The Glade 4.0

Yeah, we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this. In my opinion (as you note), it is unreasonable to be so suspicious of someone just walking down the street that you call the cops on them, and it's extremely unreasonable - to the point of limiting one's available defenses at trial - to be so suspicious that you actually follow the guy down the street and behind a bunch of houses.

You lack common sense on the issue it seems.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

That.

_________________

Two things.

At least two witnesses have already stated calling the police was a reasonable thing for George to do.

George got out of the vehicle in response to being asked where Trayvon was running, and the dispatcher testified that though that wasn't his intent, he understood how asking such a question could be interpreted as a request to get out to find the answer.

OK, a third thing...

When Noffke realized George was following and advised him to stop, George agreed. There is no evidence George continued to follow after that. In fact, he spent the rest of the call not knowing where Trayvon was, and got attacked in nearly the exact same spot George agreed to not follow...about 10-15 seconds jog from George's truck.

There's no agreeing to disagree here. Reasonable suspicion applies when one (normally a police officer, but not necessarily) detains someone; there is no such thing as it being unreasonable to be suspicious of someone if you don't do anything. That, fo course, ignores the fact that the totality of the circumstances are a lot more than just "Martin was walking down the street."

Furthermore, there is no legal principle that limits one's defenses at trial because one followed another person too much. The only possibility is "menacing" which is not an inherent characteristic of following someone, and also does not require following someone.

The jurisprudence you want does not exist. These are not the droids you're looking for.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Because he didn't chase him "behind a bunch of houses." He didn't "go running after him." He didn't "pursue him down a road."

What he did was: He observed and followed someone he believed to be suspicious inside the gated community in which he resided.



Why does that ring true to you, and yet an individual matching the description of recent burglary suspects in the neighborhood is not "suspicious" to you? Bias, or stupidity/ignorance.

Take your pick, but I find defending the testimony of a witness willing to perjure themself ridiculous.



Fair enough. That said, if that's what you're actually stating, you're an idiot.

Yes, I'm being uncivil at this point, because the level of absurdity to which you're stooping is ridiculous. Given that you've admitted to not really know the facts of the case, you should be saying "I don't know" instead of making judgments against Zimmerman. I find your blatant and willing ignorance in this thread offensive, given your profession.

The idea that following Martin was "unreasonable" is **** stupid. The idea that you cannot defend yourself after following someone is also **** stupid. Following somebody, reasonably or not, does not given the followee just cause to bash the brains of the follower in, and it does not compromise the rights of the follower. Should the follower continue after you have moved onto private property to which they have no right of egress, OR, should they persist in following after the followee has asked them to desist, they would then be "reckless." Anything else restrains the freedom of movement, freedom to defend oneself, and undermines any idea of community policing. When in public, you do not have a right to privacy insofar as your movements are concerned in regards to someone following you. The liberals and apologists, including you, commenting on this matter need to get that into their **** brain.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

I'm not talking about the Constitutional standard of "reasonable suspicion" for detaining someone; I'm talking about whether Zimmerman's actions were reasonable in the sense of recklessness/negligence, which are elements of (MPC) manslaughter and negligent homicide, respectively.


Sure there is - reasonableness and the recklessness/negligence analysis I'm talking about. Recklessness/negligence limit the availability and effect of a self-defense defense. A "reasonable person" would perceive being followed by a stranger, particularly at night, as threatening behavior. A "reasonable person" would know this and so would not engage in such threatening behavior without valid cause. A "reasonable person" would not consider Martin walking down the street as sufficiently suspicious to constitute such valid cause. Therefore, Zimmerman did not act as a "reasonable person" would, and as a result, he's vulnerable to recklessness/negligence-based charges and the availability and effect of his self-defense defense may be limited.

Which doesn't extend include the "reasonableness" of being suspicious of a person.



Except that he really isn't, because it is entirely reasonable to be suspicious of a person inside a gated community at "night" (7:00) who does not belong there, especially when there have been burglaries there in the recent past.

Following someone is one articulalbe fact that might allow you to construe them as a threat, but it does not rise to the point where one can strike first in self defense. There is not necessarily any imminence to the threat. In point of fact, Martin actually initially did behave reasonably (confronted Zimmerman and demanded to know why he was being followed) and then went strait to a totally unreasonable assault. There's no evidence that Zimmerman ever actually did anything that would have brought Martin to the point where he was reasonably certain he was about to be attacked; Being followed might make you suspicious that you were about to be attacked, but it does not by itself mean "OK, I can just initiate combat and call it self defense." Neither of Zimmerman's alleged replies (either "what are you talking about?" or "what are you doing here?") is inherently threatening. The mere detection of possible threat is not enough for self defense,

Furthermore, a reasonable person knows that other reasonable people do, in fact, try to detect criminals in their neighborhoods and report them, and so a person walking at night in a place they have no business being really has no reason to suspect the other person is doing anything other than trying to determine why they are there.

Quit trying to re-arrange the concept of reasonable so that the black teenager is the victim you were "betting dollars to donuts" he was all along. Furthermore, Martin was not simply walking down the street. He was doing so inside a gated community at night.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

You're just spinning in a remarkably dishonest fashion. He followed him down the street for a bit in his car. He then got out of his car and followed him on foot - at a jog - behind a row of houses. Whether or not he thought Martin was suspicious doesn't render "untrue" those undisputed facts.


It rings true because a reasonable person would find Zimmerman's behavior threatening. Hell, in the road rage thread, you said you'd draw a **** gun on someone who got out of their car and approached you in a threatening manner and shoot them if they got within 20 feet of you.


So correct my facts if you think I'm misstating them. Thus far, you have failed to point out any error in my understanding of the case. You're just sputtering.


The idea that following Martin as Zimmerman did was anything but unreasonable is what's **** stupid. I never said you can't defend yourself after following someone; not did I say it gives the followee just cause to bash in your brains. However, it absolutely does expose the follower to recklessness/negligence-based charges and limits their available defenses at trial. You have the right to walk down the street; you do not have the right to behave in a threatening and/or reckless manner. Following Martin behind those houses can legitimately be characterized as the latter, so stop pretending that Zimmerman's right to walk around and "observe" people in public is the end of the analysis.


I never said this had anything to do with a right to privacy, so go snap at whoever it is who did if you're in the mood to be a dick. My point is about the threatening/reckless/negligent behavior of the follower, not the privacy of the followee.

Gee, maybe that had something to do with the fact that Martin had no business being there, and even less business going back behind a bunch of houses?



Which is not even remotely the same as finding a person following you threatening, when you're going behind a bunch of houses in a gated community you have no business being in, in the first place. It is not reasonable for Martin to find Zimmerman's behavior threatening given that he had no business between any houses, much less in the gated community in the first place.



You are misstating the facts by representing Martin as simply "walking down a street."



No, in fact it's not, and the fact that you think "unreasonable" is even relevant Zimmerman following Martin calls into question your entire ability to evaluate this case. A person does not need to be reasonable in suspecting criminal activity unless they actually interfere with the other person in some way.



Except that it does not, in any way. You are trying to extend the concept of "reasonableness" to a place that it has never been held to go. It does not expose anyone to recklessness or negligence charges; it is not reckless or negligent in any way to attempt to follow a suspected criminal in order to report them to police; in a large part because it is not reasonable for the person being followed to start defending themself based on that fact alone.



Stop pretending that Zimmerman's behavior can legitimately be characterized in that manner. That is absolutely false. Martin had no business there, and his going behind the houses rather than remaining on a primary street only increases the reasons Zimmerman had to be suspicious of him.

[quote"]I never said this had anything to do with a right to privacy, so go snap at whoever it is who did if you're in the mood to be a dick. My point is about the threatening/reckless/negligent behavior of the follower, not the privacy of the followee.[/quote]

And your points are wrong. You are trying to take the concepts of reasonableness, negligence, and recklessness and extend them into territory they have never been held to extend into. Martin's level of suspicion that Zimmerman meant him harm was no higher and no more reasonable than Zimmerman's level of suspicion that Martin was into mischief. The difference is that Zimmerman called the police, and Martin decided to start a fight.

You have been hanging your hat on the idea that the black kid just had to be in the right since this started, and it's gone beyond ridiculous.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Derp:

_________________

Those are not undisputed facts. Particularly the jogging after him portion.



