Anyone, creepy or otherwise, has a perfect right to follow you in public, absent extraordinary circumstances such as a restraining order.
Even in that circumstance, you are not allowed to punch them for following you.
But what if you were black? Are you allowed to punch someone then?
Or rather, if you weren’t black, would monstro and you with the face care at all what happened to you? :dubious:
That will change when I am elected King.
“Honey, someone chased me today!”
“Chased you?”
“Yes! The crazy stalker guy I was telling you about was in the parking deck this afternoon. And he started chasing me, screaming my name, demanding I have sex with him!”
“What did you do?”
“When he caught up to me, I couldn’t help myself. I stopped and swung my purse at his face. He grabbed my arms and pinned me down on the concrete–breaking my wrist in the process. And guess what next? He then called the police on his cell!”
“Surely the police arrested him for at least breaking your wrist?”
“NO! They saw the bruises on his face and asked the witnesses what happened, and they then arrested me. Even though everyone said he had been chasing me!”
“What? What happened to the creep?”
“They told him his was a helluva guy, that’s what!”
Is this really what would happen?
If people are going to call me an idiot just because I think the answer is “no”…well, maybe I am. Maybe I am an idiot for thinking the answer is no. I just want to know why I’m idiot…because it is just doesn’t seem right to me that the answer is “yes”.
What?
:dubious:
Do you not understand how this scenario differs from simply following, especially as it pertains to the Zimmerman/Martin exchange?
What you’re describing here is what Bricker termed in a recent post “provocation,” and Bricker has also been very clear that if there was provocation, then that changes things. Here’s what he said less than 8 hours ago:
It’s possible that Zimmerman did, in fact, provoke Martin. For example, it’s possible that he actually started running after Martin and that he uttered threats or imprecations that caused Martin to fear for his safety. But Bricker’s hypothetical, the one that started this whole thread, made the assumption that this was not the case, because so far there is no proof that Zimmerman offered such provocation. That’s why, in trying to explain this to ywtf, i noted the conditional nature of Bricker’s hypothetical.
As i’ve said, there are some things about this case that i find very troubling, not least of which is that Zimmerman’s benefit of the doubt may end up arising precisely because he killed the only other witness to the beginning of the altercation. That could mean that he’s telling the truth, or it could simply be a very convenient by-product of his own criminal act. The problem is that we may never know, and the law requires that we be absolutely certain before convicting someone of a crime.
But there is a difference between simply following, on the one hand, and the type of deliberate chasing that you describe in your post, on the other. Following might make you a douchebag, and i think that there’s a reasonable amount of evidence to suggest that Zimmerman is a douchebag. But, much as some people might sometimes wish otherwise, being a douchebag is not necessarily illegal. Being impolite, or failing to observe accepted social etiquette, or following some black kid on a public street because he’s black and you think that makes him a criminal, might make you a douchebag, but it’s not illegal, and it doesn’t constitute an attack that can reasonably be met with violence.
I did miss the post by Bricker. Thank you for pointing it to me.
I was intentionally trying to get away from the GZ-TM fiasco.
And thanks for not calling me an idiot. Or implying that I am a racist. Or posting an evil smilie.
You are an idiot of the highest order. Your interpretation of events (i.e., what you call “the truth”) doesn’t matter one damn bit. What matters is “the rule of law”–what our society’s truth-finding (really truth-making, but I digress) function decides.
We didn’t decide that “RedFury and ywtf get to decide whether someone is guilty or not.” We decided that the courts get to decide.
So sit and cry if you want to (like the insignificant turd in the bowl you are). The rest of us like the rule of law, thankyoueversofuckingmuchasshole.
Wait. There’s an evil smilie? How do I do that? :evil?
Just post your pic.
You know that part you cut out? That was the important part. A citizen may arrest if they have probable cause to believe a crime was committed. That’s the point you and ywtf are so studiously missing over and over. It doesn’t matter whether a crime was actually committed, it matters whether the citizen has probable cause to believe a crime was committed.
Yeah, Steophan, you aren’t taking sides. That’s why you keep asserting Zimmerman’s version of events as fact, despite claiming to be neutral. you with the face is biased, sure, but no more biased than you guys who keep fighting with them about it.
And Bricker acts more like a defense attorney than anything. He attacks the flaws in others’ thinking, but you have to fight extremely hard to ever get him to admit any flaws in his thinking. He can’t grasp the concept that the law has nothing to do with morality–just like a defense attorney who thinks anything’s okay as long as it’s not illegal and helps their client.
But I’ve not seen him lie. His biases are extremely clear. If you’re too dumb to figure out what they are, and thus discount them when they come up, then you’re too dumb, not just for this messageboard, but for messageboards in general.
I will only add one thing to monstro’s question: I know for sure that the line between assault and not is not whether the person had done something violent. It makes sense to me that someone following me around in a threatening manner intends to do harm to me, and it makes no sense that I can’t do anything to defend myself until they actually harm me. But the law very rarely is based on what makes sense.
No. It only depends on whether there is probable cause to believe an actual crime was committed.
Imagine a man who enters a bank. He passes the teller a note telling her to give him the zipper deposit bags, and when the teller is confused, he forcefully points at some filled deposit bags and makes a demanding gesture. The teller considers the note and the forceful demanding gesture and concludes she is being robbed. At this point she has probable cause to arrest the man.
In fact, the man is hearing and speech impaired. He has entered the bank to get some empty coin zipper bags, needed for a lawful purpose. He had no intention of stealing anything, as the later explanation would later reveal.
The initial arrest is still not invalid. The teller cannot be successfully sued.
No, I want you to provide a cite that in Florida the only thing that a private citizen needs to make an arrest is probable cause. That is what you’ve asserted multiple times, with much caps lock spittle. See here:
[Quote=Bricker]
PROBABLE CAUSE. All that is necessary to support an arrest is PROBABLE CAUSE.
[/quote]
And see here:
And while you’re at it, I need a cite for this too.
Already been posted for you in this thread, my dim little bulb. Do try to keep up.
Muffin, she’s too busy stoiding away to actually absorb information presented in others’ posts.
In the above, you state your position, but you don’t give me your reasoning for it. Can you tell me what law or laws applicable in Florida you’re basing your reasoning on?
In each piece of legal language quoted in this thread which applies in Florida, the actual commission of a crime is explicitly stated as a condition for permissible citizen’s arrest. But the quotations I’m referring to all come from ywtf, (which doesn’t make them wrong but does make me wonder if there are other pieces of legal language just as applicable which someone opposing him might cite), and moreover, afaict, none of them are actual quotations of statutes or anything–just summaries of legal principles, or language from court decisions. Can you tell me what authoritative piece of legal language–most preferably an actual law!–you’re relying on for the reasoning that leads to the conclusion quoted above?
Yup, or has a bunch of lawyers on ignore. Sortta the opposite of keeping a lawyer on retainer.