my father were not found. Had my neighbor not followed this kid, he would have simply walked away and not been caught.
I wanted to try to explain why someone would follow a suspicious person in their neighborhood. My neighbor explained that he was angered by the effect that the crimes had on me, as well as others on our street. And he too felt helpless to protect his family and his neighbors from the continued crime that was occurring. And we were all frustrated at the fact that the perpetrators kept getting away with the crimes because either they are gone by the time the theft is discovered, or the police are limited to how quickly they can get there to investigate suspicious activity. When one reports a suspicious person, the police still need a few minutes to get there. In that time, a person can easily disappear and hide – and more often than not, they did.
My issue is the subject of citizens following suspicious persons in their neighborhood. I guess because my neighbor doing so helped catch the young man that caused such fear and sense of violation in my life. It gave me the closure I needed to move on and get back to living. (That and a little bit of counseling. Many thanks to the local crime victim's fund which helped pay for the sessions.)
I'm not making excuses. I don't know what happened out there - I don't think any of us really do. But I can understand why someone would follow another person who wasn't doing anything they didn't have a right to do in such a circumstance. I am admittedly biased on my reasoning and understanding, and I know that readers must take that into consideration. A neighborhood is a community, and we should all watch out for each other and come together to help, and I feel that is what my neighbor did.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)follow the suspicious boy?
Many of us have had our homes, our cars etc. broken into. Many of us choose not to become one man armed forces against any "suspicious" person we see walking the streets of our neighborhoods.
I would never follow another person because you never know if they are armed with just Skittles or something else. I'm going to call the police if I really find that they are that suspicious. It is not my job to be a vigilante.
Welcome to DU! I'm sorry you were broken into. As one who has also had the same happen, you are right in that it is a violation.
Youngat50
(17 posts)I do know that the police asked him not to interact with the kid, but to keep following him from a safe distance and keep reporting his location. He was on the phone with them the entire time he was following him.
My husband and I have talked about what happened, and he says he too would have followed him. He said that if presented with a chance to help catch the guy that made any woman feel the way I was left feeling after the crime, he would have done the same thing if it meant catching the guy and putting him away so that he couldn't do it to me again - or anyone else.
Don't get the wrong idea. My husband is not a vigilante. He just has a strong protective instinct.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)My brother, on the other had, as a kid of 14, the cops bring him to my grandparent's house because someone thought he looked "suspicious". He was guilty of? Having hair that fell into his eyes. Each situation is different. What happened in the case of Mr. Zimmerman and the murder of an unarmed black teen could have been avoided on so many fronts. One, Mr. Zimmerman not taking it upon himself to be some kind of hero. Two, Mr. Zimmerman listening to the dispatcher when the dispatcher told him "We don't need you to do that".
People are different but I would never encourage my husband, or my neighbors, to follow someone. I would encourage them to report suspicious behavior so that, at the very most, an innocent kid ends up at his grandparents door with two police officers. There is no excuse, or understanding, for Mr. Zimmerman's actions that night.
Youngat50
(17 posts)What if a kid described as having hair that fell into his eyes was reported to have been seen meandering near your home at the time your home was broken into? And what if a kid with hair hanging in his eyes was later seen late a night near your home?
Would your husband watch him walk or run away? Or would he try to keep an eye on him so that he could tell the police where he was so that he could be questioned? Unless you or someone close to you has been the victim in such a circumstance, you can't really imagine the desire - the need - to have the apprehension and prosecution of the responsible party occur.
Keep in mind that we aren't talking about someone just walking down the street. We are talking about someone who is not known to live in the area, wandering around homes, standing and looking at homes, late at night. This is suspicious behavior.
We all have the right to walk where ever we want, and we have the right to stop and look at what ever we want, but if you choose to do so in an area where folks don't know you, and late at night, you take a chance that you will draw suspicion. As I said, its a result of the times we now live. If parents don't want their kids being brought home by police, then they need to make sure their kids are not wandering around strange neighborhoods late at night displaying suspicious behavior.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)the police. He would not take it upon himself to become some sort of "hero". I think you are forgetting that I have already told you...I have been the victim of such a circumstance.
What he would not have done is load up and take off after someone who might be armed or might not be.
Trayvon Martin was just walking down the street to his father's home. Neither he, nor you, nor your husband had any right to follow him. Much less with a gun.
I am not for vigilantism.
The guy who broke into our home? He was never prosecuted. Then again, no kids lost their lives because we all freaked out either.
Youngat50
(17 posts)People have a right to follow anyone they see fit. There is no law that says that if you walk through my neighbor's yard, I cannot follow that same path for "X" amount of minutes to make sure I'm not "following" you. If you walk down the street, I have every right to walk down the same street right behind you. If you walk in circles in the street, I have the right to do the exact same thing behind you.
