You're right that it's a huge red herring - I only gave it as an example/analogy for why it's not okay to just attack someone/beat them to the ground because they seem to be or are following you. I don't know why you guys started getting into how creepy you find it, and started using words like stalk and sexual fulfillment.
Originally Posted by Static_Martyr
Much less awkward to walk a bit to see their face than to announce something in public.
When I see someone I think I know, and I really feel the need to confirm, I will say, "Hey, is that you?" I may try to get closer first, but I'm not going to just get in proximity to them and then just follow them silently. That's just odd.
We were in the middle of the city and she dropped her phone while crossing a huge intersection that I was stuck waiting at a red light for. There were at least 5 more lights before I had a chance to catch up with her, and I had no chance of running. And there was so much traffic that yelling was useless. Yet she could've noticed someone was following her, came up and pummeled me if she wanted, according to you. "Rainy night" doesn't make it okay. Zimmerman *still* wasn't "stalking" - you really like that word, even though it does not mean "following". He also wasn't following him home.
Why would you follow her for 5 minutes? I would run up and say, "Hey, you dropped this." It's not hard. That said, all of this is irrelevant since we're not talking about a guy who is catching up to someone, we're talking about a guy who follows at a distance because he finds women sexually attractive. But we're not even *really* talking about *that,* because we were originally talking about being stalked on a rainy night by someone who is clearly following you home.
Questioning is the best way to deal with the situation. You quote one thing you said, but ignore another - the one which I was actually responding to. You "QFT"d Pilz when he said, "I can't be certain I wouldn't attack someone who was following me around in the night, seems like a pretty reasonable response to me, actually." But fine, if you're willing to qualify that by saying, "If I was being followed, and I turned around and confronted the guy by asking what he was doing and he refused to leave me alone and continued following me, I might resort to violence", that's different and my examples aren't comparable.
No, I acted like Tray would've been justified in confronting Zimmerman if he felt he was being followed, and in pursuing him further or physically confronting him if he refused to explain himself or back off.
But my greater point was that, if you follow someone until they become agitated enough to confront you, and then you suddenly relent and say, "Oh, I don't have a problem, I wasn't following you," and you turn around and try to leave, it's not out of the question for them to say, "Hey, what the fuck?
I'm not exactly sure what you're asking here, but I'm guessing you're asking what I consider presumed self-defense to be. Actual self-defense is when a weapon is present, someone acts violently, makes violent comments toward you, does something illegal to you, or refuses to get out of your face after requests to do so (like following after being verbally confronted). Simply following someone is none of the above.
When what is presumed self-defense?
So yes, in the event that Zimmerman continued following Martin after the police advised him not to (which is unproven) and Martin confronted him verbally but Zimmerman refused to back down and continued following, Martin was probably right to get physical. That is one of many scenarios, and sure, it's possible.
What is your actual argument, by the way? You agree with the acquittal because Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty, which was impossible to do... stand your ground law turned out to not be part of the case at all... so what is your argument?