Trayvon Martin And The Right To Be Left Alone...

[WorldWatcher]

The State has the evidence; my posts concerned the right of privacy (to be left alone) in general. Were you there? Only Zimmerman lived to tell about the shooting.

Can you please cite me where it states that we have the right to be left alone ?

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Peach,

That applies to government because the Constitution is a limiting document on government.


>>>>

 

[Peach]

While the right to privacy is firmly rooted in the ethical tenets of the library profession, it is also an intrinsic American value, guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Although the Constitution does not explicitly reference the word "privacy," the Supreme Court has nonetheless inferred a right to privacy from various portions of the Bill of Rights and the common
law.

The most obvious protection of privacy in the Bill of Rights is the Fourth Amendment, which protects individuals in their persons, homes, papers, and effects from "unreasonable searches and seizures" by the government. The First Amendment, which protects freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly, also implicitly safeguards the right to privacy in the form of freedom of thought and intellect. As eloquently articulated by Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis in his famous dissent in Olmstead v. United States: "The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness . . . They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the government, THE RIGHT TO BE LET ALONE - the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men."

The first Supreme Court decision to fully articulate the right to privacy was Griswold v. Connecticut, which held that the right to privacy included the right for married couples to use contraceptives. In Griswold, Justice Douglas, writing for the Court, famously explained that the guarantees in the Bill of Rights have "penumbras," or somewhat hazy, but obviously present, extensions, which must be read as creating "zones of privacy, such as the First Amendment right of association, the Third Amendment prohibition against quartering soldiers in a home, the Fourth Amendment right to be secure in one's person, house, papers and effects, the Fifth Amendment right to not surrender anything to one's detriment, and the Ninth Amendment right to not deny or disparage any right retained by the people."

In recent years, several federal courts have recognized the right to privacy in public libraries. Specifically, these courts found that the First Amendment protects the right to receive information in a publicly funded library. However, the professional code of librarians provides a much broader promise of privacy than is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Consequently, constitutional limitations on the right to privacy are often at odds with the librarianship principles of privacy and confidentiality.
Constitutional Origin of the Right to Privacy

 

[Peach]

Can you please cite me where it states that we have the right to be left alone ?

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Peach,

That applies to government because the Constitution is a limiting document on government.


>>>>

You have the RIGHT to be secure in your person from many intrusions; theft, battery, and other crimes. The right to LEFT ALONE is broad.

 

[Gadawg73]

Do these people have the right to impede your movements, in a public place?

Moot question, never happened that way.

What evidence has been released to the public as to whether it was Martin or Zimmerman who attempted to impede the others movement in public?

Was it a witness that saw the initial confrontation? Forensics?


>>>>

We have one witness that says without a doubt that Martin was on Zimmerman.
But that does not mean anything as to the initial "confrontation"
The law is this in every state: The FIRST ONE THAT HITS the other is the aggressor. Zimmerman could have called Martin every name in the book and it gives him no right to hit him. But as I am open minded in this IF Zimmerman had his gun out and Martin felt threatened by it he can ALSO invoke the stand my ground doctrine. But let me appeal to everyone's reason and common sense: if that happened that way the police most likely would have charged him right then. But I do not know what happened so I am totally open minded.
There is rumor from the SFD and the police that one of the witnesses stated that Zimmerman was attacked from behind by Martin but I have not heard that witness so to me that is nothing. However, that may be why the police never charged him.

I do not believe there is any evidence that either one of them was being impeded in any way. Except for when Martin had Zimmerman on the ground and would not let him up. He was shot while on top of Zimmerman. But again, as I have an open mind possibly Martin HAD EVERY RIGHT to be on top of Zimmerman and possibly Martin was acting in self defense himself.

Jury trial with the evidence and the witnesses.

 

[Peach]

Moot question, never happened that way.

What evidence has been released to the public as to whether it was Martin or Zimmerman who attempted to impede the others movement in public?

Was it a witness that saw the initial confrontation? Forensics?


>>>>

We have one witness that says without a doubt that Martin was on Zimmerman.
But that does not mean anything as to the initial "confrontation"
The law is this in every state: The FIRST ONE THAT HITS the other is the aggressor. Zimmerman could have called Martin every name in the book and it gives him no right to hit him. But as I am open minded in this IF Zimmerman had his gun out and Martin felt threatened by it he can ALSO invoke the stand my ground doctrine. But let me appeal to everyone's reason and common sense: if that happened that way the police most likely would have charged him right then. But I do not know what happened so I am totally open minded.
There is rumor from the SFD and the police that one of the witnesses stated that Zimmerman was attacked from behind by Martin but I have not heard that witness so to me that is nothing. However, that may be why the police never charged him.

I do not believe there is any evidence that either one of them was being impeded in any way. Except for when Martin had Zimmerman on the ground and would not let him up. He was shot while on top of Zimmerman. But again, as I have an open mind possibly Martin HAD EVERY RIGHT to be on top of Zimmerman and possibly Martin was acting in self defense himself.

Jury trial with the evidence and the witnesses.

Yes, it is not known who started the events leading up to Martin's death. The right to privacy however is NOT surrendered in its entirity upon leaving one's home:

famously explained that the guarantees in the Bill of Rights have "penumbras," or somewhat hazy, but obviously present, extensions, which must be read as creating "zones of privacy, such as the First Amendment right of association, the Third Amendment prohibition against quartering soldiers in a home, the Fourth Amendment right to be secure in one's person, house, papers and effects, the Fifth Amendment right to not surrender anything to one's detriment, and the Ninth Amendment right to not deny or disparage any right retained by the people."

 

[Gadawg73]

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Peach,

That applies to government because the Constitution is a limiting document on government.


>>>>

You have the RIGHT to be secure in your person from many intrusions; theft, battery, and other crimes. The right to LEFT ALONE is broad.

IN YOUR HOME.
Amazing how you just posting stupider and stupider posts.
The Supreme Court JUST RULED a few months ago about private GPS tracking. They ruled that if a private individual comes up to any car IN PUBLIC they can legally place a GPS tracker on your car, track you and then retrieve the tracker!! I know this as fact because many of my peers in the business world do it daily and legally. I do not do domestic work anymore. The case law that allowed the US Supreme Court to rule that way: IN PUBLIC YOU HAVE NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY. Now that is FEDERAL LAW and those powers CAN be delegated to the states and many states have ruled that those trackers are banned. Florida state law DOES NOT have broad laws.
Furthermore, Governor Perdue had myself and 4 others re-write the detective agency license test a few years ago at The Examining Boards in Macon, Ga. There are many questions regarding that and the law on the test.
Additionally, I used to teach a course and part of he course was students FOLLOWING OTHERS IN PUBLIC.
As long as you do not touch them IT IS TOTALLY LEGAL.
Give it up. Your posts are not founded in reality.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Uhmm gated community that has been terrorized with recent breakin's as Zimmerman had stated when he called dispatchers?

Did you decide to use the term "terrorized" as a way to exaggerate your point of view?

The bottom line is that Martin is still dead, and all he had done was take a walk to the store, and perhaps (that's perhaps) he might have found a need to defend himself against a man who profiled him, stalked him, and then chased him.

Odd? I NEVER used that term...WHY the need to put words in my mouth, or from *MY* keyboard?

Get a kick outta that do you? Can't win any other way?

You're either a lying pissant or a complete idiot.

 

[Peach]

Peach,

That applies to government because the Constitution is a limiting document on government.


>>>>

You have the RIGHT to be secure in your person from many intrusions; theft, battery, and other crimes. The right to LEFT ALONE is broad.

IN YOUR HOME.
Amazing how you just posting stupider and stupider posts.
The Supreme Court JUST RULED a few months ago about private GPS tracking. They ruled that if a private individual comes up to any car IN PUBLIC they can legally place a GPS tracker on your car, track you and then retrieve the tracker!! I know this as fact because many of my peers in the business world do it daily and legally. I do not do domestic work anymore. The case law that allowed the US Supreme Court to rule that way: IN PUBLIC YOU HAVE NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY. Now that is FEDERAL LAW and those powers CAN be delegated to the states and many states have ruled that those trackers are banned. Florida state law DOES NOT have broad laws.
Furthermore, Governor Perdue had myself and 4 others re-write the detective agency license test a few years ago at The Examining Boards in Macon, Ga. There are many questions regarding that and the law on the test.
Additionally, I used to teach a course and part of he course was students FOLLOWING OTHERS IN PUBLIC.
As long as you do not touch them IT IS TOTALLY LEGAL.
Give it up. Your posts are not founded in reality.

Read your own words..........................................

 

[rdean]

Interesting take from Mark Judge.


I’ve never been able to get over the crucial minutes of George Zimmerman’s encounter with Trayvon Martin. I’m not talking about the initial struggle, or even the fatal shooting. That’s where most of the media coverage has been, and for good reason. A life has been lost and it’s important to figure out exactly what happened.

I just have never been able to answer a basic question: Why was Zimmerman bothering Martin to begin with?

For me, the Trayvon Martin case is about something that is fundamental to America: the ability to go out and take a walk or pick up some junk food without being hassled. I’m aware that “hassle” is a term straight out of 1973, and maybe that’s deliberate. When I was growing up in Maryland in the 1970s, my mom had a term for people in the neighborhood who made it their job to mind everything that went on there: the sidewalk superintendent.

Sidewalk superintendents were mostly decent people just trying to protect the neighborhood. Bill Bennett once noted that in the old days the neighborhood watch consisted of mothers on their front porches who could spring into action when they saw something amiss. Such people are an important part of creating a safe and thriving community. Indeed, George Zimmerman had foiled at least one robbery in Twin Lakes, the crime-ridden complex in Florida where the shooting took place.

Trayvon Martin was not one of these; he was a teenage kid. But he was exercising his right to take a nocturnal sojourn and enter a quiet space where the world did not intrude. It set my conservative (even libertarian-leaning) alarm off when I heard the 911 tape where Zimmerman tells police that Trayvon Martin looks like he “is up to no good.” It was just too reminiscent of some sidewalk superintendents I knew as a kid. They were the guys who appeared the second you lit some firecrackers or killed a tick with a magnifying glass...

Read more: Trayvon Martin | Trayvon Martin and the right to be left alone | The Daily Caller

According to Republicans on the USMB, blacks can't go "walking" without being suspicious. They just naturally look suspicious.

 

[The T]

Did you decide to use the term "terrorized" as a way to exaggerate your point of view?

The bottom line is that Martin is still dead, and all he had done was take a walk to the store, and perhaps (that's perhaps) he might have found a need to defend himself against a man who profiled him, stalked him, and then chased him.

Odd? I NEVER used that term...WHY the need to put words in my mouth, or from *MY* keyboard?

Get a kick outta that do you? Can't win any other way?

You're either a lying pissant or a complete idiot.

'CONTEXT' is everything...just NOT the way YOU mean it.

 

[Peach]

Interesting take from Mark Judge.


I’ve never been able to get over the crucial minutes of George Zimmerman’s encounter with Trayvon Martin. I’m not talking about the initial struggle, or even the fatal shooting. That’s where most of the media coverage has been, and for good reason. A life has been lost and it’s important to figure out exactly what happened.

I just have never been able to answer a basic question: Why was Zimmerman bothering Martin to begin with?

For me, the Trayvon Martin case is about something that is fundamental to America: the ability to go out and take a walk or pick up some junk food without being hassled. I’m aware that “hassle” is a term straight out of 1973, and maybe that’s deliberate. When I was growing up in Maryland in the 1970s, my mom had a term for people in the neighborhood who made it their job to mind everything that went on there: the sidewalk superintendent.

Sidewalk superintendents were mostly decent people just trying to protect the neighborhood. Bill Bennett once noted that in the old days the neighborhood watch consisted of mothers on their front porches who could spring into action when they saw something amiss. Such people are an important part of creating a safe and thriving community. Indeed, George Zimmerman had foiled at least one robbery in Twin Lakes, the crime-ridden complex in Florida where the shooting took place.

Trayvon Martin was not one of these; he was a teenage kid. But he was exercising his right to take a nocturnal sojourn and enter a quiet space where the world did not intrude. It set my conservative (even libertarian-leaning) alarm off when I heard the 911 tape where Zimmerman tells police that Trayvon Martin looks like he “is up to no good.” It was just too reminiscent of some sidewalk superintendents I knew as a kid. They were the guys who appeared the second you lit some firecrackers or killed a tick with a magnifying glass...

Read more: Trayvon Martin | Trayvon Martin and the right to be left alone | The Daily Caller

According to Republicans on the USMB, blacks can't go "walking" without being suspicious. They just naturally look suspicious.

And once one is walking the individual loses all rights under the Constitution!

 

[Sunshine]

Are you suggesting an anti-hassle law ?

There is one for police. Ever heard of the 'Terry stop?' Zimmerman was not a policeman.

Stalking was mentioned somewhere in this thread. It takes more than walking behind and observing a person one time to constitute stalking.

A kid going out at 7 pm to get a can of tea and some candy. A man with a background that never should have allowed him to have a concealed carry permit. The man follows the kid. The kid becomes aware of it, and is worried. The police advise the man to not make contact with the kid. And a couple of minutes later, the kid is dead. And we have only Zimmerman's words for what happened in those couple of minutes.

So, had Zimmerman not had a gun, the kid would be alive. Error #1, that Zimmerman was given the permit.

Had Zimmerman not followed the kid, the kid would be alive. As the article stated, what right did Zimmerman have to follow the kid? Why did he not simply advise the police and cease and desist?
Error #2

The Police told Zimmerman not to contact the kid. But Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and looked for the kid anyway. Error #3 on Zimmerman's part.

The kid went to the store for some tea and candy. Error #1

The kid did not run as fast as possible once he realized that he was being followed. Error #2

Since we still do not know what really took place at the confrontation, so we do not know errors were there.

Seems to me that based on the errors noted, that Zimmerman's were of a much more serious nature than those of the kid's.

There IS a witness who I would not be surprised to learn is dead before Zimmerman comes to trial.

I'm not convicting Zimmerman before due process, and neither is the author of this article. But the article is very interesting.

It is. It's a colorblind look at the right to just take a fucking walk, without being profiled. The only time I've ever been pulled over was when I had a bad tail light, forgot to pay a ticket, or was doing something dumb. I worked for a black person for a good bit of my career, who was a world class medical scientist. He'd be pulled over at least once a month without cause, because he drove a Lexus in a wealthier neighborhood, where he lived.

Profiling is far from where we want to be as a people. Being stopped for walking or driving while black is a sick indictment about our collective mindset.

Zimmerman was not a policeman. There are no laws that I am aware of that prevent a private citizen from making a judgment about another private citizen.

 

[Gadawg73]

Interesting take from Mark Judge.


I’ve never been able to get over the crucial minutes of George Zimmerman’s encounter with Trayvon Martin. I’m not talking about the initial struggle, or even the fatal shooting. That’s where most of the media coverage has been, and for good reason. A life has been lost and it’s important to figure out exactly what happened.

I just have never been able to answer a basic question: Why was Zimmerman bothering Martin to begin with?

For me, the Trayvon Martin case is about something that is fundamental to America: the ability to go out and take a walk or pick up some junk food without being hassled. I’m aware that “hassle” is a term straight out of 1973, and maybe that’s deliberate. When I was growing up in Maryland in the 1970s, my mom had a term for people in the neighborhood who made it their job to mind everything that went on there: the sidewalk superintendent.

Sidewalk superintendents were mostly decent people just trying to protect the neighborhood. Bill Bennett once noted that in the old days the neighborhood watch consisted of mothers on their front porches who could spring into action when they saw something amiss. Such people are an important part of creating a safe and thriving community. Indeed, George Zimmerman had foiled at least one robbery in Twin Lakes, the crime-ridden complex in Florida where the shooting took place.

Trayvon Martin was not one of these; he was a teenage kid. But he was exercising his right to take a nocturnal sojourn and enter a quiet space where the world did not intrude. It set my conservative (even libertarian-leaning) alarm off when I heard the 911 tape where Zimmerman tells police that Trayvon Martin looks like he “is up to no good.” It was just too reminiscent of some sidewalk superintendents I knew as a kid. They were the guys who appeared the second you lit some firecrackers or killed a tick with a magnifying glass...

Read more: Trayvon Martin | Trayvon Martin and the right to be left alone | The Daily Caller

According to Republicans on the USMB, blacks can't go "walking" without being suspicious. They just naturally look suspicious.

And once one is walking the individual loses all rights under the Constitution!

You are beyond ignorant.
Where has anyone stated that?
When walking you have NO EXPECTATION TO PRIVACY IN PUBLIC.
PRIVACY.
Do you understand what PRIVACY IS?
The law: "In general one CANNOT have a reaspnable expectation of privacy IN THINGS HELD OUT TO BE PUBLIC".
Exceptions to this law are "hotel rooms, phone booths, public restrooms and places specifically set aside by businesses and private sections of jailhouses."
Walking in PUBLIC NO ONE has an expectation of privacy.
The law is clear to those with an IQ over 70. You enter onto the street you have no privacy. The law. You can put your garbage out and anyone can have it as that is not private material anymore. Why? BECAUSE IT IS IN PUBLIC.
You understand but you were a spoiled brat as a child and got away with your bull shit.
Doesn't wash in the REAL WORLD.

 

[Gadawg73]

You have the RIGHT to be secure in your person from many intrusions; theft, battery, and other crimes. The right to LEFT ALONE is broad.

IN YOUR HOME.
Amazing how you just posting stupider and stupider posts.
The Supreme Court JUST RULED a few months ago about private GPS tracking. They ruled that if a private individual comes up to any car IN PUBLIC they can legally place a GPS tracker on your car, track you and then retrieve the tracker!! I know this as fact because many of my peers in the business world do it daily and legally. I do not do domestic work anymore. The case law that allowed the US Supreme Court to rule that way: IN PUBLIC YOU HAVE NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY. Now that is FEDERAL LAW and those powers CAN be delegated to the states and many states have ruled that those trackers are banned. Florida state law DOES NOT have broad laws.
Furthermore, Governor Perdue had myself and 4 others re-write the detective agency license test a few years ago at The Examining Boards in Macon, Ga. There are many questions regarding that and the law on the test.
Additionally, I used to teach a course and part of he course was students FOLLOWING OTHERS IN PUBLIC.
As long as you do not touch them IT IS TOTALLY LEGAL.
Give it up. Your posts are not founded in reality.

Read your own words..........................................

Where is there evidence he touched him.
You are the typical liberal.
First YOU CLAIM that Martin can walk down the street and anyone following him is "impeding" on his rights.
Shown to be a complete dumbass you change your tune to "so anyone can attack and kidnap in public"

 

[Peach]

I followed your "logic" that there is no right to be secure in one's person in public!
I do not know who initiated that confrontation between Martin & Zimmerman, AND, I'm a CENTRIST.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Moot question, never happened that way.

What evidence has been released to the public as to whether it was Martin or Zimmerman who attempted to impede the others movement in public?

Was it a witness that saw the initial confrontation? Forensics?


>>>>

We have one witness that says without a doubt that Martin was on Zimmerman.
But that does not mean anything as to the initial "confrontation"

And other witnesses say that it was Zimmerman that was on top, that (at least one) watched during the time of the discharge of the firearm and saw Zimmerman then rise while Martin remained on the ground.

The law is this in every state: The FIRST ONE THAT HITS the other is the aggressor.

Which law is that?

Zimmerman could have called Martin every name in the book and it gives him no right to hit him.

I agree.

However, if Zimmerman conveyed a threat through dead, action, or words to Martin such that Martin felt treatened, then Martin under Florida Statute 776.012 (Use of force in defense of person) he would be justified in defending himself and under no obligation to retreat under the "Stand Your Ground" provisions of the law 776.032 (Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force). As a matter of fact, Martin had already attempted to take the responsible action of running away from the situation and it was Zimmerman that pursued him.

But as I am open minded in this IF Zimmerman had his gun out and Martin felt threatened by it he can ALSO invoke the stand my ground doctrine.

He wouldn't have had to pull his gun, simply showing him the gun and verbally threatening Martin means Zimmerman would have committed Assault (Florida Statute 784.011) and then if he attempted to restrain or impede Martin from leaving the situation for a second time, Zimmerman would have been responsible for a felony through unlawful restraint (Florida Statute 787.02).

But let me appeal to everyone's reason and common sense: if that happened that way the police most likely would have charged him right then. But I do not know what happened so I am totally open minded.

I agree, we don't know what happened and to be fair, we must keep an open mind that at this point it could have been Zimmerman or Martin that: (a) confronted the other, and (b) that either could have initiated the actions that resulted in the physical hostilities resulting in the gun shot.

There is rumor from the SFD and the police that one of the witnesses stated that Zimmerman was attacked from behind by Martin but I have not heard that witness so to me that is nothing. However, that may be why the police never charged him.

I know you defined it as a "rumor", but maybe we should stop trying to spread rumors (but of course people are free to do so if they wish) but it doesn't aid the discussion.

As far as I know I've read the available comments by the various witness stories for each that has come forward and none have indicated they observed the initial confrontation.

