Reply #43

In the discussion thread: So, I Have The Right To Stalk Someone and If They Fight Back, I Can Kill Them, Claiming Self Defense [View all]

Response to hack89 (Reply #23)

Fri May 18, 2012, 10:54 AM

noiretextatique (21,311 posts)

43. you used the word accost, not me

the question is not "who committed the first illegal act." the question is: which story is more plausible? zmmerman's story is not plausible simply because: he got out of the car. that act, though not illegal, most definitely lead to everything else that happened. and given that he did get out of the car, i don't buy his "i was so afraid" excuse.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

191 replies	Author	Time	Post
So, I Have The Right To Stalk Someone and If They Fight Back, I Can Kill Them, Claiming Self Defense [View all]	Yavin4	May 2012	OP
If they attack you first and you are in fear of your life as your face gets pounded then maybe so.	dkf	May 2012	#1
Huh...maybe I should have stayed in my car since I told the dispatcher the man looked suspicous.	vaberella	May 2012	#9
+1	ScreamingMeemie	May 2012	#12
Unfortunately, it's not illegal to disobey a dispatcher.	randome	May 2012	#26
I'm not talking about disobeying a dispatcher. I'm talking about finding the kid a threat.	vaberella	May 2012	#57
he was not threatened	noiretextatique	May 2012	#73
I completely agree.	randome	May 2012	#82
i pray for a good, aggressive prosecutor	noiretextatique	May 2012	#85
Bringing up his past should help the FBI if they want to pursue this as a hate crime.	randome	May 2012	#93
"fear for your life" = scary black man	noiretextatique	May 2012	#16
Yes. That's pretty much what it all boils down to -imo (nt)	PotatoChip	May 2012	#22
how many men, black or otherwise, do you let beat on you before you fight back?	StarryNight	May 2012	#165
if he had stayed in the car	noiretextatique	May 2012	#187
If you chase someone down you become the agressor in a sane state	uponit7771	May 2012	#20
Bullshit	Blue_Roses	May 2012	#33
The girlfriend's testimony about what Trayvon said is second-hand and may be excluded	amandabeech	May 2012	#170
"face gets pounded"?	riverwalker	May 2012	#50
zimmerman apologists	noiretextatique	May 2012	#76
In your world, a rapist can stalk and attack someone	Yavin4	May 2012	#56
YES...especially if the rapist is white	noiretextatique	May 2012	#68
You again. Taking up for another RW freak.	kestrel91316	May 2012	#86
it does get tiresome, doesn't it?	CatWoman	May 2012	#102
I and many, MANY others have tried alert after alert.	HughBeaumont	May 2012	#132
I want to know the answer to this question too!	JustAnotherGen	May 2012	#2
No, that's not how it works.	slackmaster	May 2012	#3
Apparently so. Even if you have been told that the police don't need you to stalk	ScreamingMeemie	May 2012	#4
Where is the evidence that Zimmerman attacked Trayvon	True Earthling	May 2012	#5
stalking is illegal in some places	noiretextatique	May 2012	#14
It's illegal in all 50 states and in the Military's UCMJ.	stevenleser	May 2012	#75
In Fla, "stalking" requires repeated actions. SEe. Fla. crim law. 784.048 (2) (3). nt.	amandabeech	May 2012	#171
Ok, fess up. You're Zimmerman's dad, right?	kestrel91316	May 2012	#87
OK, fess up. You are Martin's 1st cousin twice removed right?	ProgressiveProfessor	May 2012	#113
You ABSOLUTELY can approach anyone in your neighborhood and ask them questions.	Romulox	May 2012	#6
sure...and if the suspicious person kicks your ass	noiretextatique	May 2012	#11
if you attack someone who has not put their hands on you first,	StarryNight	May 2012	#34
any evidence that Martin attacked first?	noiretextatique	May 2012	#37
didn't say that. we don't know who touched who first. and neither you nor I know	StarryNight	May 2012	#163
No one has a right to creep a stranger	obamanut2012	May 2012	#134
well, if they don't have a right to do that, then they sure don't have a right to attack someone	StarryNight	May 2012	#164
