The Zimmerman Files..

[Des-Bal]

If someone follows you from their vehicle and then gets out of their vehicle to continue to follow you after you get off the road to avoid them, would you not perceive that situation as one in which you face imminent risk of being harmed?

What if you firmly warned this person to leave you alone but they continued to follow you?

What if you warned this person and then they attempted to corner you?

It doesn't matter because Trayvon Martin doesn't need to claim self-defense he was never charged with anything. I will note however that if you're asking what people would do I really hope "beat them while they scream for help" is not an answer regardless of the question.

You missed the sarcasm...

Everybody's saying nonsensical things your sarcasm is camouflaged.

[Farnhamia]

pretty sure it was a reference to the poster vassenor

Imagine becoming so notorious for how you conduct yourself that people started verbing your name as a descriptor of a disingenuous debating style. Then imagine reporting it to try to get it silenced rather than a) reflecting on how your pattern of behaviour over many years led to this extraordinary turn of events and b) thinking about how you might improve.

And yet, Vassenor is not the topic of this thread. You have your opinion of Vass and I imagine they have an opinion of you. Neither of those belong in this thread or, really, any other thread.

[Mushet]

I would buy OJ Simpson's Bronco and mount Bonnie and Clyde's machine guns on the roof, while being double-strapped with Aaron Burr's flintlock and George Zimmerman's pistol. Furthermore, I would wear the suit JFK was killed in while I drove it around.

I don't think the guns would do you much good with that many jinxes.

[Arlenton]

Should sue the media instead tbh.

[The Black Forrest]

Should sue the media instead tbh.

Under what charge?

[The Two Jerseys]

Should sue the media instead tbh.

He did, the judge threw it out because he's a "public figure".

Apparently the media is allowed to get away with defamation if they do it to you often enough.

[Page]

If someone follows you from their vehicle and then gets out of their vehicle to continue to follow you after you get off the road to avoid them, would you not perceive that situation as one in which you face imminent risk of being harmed?

What if you firmly warned this person to leave you alone but they continued to follow you?

What if you warned this person and then they attempted to corner you?

I wouldn't

Are the second two questions relevant?

It seems to me that you are being intentionally obstinate. I think I've been quite clear in establishing that the context in which Zimmerman followed Trayvon is inherently menacing.

You say there is a categorical difference between following someone and attacking them. It is obviously the context that determines whether a potentially neutral action is actually a threat.

Pulling out a gun does not automatically constitute a threat either, but it certainly is a threat in a certain setting. If I'm hanging out with a friend at his house and he retrieves a firearm because he wants to show it to me, that is not a threat. But if I'm at an ATM machine and a stranger comes up behind me with a gun in his hand, that is unquestionably a threat.

[Telconi]

I wouldn't

Are the second two questions relevant?

It seems to me that you are being intentionally obstinate. I think I've been quite clear in establishing that the context in which Zimmerman followed Trayvon is inherently menacing.

You say there is a categorical difference between following someone and attacking them. It is obviously the context that determines whether a potentially neutral action is actually a threat.

Pulling out a gun does not automatically constitute a threat either, but it certainly is a threat in a certain setting. If I'm hanging out with a friend at his house and he retrieves a firearm because he wants to show it to me, that is not a threat. But if I'm at an ATM machine and a stranger comes up behind me with a gun in his hand, that is unquestionably a threat.

I don't know why, however... There is literally zero harm that can come from someone following me. If someone follows me for hours and hours on end, I'll be no more injured or killed as a result.

The question of relevance came from those actions not occurring in the situation at hand.

[Myrensis]

Zimmerman's injuries are irrelevant, he was the aggressor. He persisted in a pursuit despite no evidence that Trayvon had done anything wrong and despite already calling the police. Zimmerman was told to not follow him but he continued to anyway. Meanwhile, Trayvon made an effort to avoid confrontation by walking away. Trayvon stopped walking on the street and cut through the housing to escape; Zimmerman got out of his car and continued to follow him.

We don't know what words were spoken between them but we can certainly infer that Trayvon made it known that he wanted to be left alone. We do know he was on the phone with his friend and told her that he was concerned about the man following him. He wasn't looking for a fight.

Trayvon wasn't looking for a fight while he beat a man screaming for help.

Zimmerman did nothing illegal. Your perception of what it means to be an aggressor is severely flawed, the only contact that actually matters is who initiated violence and that was Trayvon.

