Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: So, I Have The Right To Stalk Someone and If They Fight Back, I Can Kill Them, Claiming Self Defense [View all]ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)32. Falsely framed, but you already knew that
Last edited Fri May 18, 2012, 11:24 AM - Edit history (1)
Let me turn this around for you...
If I am being confronted in a public place, possibly called names and otherwise being harassed, am I legally entitled to physically attack the other person? That is in essence what you are saying.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
191 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
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
I'm not talking about disobeying a dispatcher. I'm talking about finding the kid a threat.
vaberella
May 2012
#57
Bringing up his past should help the FBI if they want to pursue this as a hate crime.
randome
May 2012
#93
how many men, black or otherwise, do you let beat on you before you fight back?
StarryNight
May 2012
#165
The girlfriend's testimony about what Trayvon said is second-hand and may be excluded
amandabeech
May 2012
#170
Apparently so. Even if you have been told that the police don't need you to stalk
ScreamingMeemie
May 2012
#4
In Fla, "stalking" requires repeated actions. SEe. Fla. crim law. 784.048 (2) (3). nt.
amandabeech
May 2012
#171
didn't say that. we don't know who touched who first. and neither you nor I know
StarryNight
May 2012
#163
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
Lots of "ifs" there. I'm not here to defend Zimmerman, just to get basic premises correct. nt
Romulox
May 2012
#80
I get the feeling that Zimmerman wasn't exactly looking like a Mr. Rogers type that night
Blue_Tires
May 2012
#138
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
So you think it is find to physically attack someone you believe they are following you?
ProgressiveProfessor
May 2012
#99
There those here saying the Martin had the right to PHYSICALLY attack Zimmerman
ProgressiveProfessor
May 2012
#105
You do realize that your are making the reasonable person case, just like Zimmerman
ProgressiveProfessor
May 2012
#151
The jury believed that he had been threatened with IIRC the screwdrivers that were being carried.
ProgressiveProfessor
May 2012
#179
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
We are not in court and stalking has another meaning besides the legal definition..
Fumesucker
May 2012
#30
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
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
I think a case could be made that Zimmerman had a habit of stalking people of color.
intheflow
May 2012
#147
"Cops" tend to overcharge no one, as they do not have the capacity to do do.
Ikonoklast
May 2012
#107
IIRC the Sanford PD requested/recommended that Zimmerman be charged with Manslaughter
ProgressiveProfessor
May 2012
#116
I too believe that Zimmerman should be found guilty, most likely of manslaughter
ProgressiveProfessor
May 2012
#97
Yeap, ZMans following was willful and malicious and he followed him for a while
uponit7771
May 2012
#38
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
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
He was called the Night Stalker because it sounds catchy, not necessarily because
ZombieHorde
May 2012
#168
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
only if you are white. really doubt it would work if you were black.
La Lioness Priyanka
May 2012
#112
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
Maybe, but, again, the hearsay rule prevents a third party from reporting what Trayvon said to her.
amandabeech
May 2012
#177