Sure, and if they run away from you,	Mariana	May 2012	#41
Lots of "ifs" there. I'm not here to defend Zimmerman, just to get basic premises correct. nt	Romulox	May 2012	#80
Not too many "ifs".	Mariana	May 2012	#104
No, you can't	obamanut2012	May 2012	#131
I get the feeling that Zimmerman wasn't exactly looking like a Mr. Rogers type that night	Blue_Tires	May 2012	#138
And I can tell you to FUCK OFF also. So what??	Logical	May 2012	#148
Isn't great?! That's what Florida grants you and DUers support it. n/t	vaberella	May 2012	#7
only if you are white or a white latino...close enough	noiretextatique	May 2012	#8
+1	obamanut2012	May 2012	#135
apparently there are DUers who beleive	bowens43	May 2012	#10
I think of a lot of what you're interpreting as 'support'...	randome	May 2012	#29
Well, GZ has at least two who show up on every thread	kestrel91316	May 2012	#89
That's how it sounds to me, too.	randome	May 2012	#95
There has always been a segment on DU that supports the gun/death merchants	Hugabear	May 2012	#120
Pretty much.	smokey nj	May 2012	#13
seriously, what was Martin "defending himself" against? someone asking him	StarryNight	May 2012	#39
Um, George Zimmerman. You know the man who'd been following him.	smokey nj	May 2012	#48
why do you need to "defend" against following? you just keep walking. especially if you are a	StarryNight	May 2012	#167
He was defending himself (a child) from a creepy stalker that may or may not have been a sexual	Dragonfli	May 2012	#53
FAIL. A single punch doesn't justify a shooting, particularly if	kestrel91316	May 2012	#90
So you think it is find to physically attack someone you believe they are following you?	ProgressiveProfessor	May 2012	#99
I think it's FINE to verbally attack someone I believe is following me	CatWoman	May 2012	#103
There those here saying the Martin had the right to PHYSICALLY attack Zimmerman	ProgressiveProfessor	May 2012	#105
ok, so explain it to me	Blue_Tires	May 2012	#141
You do realize that your are making the reasonable person case, just like Zimmerman	ProgressiveProfessor	May 2012	#151
it's all in the manner of how you're being followed...	Blue_Tires	May 2012	#139
Not legally...	ProgressiveProfessor	May 2012	#150
So why did it work for Bernie Goetz?	Blue_Tires	May 2012	#173
The jury believed that he had been threatened with IIRC the screwdrivers that were being carried.	ProgressiveProfessor	May 2012	#179
just how martin had been threatened....	Blue_Tires	May 2012	#181
Not sure where you are getting that...	ProgressiveProfessor	May 2012	#183
it's a fine line...	Blue_Tires	May 2012	#184
you're african-american?	Blue_Tires	May 2012	#186
Yes, as was my late wife	ProgressiveProfessor	May 2012	#188
Stop by sometime...	Blue_Tires	May 2012	#189
I'm subscribed there	ProgressiveProfessor	May 2012	#190
You can follow and verbally accost someone in a non-threatening manner.	hack89	May 2012	#15
but he did accost him, according to you	noiretextatique	May 2012	#18
Accost =/= threaten or assault	hack89	May 2012	#23
How do you know any accosting was done in "a non threatening manner"?	Fumesucker	May 2012	#27
zimmerman went from "these people always get away" and "fucking coons"	noiretextatique	May 2012	#51
I don't know. Just pointing out what the jury will hear from his lawyers.	hack89	May 2012	#72
you used the word accost, not me	noiretextatique	May 2012	#43
Your logic makes perfect sense and I agree with it	hack89	May 2012	#78
i understand...i also know that juries are comprised of people	noiretextatique	May 2012	#79
So you are good with someone escalating a verbal confrontation to physical violence?	ProgressiveProfessor	May 2012	#106
Is it possible to put a reasonable person in fear of their life without breaking any law?	Fumesucker	May 2012	#19
That is a question for the jury	hack89	May 2012	#24
The "other side of the story" is the dead child.	TBF	May 2012	#44