We have no idea who initiated violence, we only have Zimmerman's claim that Martin did.

We only know that Martin was winning, which isn't terribly surprising given that it was part of Zimmerman's defense that he's just a fat useless tub of jelly who couldn't fight off a stiff breeze. Presumably this is why he carries a gun on his little wannabe supercop adventures.

[Kernen]

Should sue the media instead tbh.

He did, the judge threw it out because he's a "public figure".

Apparently the media is allowed to get away with defamation if they do it to you often enough.

Yes. Welcome to the First Amendment.

[Torrocca]

I wouldn't

Are the second two questions relevant?

It seems to me that you are being intentionally obstinate. I think I've been quite clear in establishing that the context in which Zimmerman followed Trayvon is inherently menacing.

You say there is a categorical difference between following someone and attacking them. It is obviously the context that determines whether a potentially neutral action is actually a threat.

Pulling out a gun does not automatically constitute a threat either, but it certainly is a threat in a certain setting. If I'm hanging out with a friend at his house and he retrieves a firearm because he wants to show it to me, that is not a threat. But if I'm at an ATM machine and a stranger comes up behind me with a gun in his hand, that is unquestionably a threat.

But the Legality Book of Floridian Legalism didn't say he couldn't chase somebody throughout their neighborhood, Page! The Law Book of Lawism didn't say he couldn't own and carry a gun while menacingly hunting down a teenager, Page! The Lawyer's and Citizen's Handy Dandy Rules and Guidelines Book on Legal Actions said he's allowed to defend himself, and everybody knows that self-defense is when you hunt somebody else down and then kill them after confronting them because they gained an upper hand over you, Page! Why can't you acknowledge the infallibility of the Holy Legal Book of Law-Based Legal Justice, Page?!?!?! Everybody knows that the justice system can never ever ever be wrong in its judgments and imprison innocent people or let guilty people go free! Everybody knows that the justice system is always right about everything, especially in this case where the only thing that anyone has to go off is the word of the person who killed another person after hunting them down throughout this neighborhood! All hail the law!

[Kernen]

It seems to me that you are being intentionally obstinate. I think I've been quite clear in establishing that the context in which Zimmerman followed Trayvon is inherently menacing.

You say there is a categorical difference between following someone and attacking them. It is obviously the context that determines whether a potentially neutral action is actually a threat.

Pulling out a gun does not automatically constitute a threat either, but it certainly is a threat in a certain setting. If I'm hanging out with a friend at his house and he retrieves a firearm because he wants to show it to me, that is not a threat. But if I'm at an ATM machine and a stranger comes up behind me with a gun in his hand, that is unquestionably a threat.

But the Legality Book of Floridian Legalism didn't say he couldn't chase somebody throughout their neighborhood, Page! The Law Book of Lawism didn't say he couldn't own and carry a gun while menacingly hunting down a teenager, Page! The Lawyer's and Citizen's Handy Dandy Rules and Guidelines Book on Legal Actions said he's allowed to defend himself, and everybody knows that self-defense is when you hunt somebody else down and then kill them after confronting them because they gained an upper hand over you, Page! Why can't you acknowledge the infallibility of the Holy Legal Book of Law-Based Legal Justice, Page?!?!?! Everybody knows that the justice system can never ever ever be wrong in its judgments and imprison innocent people or let guilty people go free! Everybody knows that the justice system is always right about everything, especially in this case where the only thing that anyone has to go off is the word of the person who killed another person after hunting them down throughout this neighborhood! All hail the law!

The law doesn't care about feelings. Law enforcement is not, primarily, about justice. Police, prosecutors, and trial judges should enforce the law without external concern according to the established procedure, even when the result seems unfair.

[Des-Bal]

But the Legality Book of Floridian Legalism didn't say he couldn't chase somebody throughout their neighborhood, Page! The Law Book of Lawism didn't say he couldn't own and carry a gun while menacingly hunting down a teenager, Page! The Lawyer's and Citizen's Handy Dandy Rules and Guidelines Book on Legal Actions said he's allowed to defend himself, and everybody knows that self-defense is when you hunt somebody else down and then kill them after confronting them because they gained an upper hand over you, Page! Why can't you acknowledge the infallibility of the Holy Legal Book of Law-Based Legal Justice, Page?!?!?! Everybody knows that the justice system can never ever ever be wrong in its judgments and imprison innocent people or let guilty people go free! Everybody knows that the justice system is always right about everything, especially in this case where the only thing that anyone has to go off is the word of the person who killed another person after hunting them down throughout this neighborhood! All hail the law!

The point is that any ruling except an acquittal would have simply not been following the law. You want to change the law? Good on you, and try that shit on the next bastard- it has nothing to do with Zimmerman because he did nothing that was illegal when he did it. You want to whine that we don't live under the fiat of rule of some dictator who happens to share your personal perspective? Write a fucking blog and dump it into the cesspool of the internet. The verdict was 100% correct and on some level you know that because you haven't even attempted to charactetrize Zimmerman's conduct prior to the shooting as illegal rather than just upsetting to your sensibilities which will not brook racists having rights, or people failing to obey the divine commands of a 911 operator, or how assault is okay if you're carrying skittles, or how you can't have any right to defend yourself against someone old enough to be a marine.

There was no reason to bother trying Zimmerman, there was never any evidence to support his conviction, there was no other verdict for the jury to find. You don't have to be happy about it but you have to recognize anything else would be injustice.

[Telconi]

It seems to me that you are being intentionally obstinate. I think I've been quite clear in establishing that the context in which Zimmerman followed Trayvon is inherently menacing.

You say there is a categorical difference between following someone and attacking them. It is obviously the context that determines whether a potentially neutral action is actually a threat.

Pulling out a gun does not automatically constitute a threat either, but it certainly is a threat in a certain setting. If I'm hanging out with a friend at his house and he retrieves a firearm because he wants to show it to me, that is not a threat. But if I'm at an ATM machine and a stranger comes up behind me with a gun in his hand, that is unquestionably a threat.

But the Legality Book of Floridian Legalism didn't say he couldn't chase somebody throughout their neighborhood, Page! The Law Book of Lawism didn't say he couldn't own and carry a gun while menacingly hunting down a teenager, Page! The Lawyer's and Citizen's Handy Dandy Rules and Guidelines Book on Legal Actions said he's allowed to defend himself, and everybody knows that self-defense is when you hunt somebody else down and then kill them after confronting them because they gained an upper hand over you, Page! Why can't you acknowledge the infallibility of the Holy Legal Book of Law-Based Legal Justice, Page?!?!?! Everybody knows that the justice system can never ever ever be wrong in its judgments and imprison innocent people or let guilty people go free! Everybody knows that the justice system is always right about everything, especially in this case where the only thing that anyone has to go off is the word of the person who killed another person after hunting them down throughout this neighborhood! All hail the law!

Imagine putting this much effort into irrelevant nonsense.

[West Leas Oros 2]

But the Legality Book of Floridian Legalism didn't say he couldn't chase somebody throughout their neighborhood, Page! The Law Book of Lawism didn't say he couldn't own and carry a gun while menacingly hunting down a teenager, Page! The Lawyer's and Citizen's Handy Dandy Rules and Guidelines Book on Legal Actions said he's allowed to defend himself, and everybody knows that self-defense is when you hunt somebody else down and then kill them after confronting them because they gained an upper hand over you, Page! Why can't you acknowledge the infallibility of the Holy Legal Book of Law-Based Legal Justice, Page?!?!?! Everybody knows that the justice system can never ever ever be wrong in its judgments and imprison innocent people or let guilty people go free! Everybody knows that the justice system is always right about everything, especially in this case where the only thing that anyone has to go off is the word of the person who killed another person after hunting them down throughout this neighborhood! All hail the law!

Imagine putting this much effort into irrelevant nonsense.

we all know Torra has an irrational hatred of the law :^)

[Diopolis]

I wouldn't

Are the second two questions relevant?

It seems to me that you are being intentionally obstinate. I think I've been quite clear in establishing that the context in which Zimmerman followed Trayvon is inherently menacing.

You say there is a categorical difference between following someone and attacking them. It is obviously the context that determines whether a potentially neutral action is actually a threat.

Pulling out a gun does not automatically constitute a threat either, but it certainly is a threat in a certain setting. If I'm hanging out with a friend at his house and he retrieves a firearm because he wants to show it to me, that is not a threat. But if I'm at an ATM machine and a stranger comes up behind me with a gun in his hand, that is unquestionably a threat.

The law in most states is that publicly removing a firearm from its holster is by default a crime.