Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: If You Are Following ME

Posted 6 years ago on July 18, 2013, 6:42 p.m. EST by TikiJ (-38)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

If Im in a hoodie, and you are following me, and I'm only going to wherever I'm going, and you approach me and then confront me....

You might get your ass kicked.

Does that ass kicking justify someone pulling out a gun and murdering someone?



Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by JPB950 (2254) 6 years ago

That's the problem with a "self defense" defense. It's in the mind of the person getting his "ass kicked" as to whether he feels his life threatened or not. If you're shot and killed we don't get to hear your side of things. So to answer your question, yes, it may justify murder.

[-] 1 points by TikiJ (-38) 6 years ago

Exactly. It's not like killing the witness is some new strategy or something.

If its not SYG, its self defense that people claim. And when the other person isnt there to vouch, then we end up with one thing that makes the difference- money.

[-] 3 points by Misaki (893) 6 years ago

The US's justice system is a lot more fair than many other countries like China, where taking bribes is much more common. The influence of money in criminal cases is probably just in being able to pay for evidence and complicated legal arguments. One that comes to mind is the head of the IMF who was charged a couple years ago, his lawyers were able to get phone records and translators and so on, the type of research that a poor person who was accused probably couldn't get.


[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 6 years ago

Hehe. And remember, probably better to rape a cop than record audio of him arresting someone... less jail time! Well, maybe not that state, not sure.

[-] -1 points by BlackRepublic (-33) from East Windsor, CT 6 years ago

Or CA where everyone wears spandex and we can readily identify the source of the heat they're packing.

[-] -1 points by TikiJ (-38) 6 years ago

That makes sense, because theres never been anyone else in teh country whose gotten off with buckets of money.

Perhaps everyone should follow Vermonts lead:

"HOW ABOUT VERMONT? … register “non-gun-owners” and require them to pay a $500 fee to the state Vermont State Rep. Fred Maslack has read the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as Vermont ‘s own Constitution very carefully, and his strict interpretation of these documents is popping some eyeballs in New England and elsewhere.

Maslack recently proposed a bill to register “non-gun-owners” and require them to pay a $500 fee to the state. Thus Vermont would become the first state to require a permit for the luxury of going about unarmed and assess a fee of $500 for the privilege of not owning a gun."

I;ve been to Vermont, to Burlington. Nice place. But crazy knows no state bounds.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

Daymn - I'll bet you could kill the governor for being out of place - in - ANY neighborhood.

This asshole don't belong - BAM.

Authorities - Hell you can't really argue with that.

[-] 2 points by Misaki (893) 6 years ago

"Ain't no love in the heart of the city, stay safe people"

[-] 1 points by JackHall (413) 6 years ago

Even with all of the rocket scientists working for the space program, Florida seems to be dimmer than the fruit-fly about certain things that would be obvious to an eight-year old.

Let's suppose Trayvon was defending himself (had to) without a gun. The all-woman jury should have been given instructions on what the definition of self-defense is in Florida by the judge. If they weren’t then the prosecution should have requested it. Self-Defense Law in Florida is ambiguous, vague and contradictory. This is probably why the judge and prosecution team would have avoided the issue. (Or the prosecution botched another opportunity to convict Zimmerman, again.)

[It is impossible for any defendant, black or white, man or woman, to get a fair trial in a self-defense case in Florida. While the Florida Legislature amended the self-defense laws in 2005, Florida Statutes 776.013, 776.012 (adopting the “Stand Your Ground” law written by the N.R.A., and since 2005, adopted by 30-odd other states), the Florida Supreme Court has so horribly written the standard self-defense jury instructions (SD-JI) as to deprive all defendants of a fair trial. While the law may have been intended to prevent a self-defense claim if the act of self-defense occurred in, say, robbing a bank; the law and jury instruction itself fails to define the limits of “is not engaged in an unlawful activity,” fails to add words such as “other than the crime charged.” And even with such a qualification, or definition, another problem would occur. A hypothetical example:

“Grandma took the mini-van to the church day-care center to pick up the twins, when an escaped lunatic with an axe broke into the mini-van. Grandma hesitated in reaching for her legal revolver, and so died, because she knew that under the circumstances, of being double-parked in a loading zone, that she was “engaged in an unlawful activity,” and so had no legal right to defend herself, under Florida law.”