I don't ignore it.	hack89	May 2012	#64
Well then we'll ignore that dead child and go with the badass.	TBF	May 2012	#92
Look - explaining what the law actually says is not justifying Trayvon's death	hack89	May 2012	#94
How the judge/jury interprets the law is what matters counselor. nt	TBF	May 2012	#96
No shit - but the law cannot be stretched beyond recognition to get "justice"	hack89	May 2012	#101
I don't think they have a problem here. The only folks stretching are the	TBF	May 2012	#117
They have a hell of a problem	hack89	May 2012	#121
Zimmerman can talk about ponies prancing in the sky if he wants to -	TBF	May 2012	#122
Zimmerman does not have to say a word	hack89	May 2012	#123
Zimmerman being told on tape to stay in his vehicle & the dead child.	TBF	May 2012	#124
Ignoring the 911 operator is not a crime	hack89	May 2012	#125
all i want is Zimmerman's official statement to police that night	Blue_Tires	May 2012	#176
of course it is	noiretextatique	May 2012	#47
Nope, I had someone arrested for following me	obamanut2012	May 2012	#136
What was the exact charge that he was convicted on? nt	hack89	May 2012	#146
Under florida law	ctaylors6	May 2012	#17
+1	uponit7771	May 2012	#21
"Repeatedly follows" is why Zimmerman was not charged with stalking. nt	hack89	May 2012	#25
We are not in court and stalking has another meaning besides the legal definition..	Fumesucker	May 2012	#30
Yes - but what happens in court is all that matters. nt	hack89	May 2012	#35
Then why worry about how people are using language outside of court? n/t	Fumesucker	May 2012	#42
Because it contributes to unrealistic expectations as to what will happen at trial.	hack89	May 2012	#67
He did repeatedly follow, it doesn't have to happen over days hours or weeks	uponit7771	May 2012	#46
He was not specifically charged with stalking	hack89	May 2012	#62
True, they don't have to charge him to prove the chain of events and whos at fault	uponit7771	May 2012	#65
"The initial act of felon aggression was the stalking" is a huge assumption on your part	hack89	May 2012	#88
Florida Stalking Statute	amandabeech	May 2012	#174
I think a case could be made that Zimmerman had a habit of stalking people of color.	intheflow	May 2012	#147
I'd keep my ass in the car	Aerows	May 2012	#28
That seems to be the case	ArcticFox	May 2012	#31
Falsely framed, but you already knew that	ProgressiveProfessor	May 2012	#32
I had the same thought professor	Yupster	May 2012	#40
The situation with Zimmerman and Martin, though	Aerows	May 2012	#63
No doubt about that	Yupster	May 2012	#70
Cops, who tend to overcharge only asked for manslaughter	ProgressiveProfessor	May 2012	#84
"Cops" tend to overcharge no one, as they do not have the capacity to do do.	Ikonoklast	May 2012	#107
Ok, cops tend to recommend/request charges on the high side	ProgressiveProfessor	May 2012	#110
Cops give evidence, reports, and testimony to a DA or a grand jury.	Ikonoklast	May 2012	#115
IIRC the Sanford PD requested/recommended that Zimmerman be charged with Manslaughter	ProgressiveProfessor	May 2012	#116
Law enforcement do not charge anyone	obamanut2012	May 2012	#137
Already discussed several posts up	ProgressiveProfessor	May 2012	#152
Make it not political	ProgressiveProfessor	May 2012	#81
I don't see that as political	Aerows	May 2012	#91
I too believe that Zimmerman should be found guilty, most likely of manslaughter	ProgressiveProfessor	May 2012	#97
Incorrect. We have clear evidence that Zimmerman Pursued Martin.	Yavin4	May 2012	#60
Here's how Florida defines stalking:	Kaleva	May 2012	#36
Yeap, ZMans following was willful and malicious and he followed him for a while	uponit7771	May 2012	#38
But it wasn't repeated following of Trayvon.	Kaleva	May 2012	#52
Yes it was, he was even told at one time to stay in the car...repeated doesn't have to happen over..	uponit7771	May 2012	#55
He wasn't told to stay in the car.	Kaleva	May 2012	#69
