No. Running after someone is not assault.
Running after someone yelling, “I’m gonna kick your ass!” is probably assault. Running after someone yelling, “I wanna talk to you for a sec!” is almost certainly not.
Running after someone else, without more information, does not qualify as assault, or else everyone in the Boston Marathon except the guy in front would be guilty of assault.
Really? Having concerns about the circumstances in which an unarmed 17 year old boy is shot and killed just screams “recreational outrage” and “offenderati” to you?
So this is his story to the police, the story that the police found credible and used when they told the press that they believe Zimmerman acted in self-defense? I’m sure that police department is totally impartial and doing the best investigative job they can. Too bad they never tried to find out if the dead teenager made phone calls right before he died, and interrogate the person he was talking to on the phone.
If this Florida situation is a case where people try to assert that there is not enough evidence to overcome the standard of self-defense, I can’t imagine what would be enough evidence when no witnesses are around.
After reading about this case, and the other case mentioned in a previous post where a man in Texas tells the 911 dispatcher “I’m going out to shoot those people”, shooting them in the back, and then claiming self-defense and getting away with it, it seems pretty clear that these “stand your ground” laws are an open license to kill people without sufficient cause and easily get away with it. I find it really hard to believe that anyone would continue to support these laws.
I’m so sorry I get upset about teenagers getting shot down in the street. Of course I should have just read the article and then gone back to watching Desperate Housewives or American Idol! Silly me.
I can’t help but wonder, though, if the public outcry fro all those idiotic offenderati and recreational outrages might not have had some influence on the State’s Attorney decision to call a grand jury.
This is…so ridiculous. No need to even directly respond to it. I’m mainly just bumping this to show the lengths some posters are going to simply to justify this maniac’s behavior.
Big black man chasing anyone down in the dark of the night would be subject to target practice in gun country, and few people would even question it. But let it be Zimmerman, and it suddenly becomes a case of a concerned citizen trying to his level best to continue an “interview”. Sweet mother of Jesus.
So what happens in a grand jury is that the prosecution, but not the defense, gets to present the case to the grand jury, which must find probable cause to hand down in indictment.
Note the this is actually an easier standard at times than the police, who are obliged to consider the totality of circumstances. The prosecution is not required to present exculpatory evidence (evidence that helps the defense) to the grand jury.
If the grand jury fails to indict, I wonder what the monstros and you with the faces of the world will then say?
Legally running after someone may not be assault. But I am 99.99% certain that both Shodan and Bricker would not feel the same way if I started talking to their wife or daughter on the street and then followed them and when they started running I chased them. Personally I would consider that assault if someone did that to my wife, my daughter or my son (if I had a son). Can you both honestly tell me that if I chased your wife/daughter down the street that you wouldn’t consider that assault? Interesting, almost a Dukakis moment here isn’t it!
Emotionally being chased by someone who you don’t know, whether they are yelling or not would create that anxiety. Not sure why yelling "I am going to kick your ass’ adds any more anxiety to the situation or changes it to assault. The physical act of chasing me implies danger which implies assault. At least to me, but that is why we have lawyers to split those hairs. Now if I am being accused of assault I would want a lawyer who would split those hairs so overall that is a good thing.
Interesting discusson on this subject though.
What about running after someone yelling, “You’re not getting away this time, asshole!”
Assault not assault, the guy was running after a boy for unjustified reasons. I’m sorry, but if he was being chased, Martin was well within his rights to bloody his nose, and there is not legalese in the world to convince me otherwise.
What I should mention is that at no point ever did the State of Florida say Zimmerman would never be charged. You guys were upset the investigation wasn’t operating in the manner in which you thought it should have operated.
To me, I have far greater concerns about the implications for American justice when a bunch of angry blacks can possibly change how a criminal investigation gets handled than I do about some nobody teenager getting shot.
Ok, how about if the kid had been 21, packing a gun, a gang-banger, and with a violent felony record?
Why do you care so much?
So all this “he’s acting strange, he must be on drugs” stuff was the brilliant observation of a teen using a magically invisible phone? The mind boggles.
So you’re asking me if the situations would be the same if instead they were entirely different? 
I didn’t fully make my point, but I do think the public reaction has impacted how this case has been handled. That’s true of course in all criminal cases in which there is a serious public reaction (from Leopold & Loeb to O.J. to Duke Lacrosse to this.) That’s why to some degree I wish our system was more akin to Canada’s at least in how their prosecutors and (a bit of a non-sequitur) their judges are chosen.
My impression of this case is there are two possibilities:
Sanford police and State’s Attorneys did not push the issue because of racism or pro-Zimmerman bias. I say and the State’s Attorney because subsequent news has shown the prosecutors were involved very early on in advising the police to arrest or not.
The prosecutors and police in this case behaved in the same way they did for many other self-defense cases in Florida in which there was no eye witness–they decided not to prosecute. Not because it was right, but because prosecutors have an innate aversion to risk and the risk of losing a case. Call it “cowardice” or simple expediency, but this case is not without precedent in that regard.
I think it’s possible it’s number one, but number one requires me to presume bad acts, and I won’t do that without evidence. So I presume it’s probably the second scenario that actually played out. The public outcry basically has forced the SA to put their balls on the line so to speak.
I’ve spent time in Florida, blacks are very heavily involved in government down there both as police officers and government officials. So if racism was really the motive I’d be shocked nothing has been leaked. Is Sanford an all white police force? No black attorneys in the SA office? That’s not the standard in Florida that I’ve seen.
What are you talking about? I live about 20 miles from Sanford. I checked and it never dropped below 60 that night in Sanford. I wouldn’t even put on a long sleeve shirt for that. I don’t even own a hat that covers my ears.
Cite?
Oh, come on, now… put yourself in Martin’s situation - late, nobody around, off-road and all-in-all a non-public place - and someone gets out of the car and goes after you as you are the only person around.
There is no other conclusion but intentional assault.
Your analogy with marathon is totally inappropriate as it ignores the whole situation. Actually, I can’t believe it how you - as I understand, a lawyer - can even come up with an analogy like that.
Yes, what if the kid had been 21, packing a gun, a gang-banger, and with a violent felony record?
What about the fact that it has not been established that Zimmerman chased Martin yelling “You’re not getting away this time, asshole!”
I think by this time most of us are aware that you are genuinely unconcerned with facts or law.
Regards,
Shodan
Sad sad sad