But if Grandma had not hesitated in reaching for her legal revolver, to attempt to puzzle out exactly what “not engaged in an unlawful activity” really meant (because, after all, she knew that it was “unlawful” to double-park, especially in a loading zone, a place she “had no right to be” (the other qualifying phrase in F.S. 776.13(3)) and had grabbed her gun in time to fire a warning shot out of the window of the mini-van (she wouldn’t want to hurt anyone if she didn’t have to do so), Grandma would have gone to prison in Florida for 20 years, for violating Florida’s “10-20-Life” law, F.S. 775.087; which requires a 20 year mandatory minimum prison sentence for any “discharge” of a firearm during the commission of an “aggravated assault.” Here, Grandma’s use of her legal gun to fire a warning shot was in fact an “aggravated assault,” a “threat with a deadly weapon.” And if Grandma had not fired a warning shot in self-defense, but had just displayed her gun, or pointed it at the lunatic with an axe breaking into her mini-van, she still would have gone to prison for violating the “10-20-Life” law, for “using” a firearm during her “aggravated assault,” threatening the person attacking her.

And I suppose that Grandma would have no legal “presumption of fear” at all, until the lunatic with an axe had finished, completed, breaking into the mini-van; because jurors are only instructed on half, the lesser half, of F.S. 776.013(1), that her “presumption of fear” would not apply if someone “was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering,” but only after someone “had unlawfully and forcibly entered,” the past-tense, a successful break-in into the mini-van.]

Florida Definition of Self Defense

http://selfdefenseflorida.com/ [right click]

Did Zimmerman still have a presumption of fear after he pulled the gun on an unarmed "child" in self-defense? Did Zimmerman discharge a firearm during an aggravated assault?

Has the nation gotten a lot dumber?

Police dispatcher told George Zimmerman to stop following Trayvon Martin. Was Zimmerman's continuing to follow Martin anyway lawful or unlawful at the time he asserted his self-defense rights and shot Trayvon in the chest? Grandma may risk going to jail, but Zimmerman was acquitted.

Self-defense or private defense (see spelling differences) is a countermeasure that involves defending oneself, one's property, or the well-being of another from harm. The use of the right of self-defense as a legal justification for the use of force in times of danger is available in many jurisdictions, but the interpretation varies widely.

Self Defense

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense [right click]

[-] 1 points by elf3 (4068) 6 years ago

Maybe Trayvon felt or saw the gun when he tried to get free from Zimmerman, who decided to hold him against his will, and realized if he didn't kick Zimmerman's ass, he was going to die. In this case who was the self defender?... I would say Trayvon especially since Zimmerman already proved himself to be the aggressor. If a strange man followed me and grabbed me and had a gun on him I am: going to go full throttle so he doesn't... pray god ...get the chance to use it. Does it make a difference if I am a woman or a scared kid in his 20's?

[-] 3 points by JPB950 (2254) 6 years ago

We can write hundreds of scenarios for what might have happened. None of them matter in court, only what you can prove to a jury. It's not that there aren't other possible, reasonable, or even likely things that could have happened. The problem is none of them remove (in the jury's mind based on their verdict) reasonable doubt that Zimmerman's story could be the correct one.

[-] 1 points by Misaki (893) 6 years ago

I thought that Trayvon Martin was the one who confronted George Zimmerman

[-] 1 points by TikiJ (-38) 6 years ago

If he was, GZ would have still been in his car.

[-] 0 points by Misaki (893) 6 years ago

Zimmerman followed Trayvon Martin, but lost sight of him and as he was walking back to his car Trayvon Martin confronted him.

[-] 1 points by TikiJ (-38) 6 years ago

Lost sight of him? What's he a fuckin imbecile?

Gimme a break.

This is what happens when people pretend to be cops. They have no idea how to handle a situation.

[-] 1 points by Misaki (893) 6 years ago

Well, the person Trayvon Martin was talking to on the phone (his girlfriend?) told him to run, so he did I think.

[-] 1 points by TikiJ (-38) 6 years ago

The mindset of this individual was to literally run (scared), did, and then turned around and came back and the attacked and then ended up WINNING the fight?

Give me a fuckin break. What kind of nonsense is that. People dont go from flight to fight like that. Have you never been in a situation like that?

People who fight certainly dont just start running because their GIRLFRIEND told them to.

And if this kid was so scared that he FUCKIN RAN because someone was following him, and then ended up kicking GZ ass, then its just further proof that these wannabe cops have NO business doing what they are doing.

What on earth are you thinking?

[-] 0 points by Misaki (893) 6 years ago

I think it's more illegal to attack an actual police officer than to attack a random person? As in if two random people are fighting, they both might be committing a crime? Not really sure but it seems reasonable.

[-] -1 points by BlackRepublic (-33) from East Windsor, CT 6 years ago

I'm thinking you're using a burglar's defense. And that much of this testimony is available on youtube if you're really curious about the details of what transpired as related by third parties, truthfully or otherwise. I don't think we're ever going to know the details. What we are left with is the weight of the evidence. I think in some states they would convict on evidence of murder alone, justifiable or otherwise. But in a state where people regularly carry as a means of self-defense this would place all in a rather precarious position - one chooses to either die or go to jail; neither is an attractive option and this is why many choose not to carry in states lacking SYG.

[-] 4 points by elf3 (4068) 6 years ago

Following someone with a gun on your side while you are raging at the world ready to take it out on someone or have a target to blame does not seem like a stable thing to do. Clearly Zimmerman is a big guy. Here is a scenario...I am a woman and he's following me because he hears a woman has been coming door to door selling something or dropping off political flyers... he follows me (has his gun on him) I call my husband who is in the car because there is a big angry man following me... my husband confronts him - Zimmerman grabs him so he can call the police or security (because (say) there is no soliciting in their gated community allowed) Husband feels the gun realizing this man is quite unstable -decides to knock him out - he's not sure what he is going to do with that gun. Is that self defense? Probably - again the aggressor in this scenario was Zimmerman. It's also logical to want to know why someone is following you, or yelling you're in trouble calling police... once my husband was there I might say "hey let's go find out what this is all about...I don't want to suddenly have the police involved and not know what I'm in trouble for"

[-] 2 points by Misaki (893) 6 years ago

Guns make things more dangerous, this is true.

[-] -1 points by BlackRepublic (-33) from East Windsor, CT 6 years ago

Sure I can easily understand why someone would react if accosted in the night, or even in the light of day. The problem is that there appears no evidence of that. The problem is that law is not arbitrary and jurors must weigh the weight of the evidence. If the intent is to "impact society now" through the militancy born of contempt this was probably not a good case to lay it on; I would have chosen one that is more clearly "black and white."

[-] 2 points by TikiJ (-38) 6 years ago

Die? IF GZ was such a pathetic fighter that he was literally going to die, then he had no business doing this to begin with.

And he certainly had no business following and then approaching.

He instigated the confrontation. Who threw the first punch, no one is ever going to know.

[-] 1 points by Misaki (893) 6 years ago

Well, he knows. Other people can make guesses.

[-] -1 points by BlackRepublic (-33) from East Windsor, CT 6 years ago

I don't disagree with you. But how do we define that within law? As harassment?

[-] 1 points by Illuminated (5) 6 years ago

Chill out man you don't need to be so aggressive with my peeps on the streets. I'm always droppin the bums a $20 when they confront me, I never punch em out like that.

Rules, man. Society. Chill.

[-] 1 points by itsmyblood (10) 6 years ago

third eye sharp like a motherfucking hawk.----issa gold


[-] -1 points by BlackRepublic (-33) from East Windsor, CT 6 years ago

To recall a blip in history: The first British soldier to die in the "revolution" was chased down and shot in a field by an armed citizen. This citizen's words have been preserved; he relates to us his displeasure in having committed what he felt an act of "Murder." But every death to follow, on either side, was a "justifiable" act of vengeance.

So sayeth ye, and thee, and me... We must confront these eternal, internal, infernal demons.

[-] 1 points by Misaki (893) 6 years ago

Can't find anything that talks about this. Reading about the first battles of the American revolution, and how shots were fired, is interesting though.

