Reply to Child killed by Neighborhood Watch captain while walking home

Forum Index » Off-Topic

Reply to "Child killed by Neighborhood Watch captain while walking home"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]If George Zimmerman minded his own business, didn't stalk Travyon, then there would have been no altercation. Trayvon had every right to fight back. This changes nothing. As people keep repeatedly pointing out, you don't get to start a fight and then cry foul that you were injured. I hope he WAS injured.[/quote]

You are assuming that GZ was "stalking" -- or approaching TM in a threatening manner.  Is it "stalking" if I see you walking on the sidewalk in front of my house and walk toward you?  You are making assumptions that GZ was chasing TM with a gun loaded and exposed.  That's one scenario.  But there are other possible scenarios where TM was walking and GZ walked in his direction so that he would be able to direct the police (whom he called to the scene).  It IS legal for someone to approach another person and say "what are you doing here?"  That's not starting a fight.

We don't know who started the fight yet -- but that is the only issue that matters in determing whether it was self defense.  Unless there is evidence that GZ took the gun out and pointed it at TM, none of the approaching or talking behavior matters at all.  The only issue is who made it a physical attack.  If TM didn't like how GZ was asking him questions and TM threw a punch at GZ, then under Florida law GZ apparently had the right to shoot TM.  I'm not saying that I'm happy about that law or the fact that TM has lost his life as a result of a fight.

BUT, the PP who keeps saying GZ was "stalking" TM with a gun is making assumptions that are not supported by evidence to date.  What's the difference b/t "stalking" and walking up to someone or trying to catch up with someone who is ahead of you?  [b]Stalking requires the intent to create fear in another or the intent to do harm. [/b] The fact that GZ called the police non-emergency line to get police to help him check this fellow out would undermine any argument that GZ was actually "stalking" TM.  GZ was "investigating" someone who he thought looked out of place.  What happened once GZ and TM met -- well, that's still to be determined, but please let go of your emotionally inflammatory language and look at the facts.[/quote]

No, it doesn't. The only time that comes up at all is the credible threat definition. Standard, run of the mill stalking, doesn't require any intent to create fear or the intent to do harm. Sorry.

(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.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics