General Discussion

Ikonoklast

(23,973 posts)

34. Not only that, but it is within their 'rights' to accost random strangers on the street and ask

Fri May 18, 2012, 01:04 PM

May 2012

them their business.

My standard answer to someone who does that is "Who in the fuck are you?", closely followed by "None of your damned business".

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

147 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Zimmerman apologists always run into same problem. Person minding their own business ended up dead. [View all] stevenleser May 2012 OP

Zimmerman is morally responsible for the death because he initiated and pursued the confrontation slackmaster May 2012 #1

EXACTLY. Whether he is legally responsible or not, under the laws of the state and country, MH1 May 2012 #6

he is totally morally responsible... belcffub May 2012 #15

IMO he made a series of bad decisions slackmaster May 2012 #18

+1 Logical May 2012 #100

Assuming Zimmerman's story is true (I know, incredibly big assumption), Vattel May 2012 #66

There's no proof of that treestar May 2012 #73

I didn't claim that there was proof. Vattel May 2012 #135

I have no words. yardwork May 2012 #80

I didn't say it was Martin's fault. Seriously, can anyone around here read? Vattel May 2012 #137

Blaming Trayvon is like Blaming the Rape Victim JI7 May 2012 #132

How much blame falls on Martin depends on what actually happened. Vattel May 2012 #136

Wait, which "idiot" are you talking about? Tommy_Carcetti May 2012 #140

Well you didn't get your facts straight, but that's par for the course on this issue. Vattel May 2012 #143

"but they do not have the right to any particular response or any response at all. " ScreamingMeemie May 2012 #2

Thank you...Been saying that endlessly from day one Blue_Tires May 2012 #3

But in Florida, we have anti-stalking laws. It is illegal to follow someone. 1monster May 2012 #84

Read Florida criminal statute 784.048, amandabeech May 2012 #110

Fla. Stat. § 784.048. Stalking; definitions; penalties. (2008) 1monster May 2012 #123

Have you ever followed someone in your car because you were lost? Life Long Dem May 2012 #122

This guy wasn't lost. I managed to get away from him a couple of times by 1monster May 2012 #145

You heard the expression before: walking while black. Solomon May 2012 #4

What worries me is the jury. Will they try the case in another venue? Will they asjr May 2012 #5

remember OJ got off!! Sancho May 2012 #71

It would not surprise me if O'Mara asked for a change of venue amandabeech May 2012 #112

Kicked and recommended. Uncle Joe May 2012 #7

To stay with your approach, when is it legitimate to attack someone physically for speaking to you ProgressiveProfessor May 2012 #8

How is it that YOU happen to know who touched who first? kestrel91316 May 2012 #12

both could have happened belcffub May 2012 #16

No one does...except Zimmerman ProgressiveProfessor May 2012 #19

Exactly lukkadairish May 2012 #23

Not so fast there... ProgressiveProfessor May 2012 #25

Without lukkadairish May 2012 #36

There is an independent witness that stated ProgressiveProfessor May 2012 #43

That witness does not say who started the fight treestar May 2012 #74

Wouldn't the question in such a situation be who made the decision to engage in JDPriestly May 2012 #47

Let's say I live in a neighborhood in which gangs are known to be active. JDPriestly May 2012 #45

So, the "moral" of the story is to be the only witness? TheKentuckian May 2012 #89

I don't believe we need to know exactly what transpired after Flatulo May 2012 #92

The judicial and legal ethics part of my soul just died a little bit... Cave_Johnson May 2012 #107

I think that I may understand. n/t amandabeech May 2012 #114

Doesn't really make any difference.. sendero May 2012 #65

Actually it makes a tremendous amount of difference in a criminal case ProgressiveProfessor May 2012 #133

The reports of the phone call with Trayvon's girlfriend suggest tblue37 May 2012 #60

Can you point me... Cave_Johnson May 2012 #64

When did Zimmerman take out his gun and put it to Trayvon's chest and shoot? lunatica May 2012 #68

We don't know that treestar May 2012 #72

Then there is the live video footage Rex May 2012 #9

That is one of the things I want to see explained ProgressiveProfessor May 2012 #29

It really should, if for no other reason Rex May 2012 #30

I thought that I saw a laceration on the back right-hand quarter of his head in the video. amandabeech May 2012 #115

I wonder why his doctor didn't give him any pain meds? Rex May 2012 #117

I don't remember anything about pain meds, amandabeech May 2012 #121

But that is just an injury, we are talking about a broken nose Rex May 2012 #124

yup maddezmom May 2012 #10

Your penultimate paragraph is where the error lies. Romulox May 2012 #11

One interesting thing about it is that Zimmerman expressed apprehension about JDPriestly May 2012 #50

There is no question that Zimmerman's choices were responsible for Martin's death. hack89 May 2012 #13

True. It could go either way. The OJ trial is a good example of a case JDPriestly May 2012 #51

But what is the burden of proof in FL for claims of self defense? treestar May 2012 #75

Here is the Florida law regarding when the aggressor can legally use force in self-defense. hack89 May 2012 #82

That doesn't say who has the burden of proving it, though treestar May 2012 #87

I've seen nothing to suggest that the DA will be required to disprove the affirmative defense. amandabeech May 2012 #118

I don't think there's a single person here who thinks Zimmerman is innocent. Kaleva May 2012 #14

I do think some here think that.. And not just banned trolls. uppityperson May 2012 #31

I do too and that is why I penned the OP. stevenleser May 2012 #32

Depends on what they think he's inncoent of. Kaleva May 2012 #35

I do too. There's clearly some here who think he's innocent. Solomon May 2012 #54

He is not innocent. There is a good chance he will not be found guilty at trial hack89 May 2012 #62

Hell, I've been called a Zimmerman apologist. Kaleva May 2012 #33

Interesting..."banned trolls" peace pilgrim 19 May 2012 #103

Well, you would know. uppityperson May 2012 #104

That's true treestar May 2012 #76

if you're not with us, then you're against us. There's no in between. Kaleva May 2012 #77

Trouble is, that part is in dispute. nxylas May 2012 #17

good point barbtries May 2012 #20

The only authority that matters is the law hack89 May 2012 #27

he's guilty in my opinion barbtries May 2012 #38

I agree with everything you say. nt hack89 May 2012 #39

thanks hack. barbtries May 2012 #42

the zimmerman apologists are classic authoritarians.. frylock May 2012 #21

Not only that, but it is within their 'rights' to accost random strangers on the street and ask Ikonoklast May 2012 #34

It is not within anyones "rights" to do that. But it is not illegal. nt hack89 May 2012 #41

Actually, that depends on the situation. JDPriestly May 2012 #52

I was referring to following someone and asking what they were doing. hack89 May 2012 #57

If a stranger followed me and asked why I was doing, I would not answer. JDPriestly May 2012 #59

Not the point hack89 May 2012 #61

No, it's not illegal lolly May 2012 #69

I agree. nt hack89 May 2012 #81

Running away in and of itself is not illegal either, JDPriestly May 2012 #109

All of which means the prosecution has a tough job ahead of them hack89 May 2012 #111

It will come down to which side the judge and jury find convincing. JDPriestly May 2012 #144

If he has credible wounds consistent with ... hack89 May 2012 #146

Nor is it illegal to tell anyone who does so to "Fuck off." Ikonoklast May 2012 #53

I agree hack89 May 2012 #55

that is the only acceptable response frylock May 2012 #46

You mean like Iraq?? RagAss May 2012 #22

EXACTLY like Iraq. nt stevenleser May 2012 #26

I agree. Well said. n/t DLevine May 2012 #24

One fallacy I see repeated a lot is, eyewall May 2012 #28

Re. the phrase "we don't need you to do that"... CJCRANE May 2012 #56

Under Florida statutes, a charge of stalking requires repeated actions. amandabeech May 2012 #119

nobody's talking about a charge of stalking. eyewall May 2012 #147

A broken nose is minding ones business Life Long Dem May 2012 #37

no CatWoman May 2012 #44

Actually Life Long Dem May 2012 #48

What was his business anyway? Rex May 2012 #49

well said. limpyhobbler May 2012 #40

Impersonating a police officer libodem May 2012 #58

When did he ever represent himself to Martin as a police officer? nt hack89 May 2012 #63

Those who have already decided that Zimmerman is guilty always have the same problem. Vattel May 2012 #67

I'm sorry. Is there some question of Zimmerman's responsibility in Martin's death? baldguy May 2012 #125

how do you justify self-defense when you're the initial threat? Blue_Tires May 2012 #126

Following someone because you think they might be up to no good Vattel May 2012 #138

my only issue with that is Blue_Tires May 2012 #139

All very true treestar May 2012 #70

Their biggest problem is that Trayvon was likely to be in greater fear of his life. yardwork May 2012 #78

Here is the Florida law regarding when the aggressor can legally use force in self-defense. hack89 May 2012 #83

Don't forget: the stalker (GZ) was ARMED and CONFRONTATIONAL. daaron May 2012 #79

Trayvon probably had no way of knowing Zimmerman was armed until it was too late slackmaster May 2012 #88

Now the bullies are all armed. daaron May 2012 #102

But for some strange reason, homicides (including by firearm) have been declining for about 18 years slackmaster May 2012 #116

Maybe we're raising our children incrementally better. daaron May 2012 #128

...or just Coincidence? I suspect it's caused by the ongoing increase... slackmaster May 2012 #141

Makes sense. nt daaron May 2012 #142

Following suspicious persons... Youngat50 May 2012 #85

Did your neighbor follow him with a gun in his pocket? Did the dispatcher tell him to continue to ScreamingMeemie May 2012 #90

I don't know if he had a gun, to be honest. Youngat50 May 2012 #93

My husband had a strong protective instinct as well, inside our home. ScreamingMeemie May 2012 #97

But what if.. Youngat50 May 2012 #105

My husband, seeing as the "suspicious" person was not in our home, would have called ScreamingMeemie May 2012 #106

I disagree Youngat50 May 2012 #129

Did Trayvon deserve to die? Simple question. ScreamingMeemie May 2012 #131

Welcome to DU! Fumesucker May 2012 #91

Thanks for the welcome! Youngat50 May 2012 #94

You call 911 to report potholes? Fumesucker May 2012 #96

Depends on where you are.. Youngat50 May 2012 #98

Thanks for the welcome Fumesucker! Youngat50 May 2012 #95

good story, but of course Martin was doing nothing more suspicious that night Blue_Tires May 2012 #127

That would be open to interpretation Youngat50 May 2012 #130

open to interpretation?? Blue_Tires May 2012 #134

Wannabe cop/racsist/vigilante needs to go to jail movingviolation May 2012 #86

You can't goad someone into fighting you and then shoot them. gulliver May 2012 #99

+1000, confronting a guy, then trying to detain him and then he kicks your ass is not.... Logical May 2012 #101

You forget what Zimmerman said to the 911 officer. Maraya1969 May 2012 #108

K&R. n/t jenmito May 2012 #113

It's a problem for both sides. Trayvon could have kept walking as well. However - Zax2me May 2012 #120