You are trying to put someone not having a right to do something, and someone doing something you don't agree with in the same bucket, however they are not the same.
I doubt seriously that my neighbor "loaded up" when he followed the young man, as there was no mention of a gun. Nor would my husband "load up" to follow a suspicious person either. Not everyone who follows a suspicious person "loads up."
In the Martin/Zimmerman case, someone died because someone had a gun and used it. They did not die because they were followed. The two issues are completely separate.
Following a suspicious person has nothing to do with "vigilantism." It has everything to do with being an alert, responsible citizen. Police cannot be at each of our homes 24 hours a day. They cannot reach our homes within seconds of a 911 call being made. They often rely on the observations and monitoring activities of citizens. And that's what we are talking about here. Some
No kid lost his life because my neighbor was following him either. He did go to jail, which he deserved.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)If Zimmerman had not followed Martin would still be alive today, so yes, Zimmerman following Martin is directly related to his death/murder.
"We don't need you to do that." That's where it ends. No matter how many pretty stories you make up to tell us.
You follow me? I'm calling 9-1-1. For the proper reason. not because a light is out on my street.
Our police? They rely on telephone calls. Not vigilantism. You have a nice night now. Try to not to freak out about people enjoying the great outdoors too much. 
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Clearly you are enjoying your stay!
Your point is well taken I think and thanks for sharing your story.
Bear in mind though that Zimmerman had actually called 911 to report potholes in the road among a great many other things, he wasn't your normal person just looking out for his neighbors, he was a paranoid busybody and probably bigoted..
Youngat50
(17 posts)I too report pot holes. I also report street lights that are out. I have found that if we all assume someone else has reported such things...they often don't get reported.
Sort of like on "Everybody Loves Raymond" where neither Frank nor Ray reported the cable being out, each thinking the other did it, and after hours of waiting they realized that no one had reported it.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)You do realize that's an abuse of the emergency system, right?
Youngat50
(17 posts)Some localities that are small have you call 911 for such things, and if its not an emergency, they either note the complaint or transfer you to the right department.
Where I live now, we only have a little over 1,000 residents. We call 911 for a stray dog. Then again I'm just as likely to be able to report it to an officer having lunch where I am a waitress. There are perks to living in a small town.
Youngat50
(17 posts)Oops! Meant that thanks to ScreamingMeemie.
Gave you a "thanks" all of your own in my response to you, Fumesucker.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)than walking down the street...
I'm also interested to know the demographics of your neighborhood, for perspective
Youngat50
(17 posts)When a neighborhood is being affected by crime repeatedly, those at risk could understandably see an unknown person hanging around out the rain at night to be suspicious simply because most people don't do that.
I assume you mean the demographics of the neighborhood I lived in at the time that my house was broken into?
It was mostly families, retired folks who had lived there a long time, with a few of us singles mixed in. Middle class, mixed races and ethnicity. It was an older subdivision, built in the 50s. Mostly brick ranch houses and such. The subdivision was shaped essentially like a rounded triangle. It was banked on one side by a highway, on another by a strip mall, with the third side banked by an area that was beginning to blight. I lived there for 13 years.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)how does "walking down the street minding my own business" EVER translate to "suspicious" in this case?
Martin wasn't even "hanging out", he had walked to the store and was on his way back...
movingviolation
(310 posts)The real police told him to stand down, basically.Yet it seems like the media and Fl cops are bending over backwards for this dumbfuck.The kicker is sending the woman to prison for 20 years for actually standing her ground against abusive significant other and nobody got killed. Fucking American justice, unless you're black.
gulliver
(13,180 posts)Zimmerman is guilty as sin. Martin wasn't doing anything, nor were the many other people Zimmerman harassed. Zimmerman's behavior was accusatory and insulting.
Can you just walk up to some unknown man on the street and, say, insult his religion or his wife? Maybe. If he punches you and decides you need a beating, can you just shoot him? I guess we'll see.
Stand Your Ground! Nice job, Republicans!
Logical
(22,457 posts)reason to shoot someone.
Maraya1969
(22,479 posts)"They always get away with it" "Fucking _____ (to be be determined) His huffing and puffing as he was running after Martin and as he was told to stop. It was not like he was just strolling around after the boy, he was running, hunting him.
Zimmerman was hunting a child who he believed was up to no good because he was black. Period. I hope he is found guilty and is put away for a long period of time.
jenmito
(37,326 posts)Zax2me
(2,515 posts)Since the cop wannabe hero decided to back his unwarranted threats up with deadly force, he is the one that goes to jail since he sentenced the other to death.
He wanted to be judge, jury and executioner.
Well, turn the tables.
Sentence him to life for taking one.
Of course, I don't know all the evidence, but neither does anyone on either side.