You only linked to the statute itself, which uses but doesn’t define the term “physical menace”. If you do a little research, you’ll see that it doesn’t mean what you think it does. This is covered in the other thread, for those who are interested.
[QUOTE=split p&j]
As I said in the other thread, up here you don’t follow random people in the first place. To do so is considered a threat, and they would be well within their rights to punch me. You can watch, but you call the cops, the proper authority to actually follow the person.
[/quote]
I urge you never to put your ideas into practice; if you punch someone just for following you, you will go to jail.
[QUOTE=split p&j]
I’ll remind you that Zimmerman was watching and following, and Martin was not doing any thing. That’s a fact.
[/QUOTE]
It is, up until the part where Martin started beating Zimmerman. That’s the part where the law was broken. Unless Zimmerman tried to tackled Martin or something like that…but there’s no evidence that he did so, and the fact that Martin had to come to Zimmerman for there to be a confrontation is evidence that Martin was willing to get up close and personal with Zimmerman, and by choice, not out of fear.
Do you honestly think race played no factor in who Zimmerman deemed suspicious? If not, why did he seem to report suspicious Black people are vastly higher rates than one would expect?
That’s pretty much the way it is in my state too. Following, absent any overt act of harassment, isn’t a criminal act. However, batter is. It’s best to keep your hands off other people.
For a time. The question that many people seem to avoid was that, per Zimmerman’s testimony he stopped following Martin and Martin then confronted him. Given the 4 minute time frame, the injuries and other physical evidence on Zimmerman and Martin, there is reasonable doubt in this case the Zimmerman committed criminal homicide. Unfortunately the only evidence we have on who confronted who is Zimmerman’s testimony and there is no evidence that conflicts with his testimonly.
One spoke of racial animus against Middle Easterners. The other was anonymous, the problem of which I will address below.
[QUOTE=brickbacon]
Plus, we are have the indirect testimony of his demonstrably racist unofficial spokespeople (eg. dad and brother), the fact that he routinely calls the cops on “suspicious” Black people doing mundane things, and the fact that he ended up in a fatal altercation with a Black kid he was following for no apparent reason, and despite being told/asked/whatever not to. Not sure how much more evidence of racial bias and animus you are going to get from someone not in a klan robe.
[/quote]
People who happen to be genetically related to Zimmerman making remarks is not and cannot be evidence that Zimmerman is a racist. I shudder to think of my father’s racial attitudes being assigned to me.
He called the police about suspicious people, some of whom were black and some of whom were not. One of them was Martin, the reason was that he found Martin’s behavior suspicious. He describes the behavior in the NEN call.
The fatal altercation appears to have been initiated by Martin, so it’s difficult to call that evidence of any attribute of Zimmerman’s.
[QUOTE=brickbacon]
As far as evidence he is not a racist. How about any evidence that the people making those accusations are wrong or misguided.
[/quote]
How does one provide evidence that an anonymous source’s accusations are wrong or misguided? You won’t accept evidence of Zimmerman tutoring black folks, or demanding an arrest in a case with a black victim. What else could be done to rebut this anonymous accusation?
[QUOTE=brickbacon]
Or some evidence of growth in his perspectives and opinions. To the day Martin was shot, he seemed to be racially profiling people. Again, the delineation regarding whether or not one is a racist is more so about the times who acts on those prejudices, not the times the don’t. Hell, Fred Phelps was a civil rights activist. Are you really gonna claim we really espoused those ideals given his behavior later in life?
[/QUOTE]
You say “seemed to be”, but the evidence for it is rather thin. He didn’t only call about black people, nor about all black people, or he’d have far more calls to his name.
There may be shades of racial bias here or there but with the positions that some of you are taking you’d think that Zimmerman left his house that night hellbent on eradicating his neighborhood of any and every minority he could encounter.
Yes, shades. Making fun of a coworker by mocking his voice, and making bad suicide bombing “jokes” is inappropriate but is mild considering the overall spectrum of racism. Making police reports that occasionally mention race - sometimes only when prompted may have racial motivation behind it but again not the same as being appreciably racist to the point where it overrides the other factors and place it at the forefront of the issues at hand.
Well technically, if you go by testimony, Zimmerman was not following Martin when Martin confronted him. He reports that he was going back to his vehicle and was confronted by Martin. No evidence indicates otherwise. Also, I believe a reasonable person would fear for their life if an assailant was on top of them, not letting them up, punching them and slamming their head into the sidewalk pavement.