I do not believe there is any evidence that either one of them was being impeded in any way. Except for when Martin had Zimmerman on the ground and would not let him up. He was shot while on top of Zimmerman. But again, as I have an open mind possibly Martin HAD EVERY RIGHT to be on top of Zimmerman and possibly Martin was acting in self defense himself.

At this point, a declarative statement that Martin was on top is speculation as witness report conflict as to who was on top.

However, who was on top at the time of the shooting is not the important point, as it does NOTHING to show who started the altercation. The important peace of information in the public arena has to do with who initiated hostilities (which may have been physical, or under Florida law may have been a threat of violence).

Jury trial with the evidence and the witnesses.

Yup.

Speculation: With the limited "evidence" that is the public arena, I think the State has entered into serious overreach with Murder 2 and will have a difficult time proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman intended to kill Martin with forethought and a depraved disregard for human life. Given the information that we know and recognizing the gaps in that information Zimmerman would be not guilty. We will see if the prosecutor will be able to fill the gaps or if the charges will be downgraded to Manslaughter.


>>>>

 

[Gadawg73]

I followed your "logic" that there is no right to be secure in one's person in public!
I do not know who initiated that confrontation between Martin & Zimmerman, AND, I'm a CENTRIST.

"to be secure" is as broad as anything out there.
You have NO RIGHT TO PRIVACY WALKING IN PUBLIC.
Nothing to do with your change of subject "to be secure".

 

[WorldWatcher]

You have the RIGHT to be secure in your person from many intrusions; theft, battery, and other crimes. The right to LEFT ALONE is broad.

IN YOUR HOME.
Amazing how you just posting stupider and stupider posts.
The Supreme Court JUST RULED a few months ago about private GPS tracking. They ruled that if a private individual comes up to any car IN PUBLIC they can legally place a GPS tracker on your car, track you and then retrieve the tracker!! I know this as fact because many of my peers in the business world do it daily and legally. I do not do domestic work anymore. The case law that allowed the US Supreme Court to rule that way: IN PUBLIC YOU HAVE NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY. Now that is FEDERAL LAW and those powers CAN be delegated to the states and many states have ruled that those trackers are banned. Florida state law DOES NOT have broad laws.
Furthermore, Governor Perdue had myself and 4 others re-write the detective agency license test a few years ago at The Examining Boards in Macon, Ga. There are many questions regarding that and the law on the test.
Additionally, I used to teach a course and part of he course was students FOLLOWING OTHERS IN PUBLIC.
As long as you do not touch them IT IS TOTALLY LEGAL.
Give it up. Your posts are not founded in reality.

Read your own words..........................................

Actually under Florida law, you don't have to touch someone to be guilty of a crime, a threat of violence where the person fears for their safety is enough.


>>>>

 

[Gadawg73]

Assault and battery is always filed against the FIRST PERSON that attacks.
How else could it be?

 

[The T]

IN YOUR HOME.
Amazing how you just posting stupider and stupider posts.
The Supreme Court JUST RULED a few months ago about private GPS tracking. They ruled that if a private individual comes up to any car IN PUBLIC they can legally place a GPS tracker on your car, track you and then retrieve the tracker!! I know this as fact because many of my peers in the business world do it daily and legally. I do not do domestic work anymore. The case law that allowed the US Supreme Court to rule that way: IN PUBLIC YOU HAVE NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY. Now that is FEDERAL LAW and those powers CAN be delegated to the states and many states have ruled that those trackers are banned. Florida state law DOES NOT have broad laws.
Furthermore, Governor Perdue had myself and 4 others re-write the detective agency license test a few years ago at The Examining Boards in Macon, Ga. There are many questions regarding that and the law on the test.
Additionally, I used to teach a course and part of he course was students FOLLOWING OTHERS IN PUBLIC.
As long as you do not touch them IT IS TOTALLY LEGAL.
Give it up. Your posts are not founded in reality.

Read your own words..........................................

Where is there evidence he touched him.
You are the typical liberal.
First YOU CLAIM that Martin can walk down the street and anyone following him is "impeding" on his rights.
Shown to be a complete dumbass you change your tune to "so anyone can attack and kidnap in public"

You may follow ANYONE you like. There is no impediment to thier freedom to move about...

ONLY that the one being followed may be annoyed that he/she is being watched.

NO Liberty is being encroached upon in such an event.