[-] 0 points by BlackRepublic (-33) from East Windsor, CT 6 years ago

It's there, keep reading. The problem is that I can't recall his name.

[-] 1 points by Misaki (893) 6 years ago

If the American revolution started with the battles of Lexington and Concord, the first British deaths were at a bridge from a volley of fire by militias.

[-] 0 points by BlackRepublic (-33) from East Windsor, CT 6 years ago

While wars may serve as historical markers, the cultural mindset is not something static, it is a continuum that changes as you and I speak. Where wars begin and where they end is therefore often a matter of some debate. The Rev "began" when certain individuals stole British cannons and secreted them away and the British marched in search of... I can't recall the location of the first British death, but it occurred in a field as an American ran him down and shot him. We've identified the soldier; he was interviewed and his words preserved and we can actually locate this first British death. And so begins the armed conflict. To me all of our history is very interesting. But I am a person "aware" and of unusual curiosities that for a time was focused on this question of beginnings and how best to define them. Actually I run questions concurrently and they have numbered in the thousands. If only I possessed photographic recall; if only we could install photographic digital memory.

[-] 1 points by Misaki (893) 6 years ago

None of the first casualties at the battles of Lexington and Concord were because of an officer or leader ordering people to fire. In both cases it was a mistake, as far as can be determined.

[-] -1 points by BlackRepublic (-33) from East Windsor, CT 6 years ago

Conflict here begins with anxiety, the snide remark, with criticism, with contempt... the clash and transformation occur when the "cynic comes undone." There was a first to die in this armed conflict, a position (to quote a word popular in media now) from which none could "retreat." The man who murdered him was intelligent, religiously inclined, morally aware, and conscientious - he was a cynic come undone. And as all react in self-defense, the lives taken are but acts of vengeance. Cynicism come undone transforms men into warriors in a transmorph of mission. Before they stole these cannons, you can bet, they consumed copiously in the tavern. And that is the essence of history - it is born of the actions of real people.

[-] 1 points by Misaki (893) 6 years ago

If the person you referred to existed, his death did not influence the earliest military engagements.

[-] -1 points by BlackRepublic (-33) from East Windsor, CT 6 years ago

I think you entirely missed the point; I never suggested that it did.

[-] 3 points by Misaki (893) 6 years ago

You said:

But every death to follow, on either side, was a "justifiable" act of vengeance.


[-] -1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 6 years ago

Always improvise. Be like water. Every situation is different when confronted. Sometimes I run, sometimes I negotiate, sometimes I punch. Sometimes I combine. I never know what I'm going to do until I do it.

[-] -1 points by Moonbat (-37) 6 years ago

Geez. How often are you being confronted?

[-] 2 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 6 years ago

I've never been followed the way TM was. I don't know how I would react. I would have thought GZ was a perv. Now we know, pervs might be carrying.

Stay frosty.

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 6 years ago

It happened a lot to me when I lived in S. Cal. That was a long time ago.

[-] -3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 6 years ago

Nope. It sure doesn't.

In fact, if I'm walking down the street and going where ever I go and I'm wearing a hoody...........like I do.... and you follow me and then confront me then be prepared. I will drop you where you stand and not think twice.

[-] 1 points by Narley (272) 6 years ago

In your hypothetical situation you would be convicted. You can't harm someone who hasn't harmed you first. The only exception is if the other person verbally threatened to harm you.

[-] 0 points by TikiJ (-38) 6 years ago

When was the last time that happened?

On Wednesday, I watched this guy and girl get into an argument and then she was trying to walk out of the parking lot, and he was still in her face.

Then he pushed her. At which point I started walking over to him and demanded he stop.

Didn't have to drop him, but the situation could have turned out much worse.

Of course, a shit ton of racist slurs came my way as he was walking away. Same shit, different day. Everyone wants to run their mouths, no one wants to get down and dirty.

[-] 0 points by Misaki (893) 6 years ago

In general, any action which contradicts the intentions of someone else could be seen as selfish. This is why having an understanding of other people's intentions is so important, and is also why there can be disagreements on whether an action was, in fact, selfish when people do not make their intentions clear or act in a way which is consistent with what they say their intentions are.