Also your analogies are poor.
As a woman, I would not pepper spray a male for following me into an apartment building. I would probably assume he was going to see someone in the build, since other people live there. I don’t believe at any time, Zimmerman told Martin he has a right to follow him. Also, there is no evidence that Zimmerman ran towards Martin. Also your video in no way represents the Martin/Zimmerman scenario. I would also dispute that someone’s instinct would be to fight. You really can’t know, and no one knows how the conflict truely started except Zimmerman and Martin.
Pancakes, what do you mean it was ‘mild’ ? He was in a professional workplace where discrimination and harrasment is prohibited, and yet gz on multiple occasions persisted in his racist harrasment towards the middle eastern coworker. How would do you deem that mild? Because he didnt scream the word terrorist in his face or physically attack him? Im sorry but your comment is very concerning, and it doesnt sound like it was mild to the victim of the racist harrasment
Wow. I am taken aback. What other fully legal behaviors can be punished with death or at least a good beating if someone else objects to them, pray tell?
“Could” physically harm them isn’t the standard, nor should it be. Anyone I’m ever around could physically harm me. Actually striking them, however, requires the force being necessary to prevent the imminent use of unlawful force.
I’m surprised you’re fine with someone getting beaten to death for following someone, so life’s full of surprises.
She can use her pepper spray if there’s a reasonable belief that it’s necessary to prevent his imminent use of unlawful force. Him being near her, or having followed her, or looking wrong, or anything less that that, means she can’t legally spray him.
I’d punch him in the face! No, wait no. I’d keep an eye on him, maybe call the police, or shelter, or evade. Punching him in the face is actually the worst choice, because it allows him to legally punch right back. So, instead of being followed, I’m now getting legally beaten up. Yay.
What’s “too close”, again? Can I punch anyone that enters that distance?
No, I wouldn’t hit them unless they did something actually threatening: put their hands on me, showed a weapon, etc. There’s no threatening way to walk.
If he’s barreling right at me, sure, because that’s an imminent threat. I wouldn’t counter-charge them, of course. But if someone’s running at you and comes within a few feet, it’d be physically impossible for them not to run into you, so again, imminent threat.
Irrelevant unless they draw it. Carrying a weapon doesn’t entitle people to hit you.
A jury of my peers would, when they convicted me, when the prosecutor showed that I faced no imminent threat when I used force.
You forgot to ask me the hypothetical where a person bursts from cover right next to you with a shout. That’s an imminent threat.
Maybe it did, and maybe it didn’t. I object to your certainty, on the back of an anonymous person’s accusation, and the co-worker’s statement about bias against Middle Easterners (you explained that working to aid some members of a race didn’t preclude being biased against it in some circumstances…by the same token, if Zimmerman had a problem with Middle Easterners, that doesn’t make him more or less likely to have a problem with black folks).
It certainly would be tough on the private investigation industry if any of them could be legally pulled from their cars and beaten to death by the person they were surveilling.
The point is that the “suspicious behavior” was being Black. There AFAIK, nothing Martin did that was inherently suspicious. The problem is that by Zimmerman’s stance being a Black guy he didn’t know in his neighborhood was suspicious. That is problematic for a number of reasons.
And? I don’t think this person was anonymous. Their identity has been kept secret. There is a big difference. regardless, his/her claims that the family (including George) was racist is borne out by at least two of those cases. Additionally, unless you are arguing he was racist towards Middle Easterners, and not Black people, I am not sure why you think that’s important.
It’s not direct evidence, but it’s pretty telling given the other evidence we have. First, as I said, it corroborates what the other witness said. Second, given that they were his spokespeople, and he is being charged with a crime some believe to be racially motivated, the fact that they can’t act without outing themselves as obvious racists either means George was an idiot to trust them, or he is cosigning what they say. It’s not like the dad had a slip of the tongue. He wrote a “book” about how Blacks were the real racists, along with groups like the NBA :dubious:. If you are George Zimmerman, why don’t you publicly acknowledge these people who you allowed ot speak for you, espouse views you don’t?
The principle is basically the same as when a surrogate for a politicians says something off-message or indefensible. If you choose someone to represent you, you are signing off on the fact that you think they are good representatives.
Which is not compelling at all. Either way, my question was if you think race was a factor in who he deem suspicious? If not, why such a disproportionate number of Black people we identified as suspicious? Are you suggesting Black people more suspicious in that area, or that his judgment was not influenced by race?
I just fundamentally disagree with your way of looking at this. Even if Martin threw the first punch, which is arguable, the altercation started when Zimmerman starting following him. And Bricker starts whining, I am not making a legal argument, but rather a moral one.
It’s not anonymous. The person’s identity wasn’t disclosed to reporters. See this article:
If this person is so unreliable, why didn’t Zimmerman’s defense team want the testimony released? You act as though their hands were tied, yet they didn’t want it released. Yes, the paucity of details makes it hard to evaluate the claim as an outsider, but the claims themselves, and the behavior of the defense coupled with the actions of others, give them credence.
Some people may be arguing that. I am not. I have no doubt he didn’t want to kill someone in that fashion as a general proposition. But, he made choices that made that a strong possibility.
Suppose I agree with you. Why should that matter? Is anyone arguing he is a on the tail end of the racist spectrum?
Which is refuting a claim I didn’t make. I didn’t say it was the ONLY factor, nor do I think you can usually prove such a thing. The issue is why Zimmerman thinks a Black kid walking home, or sitting in a car, doing nothing else to arouse concern, is suspicious.
I just want to point out the differences in the NYS menacing laws. This is a different link, but it proves how well known this law is here. I can provide cite after cite of people being charged with this.
Notice the wording between 2nd and 3rd degree. NYS makes it point that if you display any kind of weapon, it’s 2nd degree, but a weapon is NOT required for a menacing charge. Zimmerman would be convicted of 3rd degree menacing up here, no doubt about it. And since that is a criminal act, he’d be on the hook for murder.
Are people really trying to tell me there is no similar law in Florida? Or is it just a case of the dead person is black, so who cares?
Maybe. But the issue shouldn’t rest on whether you are losing a fight you started.
They are not analogies, they are hypotheticals. There is a difference you have a problem appreciating.
Decades of social science disagrees with you.
More nonsense. Was it not clear when I said such actions don’t justify being beaten to death? Are you being deliberately obtuse.
I am not making a legal argument. My point is, if some women you car about is in a similar situation, do you tell her to not act unless the person assaults her first?
And many people would. The question is not what is legally permissible, but rather what is foreseeable.
But how do you know he isn’t gonna run right past you? What if he stops short and asks you for help because some guy robbed him? Again, this is where you are trusting your judgment on what someone else’s motives are is accurate. You assume someone running towards you is an imminent threat, yet you deny Martin that same latitude regarding a guy following him at night for apparently no reason.
No, but for many people, it heightens the situation. Do you think a heated verbal argument between an unarmed person and one with a gun proceeds in the same fashion and tone as one between 2 unarmed people?
Geez. I am not interested in what you can get away with in a court of law. I am asking you if you think it’s right. the legal questions have been settled for the most part. The question is why you think the situation occurred as it did, and where there is fault.
So with regard to the OP… the fact that the two are of a different race and some time previously one of the parties involved was found to have done something vaguely racist, the trial is now about race.
And it’s somehow being used as an example of race relations in America.
And reflective of the attitudes of “white” people towards black people.
You rejected Zimmerman’s working for justice for a black man who was beaten by a white man as evidence contrary to racism, on the grounds that “Being a racist in today’s society very rarely means you hate ALL x people. It usually means you harbor biases that affect your behavior.”
So being a racist doesn’t mean hating ALL x people, but it does mean hating some of every race but your own? If you dislike one group, then you dislike them all?
It’s rather complicated by the fact that these were family members. It’s hard to publically side against your family, especially during such a difficult time.
It may have been. The police dispatchers didn’t ask for the subject’s race in every instance, and Zimmerman didn’t volunteer it, so we don’t know how disproportionate the numbers were, or how they compare to the immediate area of the neighborhood.
You’re entitled to your own morals.
Why didn’t his defense want wildly prejudicial accusations released? Because they aren’t fools. There’s nothing to gain, and much to lose, irrespective of whether the accusations are true.
Oh, and there’s this:
If all you’ve got is “some of his family made racist remarks!”, then you’ve got nothing. My father and brother have very different racial outlooks than I, as it happens.