That's a misquote, but let's run with it. I personally would not find Zimmerman's behavior threatening; however, even if I did, I would not be justified in assaulting him.

In a thread on Road Rage, to more correctly cite my sentiments, I essentially stated that 21 feet is usually the distance that can justify lethal force and that if you followed me in your vehicle, pulled me over, and approached me menacingly I'd draw my weapon. I also stated that I'd personally want to be careful using deadly force. Perhaps you're comingling my statements with Rynar.



Why would I bother? You've shown a willful ignorance, as well as a willingness to directly contradict those of us who are following the case and are actually informed about it. It's like a child correcting an geography teacher when the teacher tells him the earth isn't flat.



It isn't threatening, or reckless, or negligent to attempt to keep an eye on someone suspicious if you're trying to report them to the police. To suggest otherwise would indicate that your public movements are private. That's why I mentioned that.


You are trying to impose an idea of recklessness here that is wholly absurd in order to fit your ignorant impression of the scenario. Now, you've doubled down on your position by defending it when called to the carpet, multiple times by multiple posters.

Instead, perhaps you should just admit you don't know what the **** you're talking about.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

If by "visiting" you mean "staying there while she was out of town while he was on suspension from school," then absolutely.

But if we're going to color the situation, let's use all the crayons.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

If the argument is that he had no business being there, the answer is **** off he was staying there for the second time.

_________________

That's fine.

My argument isn't that he had no business being there.


My argument is threefold, a) he was not a known resident and b) he matched the description of the suspects of the recent burglaries, and c) this is inside a gated community. These three facts make him quite clearly "suspicious."

Additionally, and on a slight tangent (speculative at this point, rather than factual), if he is a visitor (which he was) and not very clear with the community's layout, I can certainly visualize him looking around trying to get his bearings. This could be observed by another party to heighten the suspiciousness, as it might appear he were "casing" residences.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Then why are you dragging my response to DE's direct statement about him having "no business" in the gated community (with him quoted) into your discussion?

_________________

This is tragic. This shouls have been easily enough resolved by two reasonable adults long before it ever got to violence. Both men had ample opportunity to do so.

The trial's not about that though. its highly likely that none of these mistakes are criminal. And that's what the trial should br about.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

DFK - I just started typing out an angry response to your last post to me, but I changed my mind. Honestly, I always feel shitty after getting into this kind of testy exchange, and it just sucks the pleasure out of the board for me. I'd like to continue the discussion, but not on uncivil terms. I know this is Hellfire, and everyone's free to be as snitty as they like, but can we agree to walk back the vitriol on this and just discuss the issues politely and with a presumption of good faith? Hell, it was good faith that led me to note that I haven't been following all the ins and outs of the case and don't know exactly how the applicable Florida laws are drafted. That said, I am familiar with the basic facts and more than a few of the details, and I do have some actual training with respect to the general legal principles, so I'm not just talking out of my rear here.

Sounds good. However:



It's specifically the fact that you do have training and yet are willing to speak from an ignorance of the facts that made me agitated. Well, that and the fact that you're seemingly so willing to condemn Zimmerman.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Because Zimmerman was somehow supposed to know that.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

RD, I was wondering how our positions could so wildly diverge from one another...

Just curious -

Do you feel citizen organizations dedicated to guarding and protecting their property/neighborhoods are legitimate activities?

Do you feel there is any legitimate right of armed self defense outside the home when not confronted by an obvious weapon?

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Not RD, but for me the issue is that based on the information I've seen, it really seemed like Zimmerman had an axe to grind. So it's not that anything specifically he did was illegal, but it really seemed like he forced the situation to a head.

For me the concern is making sure that his actions didn't cross over into vigilantism.

Well if he doesn't know who should or should not be in the neighborhood then your argument is invalid because no one is suspicious by nature of the fact that they very well should be there.

_________________

I'm "dragging it" into the general discussion to the extent that you seemed to be attempting to color things in Martin's favor. I was simply trying to be clear and objective about the specifics of his visit to the neighborhood. Again, coloring with all the crayons, as in, not leaving facts out.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine