George Zimmerman

[Llamas]

I find it weird that you see nothing wrong with following strangers. He could be the nicest guy in the world, but the girls he follows don't know that. Seriously, if I were a young girl in a foreign country and some dude was following me around, I'd be fucking terrified.

Just seems like a really good way to make people really uncomfortable.

Like I said, I don't think it's a good idea. I find it very strange that he does this. I just also don't think that it'd be justified to attack him for it, and I don't think it such an awful thing to do. Being intently stared at for a prolonged time makes me just as uncomfortable and nervous as being followed briefly, and it's also not a good idea to stare at people. Wouldn't be justified to brutally attack the person in either case.

Because I was once robbed at gun point in my own home.

And that's a very different situation. If someone breaks in with a gun, the resident should have every right to shoot that person because that person has shown very clear intent and is prepared to use violence. Should someone break in, grabbing the gun and being ready is the right thing to do. Shooting the person without knowing what's going on is not something I can get behind.

[Static_Martyr]

I find it weird how awful you guys think this is. A guy goes for a walk through the crowded city and takes the direction of some girl for a short while (because it's never long before she goes into a cafe or a store, or he loses her, since it's not actually stalking). I wouldn't be comfortable doing it, but part of it is that I don't have his charisma. I'm pretty sure he's been noticed before, but never had a problem. Nor should he. He is completely harmless.

I'm so glad that the women he stalks are so aware of his intentions.

If I'm being stalked, I'm probably going to assume the worst, because people don't normally stalk people "just for fun," or whatever. And if someone is aware of how that might be perceived, yet they do it anyway because "it's funny," or whatever, then frankly, that person is either an asshole or an entitled twat, because they think they have the right to just stalk anyone, and have that person magically understand that they're "just having fun."

Like I said, I don't think it's a good idea. I find it very strange that he does this. I just also don't think that it'd be justified to attack him for it, and I don't think it such an awful thing to do. Being intently stared at for a prolonged time makes me just as uncomfortable and nervous as being followed briefly, and it's also not a good idea to stare at people. Wouldn't be justified to brutally attack the person in either case.

I think at least confronting him would be justifiable. And if he refused to keep following her, I don't see getting maced in the face (for example) as an outrageous response. Just because someone does something creepy in public, doesn't mean they are somehow exempt from standard practice when dealing with stalkers.

A very drunk homeless guy just kind of wandered into our house one night. We'd forgotten to lock the door, but at the moment, we didn't remember that and thought he'd broken in. We shooed him out, but the castle doctrine again would've allowed us to kill him. What the fuck? How can people support that?

I don't believe in shooting to kill, and in many cases it's not necessary. But the idea is, if someone breaks into your house, they give you the BOD in protecting yourself, so that if you DO have to shoot to kill (or if you don't own a gun but have to use lethal force for whatever reason), as long as you can prove that your life was in danger, then you are given leeway in case you didn't have time or the right chance to properly disarm or remove the threat. I don't see anything wrong with that; it's certainly better than jailing someone in the event of a legitimate threat because they shot the person and it hit a vital organ or something, and so they didn't take the technically correct course of action in a tense moment.

Regardless, that's a special case to me because your home is the last resort if you are escaping from somewhere; it's where you come back to every day, and it's where your family or children may be. Extending this confrontational mindset to other more public places, from which you can much more easily retreat, seems excessive and unnecessary.

I find it weird that you see nothing wrong with following strangers. He could be the nicest guy in the world, but the girls he follows don't know that. Seriously, if I were a young girl in a foreign country and some dude was following me around, I'd be fucking terrified.

Just seems like a really good way to make people really uncomfortable.

QFT

[MOTO13]

...And that's a very different situation. If someone breaks in with a gun, the resident should have every right to shoot that person because that person has shown very clear intent and is prepared to use violence. Should someone break in, grabbing the gun and being ready is the right thing to do. Shooting the person without knowing what's going on is not something I can get behind.

Good analogy. Cause we know that just because the robber dosen't have a gun, a 70 y/o woman shouldn't be allowed to defend herself with a gun against a much stronger 30 yo robber. You're a fucking genius.

[Llamas]

I'm so glad that the women he stalks are so aware of his intentions.

If I'm being stalked, I'm probably going to assume the worst, because people don't normally stalk people "just for fun," or whatever. And if someone is aware of how that might be perceived, yet they do it anyway because "it's funny," or whatever, then frankly, that person is either an asshole or an entitled twat, because they think they have the right to just stalk anyone, and have that person magically understand that they're "just having fun."



I think at least confronting him would be justifiable. And if he refused to keep following her, I don't see getting maced in the face (for example) as an outrageous response. Just because someone does something creepy in public, doesn't mean they are somehow exempt from standard practice when dealing with stalkers.

You keep using the word "stalk", but it seems you do not know the meaning of this word. Following and stalking are very, very different things. I've had both happen to me. I totally agree that someone confronting him if they noticed he was going the same directions they were going would be justified and logical and generally a good thing to do. My point, once again, as it seems to keep getting ignored, is that just because someone seems to be following you doesn't mean it's justified to turn around and BEAT THEM TO THE GROUND.

I don't believe in shooting to kill, and in many cases it's not necessary. But the idea is, if someone breaks into your house, they give you the BOD in protecting yourself, so that if you DO have to shoot to kill (or if you don't own a gun but have to use lethal force for whatever reason), as long as you can prove that your life was in danger, then you are given leeway in case you didn't have time or the right chance to properly disarm or remove the threat. I don't see anything wrong with that; it's certainly better than jailing someone in the event of a legitimate threat because they shot the person and it hit a vital organ or something, and so they didn't take the technically correct course of action in a tense moment.

The part in bold is the key here, which the castile doctrine doesn't include. Someone getting into your house is not proof that your life is in danger. If the person pulls out a gun or a knife or something - aka, displays violent behavior toward you, that's a totally different story, as I already said.

[Static_Martyr]

You keep using the word "stalk", but it seems you do not know the meaning of this word. Following and stalking are very, very different things. I've had both happen to me. I totally agree that someone confronting him if they noticed he was going the same directions they were going would be justified and logical and generally a good thing to do. My point, once again, as it seems to keep getting ignored, is that just because someone seems to be following you doesn't mean it's justified to turn around and BEAT THEM TO THE GROUND.

Oh. Okay, he wasn't "stalking" them, he was "following them around the city without their consent for the purpose of sexual fulfillment."

Also, I never said anything about beating anyone to the ground.

The part in bold is the key here, which the castile doctrine doesn't include. Someone getting into your house is not proof that your life is in danger. If the person pulls out a gun or a knife or something - aka, displays violent behavior toward you, that's a totally different story, as I already said.

Violent or threatening behavior, yes. And I would argue that following someone without their consent could be construed as threatening, depending on the circumstance. I would say you have a right to confront the person who is following you without your consent for reasons of sexual fulfillment, though; if someone is following you specifically, when they have no legitimate reason to do so, that could be seen as predatory behavior. If you are being followed by someone you don't know, then it's not exactly a far-out assumption to think that the person may try to do you harm.

We're not talking deadly force, here, but a confrontation is pretty much something you can expect when you follow random women around the city for the purposes of sexual fulfillment.

[Llamas]

Oh. Okay, he wasn't "stalking" them, he was "following them around the city without their consent for the purpose of sexual fulfillment."

Also, I never said anything about beating anyone to the ground.

So now because "stalking" has been disproven, you're pulling "sexual fulfillment" out of the air. This is a summer-day activity where he goes to the city center to wander around and just chill and drift about. Occasionally he follows someone for a few minutes just to see where he ends up. Yes, he chooses to go for a cute butt because it's nicer than some hairy Balkan dude, but no, it has nothing to do with sexual fulfillment. I mean, seriously, how do you get sexual fulfillment from that? Dude's happily married, too. And you don't need consent to walk after someone for a little while. I've done it several times when I thought I saw someone I knew and wanted to see if it was them. Hell, once I followed a girl for about 5 minutes because she dropped her phone in the street and I wanted to return it to her. I need consent to do that? You guys are seriously acting crazy about this. Yes, it's weird. Yes, I'd expect people to confront him. But the whole reason I brought it up was because you guys were acting like Martin would've been completely just in beating Zimmerman to the ground because he noticed Zimmerman had been following him.

When I'm followed, I turn and stare at the guy straight-on. If he doesn't stop, I call someone and tell them what's going on. That usually drives them away. I'd use violence if he showed signs of violence, but I've also been WRONG about people following me when they weren't. So you're basically saying it'd be okay to beat someone up because you think they're following you.

Kinda sickens me that you guys are so supportive of acting with violence when it's only presumed self-defense...

[Static_Martyr]

So now because "stalking" has been disproven, you're pulling "sexual fulfillment" out of the air.

No, I was using the phrase "sexual fulfillment" because you said his motivation was to "follow that butt," when he found a woman whose butt he felt was attractive.

This is a summer-day activity where he goes to the city center to wander around and just chill and drift about. Occasionally he follows someone for a few minutes just to see where he ends up. Yes, he chooses to go for a cute butt because it's nicer than some hairy Balkan dude, but no, it has nothing to do with sexual fulfillment.

Whatever. Pick your own damn term, this whole argument is a red herring for all I care. He's following women without their consent, and I wouldn't blame the women he targets if they got creeped out and confronted him about it.

I mean, seriously, how do you get sexual fulfillment from that? Dude's happily married, too.

I wouldn't know, I don't follow strange women. And him being married doesn't make it less creepy.

And you don't need consent to walk after someone for a little while. I've done it several times when I thought I saw someone I knew and wanted to see if it was them.

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.

Hell, once I followed a girl for about 5 minutes because she dropped her phone in the street and I wanted to return it to her. I need consent to do that?

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.

You guys are seriously acting crazy about this. Yes, it's weird. Yes, I'd expect people to confront him. But the whole reason I brought it up was because you guys were acting like Martin would've been completely just in beating Zimmerman to the ground because he noticed Zimmerman had been following him.

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?"

EDIT: Or, if you prefer that I use my exact words, what I said was:

It really depends. I don't advocate resorting to violence immediately, but if a guy follows me for a long time and I start to feel paranoid, and I fear leading him to my family (or friends or wherever I'm staying), I'm at the very LEAST going to confront him and ask some questions. And I'm probably not going to be super polite about it.

When I'm followed, I turn and stare at the guy straight-on. If he doesn't stop, I call someone and tell them what's going on. That usually drives them away. I'd use violence if he showed signs of violence, but I've also been WRONG about people following me when they weren't. So you're basically saying it'd be okay to beat someone up because you think they're following you.

No. No I did not.

Kinda sickens me that you guys are so supportive of acting with violence when it's only presumed self-defense...

When what is presumed self-defense?

[Llamas]

No, I was using the phrase "sexual fulfillment" because you said his motivation was to "follow that butt," when he found a woman whose butt he felt was attractive.

Whatever. Pick your own damn term, this whole argument is a red herring for all I care. He's following women without their consent, and I wouldn't blame the women he targets if they got creeped out and confronted him about it.

I wouldn't know, I don't follow strange women. And him being married doesn't make it less creepy.

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.

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.

Much less awkward to walk a bit to see their face than to announce something in public.

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.

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.

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?

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.

When what is presumed self-defense?

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.

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?

[Static_Martyr]

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.

Because you used, as an example of when following someone is defensible, a case where it is most certainly not defensible, and is actually quite creepy. Thus undermining the intent of your example.

Much less awkward to walk a bit to see their face than to announce something in public.

...

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.

Following someone at night and speaking silently into a phone is a much different occasion than following someone during the day, through traffic, to return a phone. For one, if you're assaulted in a crowd during the day, it's much easier to call for help and generally avoid violent conflict.

Also, Dictionary.com defines "stalking" as "the act or an instance of...harassing another in an aggressive, often threatening and illegal manner," or something "of or pertaining to the act of pursuing or harassing." If you are pursuing a person, and that person feels threatened by your pursuit (and the reason for your pursuit is not reasonably available to them), then you are stalking them.

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."

You wouldn't have needed to respond to that quote if you had read my other quote. That said, I QFT'd that because I agreed with it in the context of that discussion. If you try to extrapolate "if someone is following me at night and I feel threatened, I may react with force" into "if someone is following in my general direction in the middle of a crowded street during the day, I will assault them," then you will naturally find issue with it. But then you are also falsely equivocating two different situations.

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.

You said that I condone violence "when it's only presumed self-defense." What do you mean by that? When the violence is presumed self-defense? Yes, I condone violence if it is self-defense and not disproportionate to the threat.

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?

My argument is that what is legal is not ethical, and I have disdain for people who say "what he did was legal, therefore he did nothing wrong."

I agree that we can never know for sure what happened the night of the murder, and therefore we cannot presume legal guilt because there is a reasonable doubt. But that sword cuts both ways -- you cannot say, "we don't know what happened for sure, therefore we know that Zimmerman did nothing wrong." What we DO know is that Trayvon was not committing a crime, nor did he have any clear intent to, and so Zimmerman's actions turned out to be unnecessary and false; the only justifications I have heard for why he followed Trayvon was that Trayvon "looked suspicious." If that's all it takes, then by law, Trayvon did nothing wrong by following him back to his truck, if that DID happen, because if I were Trayvon, I would certainly have thought that a man following me at night and talking hushedly into his phone was suspicious -- and since suspicion is apparently grounds for pursuit, the whole "Trayvon followed him back to his truck" argument is moot; since neither of them could possibly know what the other was thinking, it's not unrealistic to think that BOTH of them could have been suspicious of each other. But I never hear this narrative when people are discussing possible scenarios.

People make excuses for Zim, but then turn around and say the same excuse doesn't apply to Trayvon. It's hypocrisy, and it doesn't help the charges of racism against Zim supporters when they so adamantly and unapologetically apply a double-standard like that.

[MOTO13]

Everything that is legal isn't ethical. Big fucking deal. If that is true and if you stand by that, you'd better be ready to put damn near every attorney and poltician is prison. It's a stupid argument that makes no god damn sense. What isn't ethical to someone is perfect to someone else. All depends what side of a decision you are on. You live and base your opinions on 20/20 hindsight.