he had a pattern of stalking black males	noiretextatique	May 2012	#71
Which would be profiling and he may be charged with that.	Kaleva	May 2012	#83
Z took more than	Oneka	May 2012	#77
Yes, it is that simple, I disagree but I lack the proper pistol to be manly enough for them	Dragonfli	May 2012	#45
Stalking is illegal in Florida, but no one was stalked in the Martin/Zimmerman case.	ZombieHorde	May 2012	#49
The "repeated instances" can happen in a short time, stalking DOES apply here....	uponit7771	May 2012	#54
How does the law define a single instance? nt	ZombieHorde	May 2012	#58
The act itself and then the continuation is repeated	uponit7771	May 2012	#61
Is that the law? That seems extremely silly.	ZombieHorde	May 2012	#74
Can you cite a case or reg for that?	amandabeech	May 2012	#175
See Serial Killer Richard Ramirez	Yavin4	May 2012	#156
He was called the Night Stalker because it sounds catchy, not necessarily because	ZombieHorde	May 2012	#168
yes.... according to some, you should be free to kill others	fascisthunter	May 2012	#59
yes, that's exactly what some DUers are arguing	CreekDog	May 2012	#66
If Zimmerman was on the ground,	HockeyMom	May 2012	#98
You might want to review the earlier posts on what intermediate range means	ProgressiveProfessor	May 2012	#100
"Intermediate range" could be anywhere from 1 to 18 inches according to one source.	Kaleva	May 2012	#111
Apparently so. Both in Florida and on DU.	Bake	May 2012	#108
Nah. I said that a month and a half ago.........	socialist_n_TN	May 2012	#129
It depends on the colors of the persons involved	Blue_Tires	May 2012	#109
+1	La Lioness Priyanka	May 2012	#126
only if you are white. really doubt it would work if you were black.	La Lioness Priyanka	May 2012	#112
Number one	Life Long Dem	May 2012	#114
NOT WITH DEADLY FORCE........	socialist_n_TN	May 2012	#130
Trayvon was stalked	obamanut2012	May 2012	#140
Yep that is EXACTLY what they are saying	Rex	May 2012	#118
Yes. That is it indeed. Incredible.	uppityperson	May 2012	#119
Zimmerman didn't "Stalk" Martin	Taitertots	May 2012	#127
yuh... he just "walked up to him"....lol	fascisthunter	May 2012	#133
Well, he certainly wasn't on horseback	Taitertots	May 2012	#144
what about the following in the car before that?	Blue_Tires	May 2012	#142
So, Serial Killer Richard Ramirez Didn't Stalk Anyone??	Yavin4	May 2012	#155
thank you!	Nine	May 2012	#157
WTF does Richard Ramirez have to do with this case and/or the laws of Florida?	Taitertots	May 2012	#161
I believe whatever my TV tells me. Is that what some DUers here are arguing?	just1voice	May 2012	#128
If you follow someone because you mistakenly or even stupidly suspect they may be up to no good,	Vattel	May 2012	#143
So, How Does The Person Being Followed Know That The Stalker Is Non-Violent?	Yavin4	May 2012	#153
You tell me.	Vattel	May 2012	#159
If you are female, certainly.	eridani	May 2012	#191
depends on what the Race of the person you are going after is	JI7	May 2012	#145
No	hfojvt	May 2012	#149
There Is A Famous LA Serial Killer Named Richard Ramirez	Yavin4	May 2012	#154
Maybe Zimmerman put his hands on Martin and Martin responded?	soccer1	May 2012	#158
Yes, that is definitely possible.	slackmaster	May 2012	#162
Maybe, but, again, the hearsay rule prevents a third party from reporting what Trayvon said to her.	amandabeech	May 2012	#177
Hearsay exceptions	soccer1	May 2012	#178
Are you thinking about "dying declaration?"	amandabeech	May 2012	#180
Exceptions to hearsay rule	soccer1	May 2012	#182
We don't know what happened	treestar	May 2012	#160
Yes, Zimmerman could have avoided shooting Trayvon. No doubt about that.	soccer1	May 2012	#169
Lax gun laws mean bullies are armed.	daaron	May 2012	#166
You need to be a non-minority and have some pretext, but yes.	gulliver	May 2012	#172
The dumbing down of DU continues.	flvegan	May 2012	#185

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.