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

[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.

"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".

Wag, the right to be secure in one's person is one part of the Constitution that gave rise to the PENUMBRAL "right to privacy". SEE ABOVE, I posted the analysis.

 

[Gadawg73]

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.


>>>>

And that threat has to be more than someone following you. Harrasing phone calls, terroristic threats, etc.
Not the case here. If it was there would have been an arrest.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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

Assault includes an intent to do harm. Battery is actually doing harm. Under Florida Statutes they are separate crimes.

Now when someone does physical violence against another you will hear it referred to as "Assault & Battery" because both intent and execution occurred.


>>>>

 

[The T]

I am a part of a neighborhood watch, and I am in a vantage point that I see all coming and going from the community.

And *I* impeding thier liberty of movement?

*NO*, I am not.

Some need to learn the difference between impediment and being annoyed they are being watched.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.


>>>>

And that threat has to be more than someone following you. Harrasing phone calls, terroristic threats, etc.
Not the case here. If it was there would have been an arrest.

Someone following someone else is not a crime. Confronting them, telling them to stay were they are or you will beat them, or showing a firearm in a waist holster implying (or stating) that you will use it if they attempt to leave WOULD be both Assault and an attempt at illegal detention (which then becomes Aggravated Assault which is a forcible felony) and nullifies the self defense option.

Now, that was speculation, at this point there is no evidence to support it. It is simply provided as a counter point to those that are stating as truth that Martin attacked Zimmerman because that also is speculation, there is no evidence either way.

Hopefully, once ALL the evidence is presented in court, THEN and ONLY then we have the same information that the jurors will have as they begin their deliberation. Conflicting witness statements can be weighed, autopsy information reviewed & forensic analysis of Martin's clothes will provide a better picture of who was actually on top and what the distance was (if any) when the shot was taken, timeline analysis along with detailed phone records and crime scene photos will give the jury more information for weighing the validity of Zimmerman's story and what weight to place on it.

>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

I am a part of a neighborhood watch, and I am in a vantage point that I see all coming and going from the community.

And *I* impeding thier liberty of movement?

*NO*, I am not.

Some need to learn the difference between impediment and being annoyed they are being watched.

Of course you wouldn't be impeding them.

Now in your neightborhood if you walked up to a parked car with someone in it you didn't recognize, pull out a firearm, aimed it at the drivers head, and told them not to move or you would shoot them...

................................ Ya that would be impeding them.



>>>>

 

[Gadawg73]

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.

That is case law since 1834 in all public places.

 

[Peach]

Here is a case that discusses the right to be secure in one's person AWAY from the home:

Massie v. Henry

 

[WorldWatcher]

Here is a case that discusses the right to be secure in one's person AWAY from the home:

Massie v. Henry

The case involves the government.


>>>>

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

Why was Zimmerman bothering Martin to begin with?

Recent hoodie robberies in the area.

 

[The T]

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.

That is case law since 1834 in all public places.

Amazing, isn't it?

Some think being followed, watched...is an 'encroachment' in a public place...

And those that think it so will defend 'peeping toms' in windows in a private residence where the perp is now tresspassing.

Odd...no?

 

[Gadawg73]

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

Assault includes an intent to do harm. Battery is actually doing harm. Under Florida Statutes they are separate crimes.

Now when someone does physical violence against another you will hear it referred to as "Assault & Battery" because both intent and execution occurred.


>>>>

Assault can be a threatening ACT also which is short of a battery and can include physical confrontation.
And with the intent follows the action of battery but the action can also be defined as the assault under Florida and Georgia statute.
My experience is most of the time law enforcement follows the shotgun approach and just charges whatever the hell they want to charge, most of the time ending up as aggravated assault and battery.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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

Assault includes an intent to do harm. Battery is actually doing harm. Under Florida Statutes they are separate crimes.

Now when someone does physical violence against another you will hear it referred to as "Assault & Battery" because both intent and execution occurred.


>>>>

Assault can be a threatening ACT also which is short of a battery and can include physical confrontation.
And with the intent follows the action of battery but the action can also be defined as the assault under Florida and Georgia statute.
My experience is most of the time law enforcement follows the shotgun approach and just charges whatever the hell they want to charge, most of the time ending up as aggravated assault and battery.

Florida Statute

784.011 Assault.—
(1) An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.​

Assault can be conveyed through a verbal indication to do violence. I agree assault can occur without battery.

784.011 - Assault. - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate


>>>>

 

[Peach]

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.

That is case law since 1834 in all public places.

Amazing, isn't it?

Some think being followed, watched...is an 'encroachment' in a public place...

And those that think it so will defend 'peeping toms' in windows in a private residence where the perp is now tresspassing.

Odd...no?

No, but stopping an individual walking can be an encroachment. See OWS protesters arrested.

 

[Peach]

Assault includes an intent to do harm. Battery is actually doing harm. Under Florida Statutes they are separate crimes.

Now when someone does physical violence against another you will hear it referred to as "Assault & Battery" because both intent and execution occurred.


>>>>

Assault can be a threatening ACT also which is short of a battery and can include physical confrontation.
And with the intent follows the action of battery but the action can also be defined as the assault under Florida and Georgia statute.
My experience is most of the time law enforcement follows the shotgun approach and just charges whatever the hell they want to charge, most of the time ending up as aggravated assault and battery.

Florida Statute

784.011 Assault.—
(1) An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.​

Assault can be conveyed through a verbal indication to do violence. I agree assault can occur without battery.

784.011 - Assault. - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate


>>>>

It is a SEPARATE crime.

 

[LeftofLeft]

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

Equally, Zimmerman should have done what he was told and backed off. Martin should not have beat the shit out of Zimmerman. Both were buying trouble with each of his actions.

 

[The T]

That is case law since 1834 in all public places.

Amazing, isn't it?

Some think being followed, watched...is an 'encroachment' in a public place...

And those that think it so will defend 'peeping toms' in windows in a private residence where the perp is now tresspassing.

Odd...no?

No, but stopping an individual walking can be an encroachment. See OWS protesters arrested.

NO One is talking OWS in this case.

YOU presume CUMQUATS when WE are speaking apples.

 

[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

Equally, Zimmerman should have done what he was told and backed off. Martin should not have beat the shit out of Zimmerman. Both were buying trouble with each of his actions.

From what I've read, Zimmerman was only told "we don't need you to do that"; more advice than an instruction.

 

[Dick Tuck]

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.

Context shows you're a fucking liar. Your the simpleton pissant who claimed that I manufactured the word you used.

The fact is that you chose to use the term. Are you a piece of garbage racist?

 

[The T]

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

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

Context shows your a fucking liar.

Context IS beyond YOUR understanding.

*Deal with it*