When extending intentions to include actions by other people, you can then say that wanting any outcome other than what actually occurs is selfish. It may not be what you expected, but while this complexity does have a cost it is still a situation of what you want vs what someone else wants as revealed by their actions.
Regarding the short story The Discourager of Hesitancy and the story that preceded it, not being able to say whether people are "good" or "evil" shows that society is working correctly. People have done simulations showing that in a series of Prisoner's Dilemma games the average outcome is improved if a significant number of people avoid being too trusting. What was missing from that simulation but later proved in the first post on this site is that it is not really possible to have a perfect system of "reputation" that ensures that everyone cooperates in each game. You can improve the accuracy of reputation but it will always be bounded by stupidity and lack of information about goals.

(This is from a blog post btw: http://jobcreationplan.blogspot.com/2012/11/notes-on-taxes-etc.html)

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 6 years ago

Fuck off, ass wipe.

[-] -1 points by Misaki (893) 6 years ago

You don't need to worry much anyway, females are usually not the target of gun crime


[-] -1 points by BlackRepublic (-33) from East Windsor, CT 6 years ago

I like them because they commit to their convictions, i.e., truthful communication.

[-] -2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 6 years ago

You worthless piece of shit. You multiple ID cockroach..


[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 6 years ago

You're a multiple ID cockroach. Nothing more and nothing less. You do not have the balls to stick with one ID.




[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 6 years ago

I vote for transparency as well. You fucking start.

Keep using multiple IDs. I'll just keep making sure that we are all on the same page-you're a cockroach.



[-] 0 points by Misaki (893) 6 years ago

I said it to the Free Jahar movement, I'll say it to you: you're wasting your time unless you tell people about this idea. http://occupywallst.org/forum/this-is-important-we-can-change-the-conversation-i/


[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 6 years ago

You are a cockroach. That's it. I find nothing superior about any aspect of your personality or in your thoughts that have been conveyed. In fact, you're rather insignificant--a worthless piece of shit.



[-] -1 points by BlackRepublic (-33) from East Windsor, CT 6 years ago

A prison is a place of coexistence devoid of law. And the very fact that no one can be trusted forms the basis of organization and hierarchy; reputation is vital to existence. It's interesting in that it is a true living example of what "man" re-primitivized really is; bear in mind, too, the prison lacks the influence of women.

Contrary to popular belief there are certain aspects of that which we label as "morality" that are truly innate. This incident that Tiki relates is one example of this; such natural repugnance translates to a law universal.

[-] 0 points by Misaki (893) 6 years ago

When you say that "no one can be trusted" are you referring only to prisons? As you acknowledge that people still have reputations in prison, it would seem not too different from how people who are not in prison operate.


[-] 0 points by BlackRepublic (-33) from East Windsor, CT 6 years ago

Well the thing is in a prison bonds of trust aid personal safety and security, they are precursors of alliance; those that violate trust are subject to the scrutiny of the organization; it has its checks and balances. It's not too different from the world because everything is derived of this primtivism, of human interaction, of the dynamic of human interaction, of the developing polity as power organization. What's missing here specifically is dispassionate law. The "law" in prison is but a shell that contains; it does not impact internal organization or structure, its pecking order, or that which emanates from the organization in the form of non-codified law, rules, or determinations. Because of the natural pecking order, image is very important, reputation is the confirmation of that image. And it's just as obvious in prison as it is on any childhood playground. Males never, ever, outgrow the pack mentality; it is innate in us because we are a communal species, for evolutionary reason.

One could go so far as to say that each of the united states is but an alliance united under polity; that the federation is but the states united under one statutory law. To some extent this law must be dispassionate or it will favor, waver, and fail. We're ignoring human desire and the dynamic of human interaction from which polity is derived, here, but the point is that prison is primitivism revisited. I am very familiar with this environment.

[-] 1 points by Misaki (893) 6 years ago

Are laws special because they are written down? Do the laws of the US allow the surveillance patterns used by the NSA just because the NSA says they do?

What I found interesting is that many countries, including the US, have agreed not to use war to resolve differences and that this is still binding under international law, although there might not be any consequences for breaking this law.

[-] 0 points by BlackRepublic (-33) from East Windsor, CT 6 years ago

Well, the written statute is what I would call codified law. And its presence can be historically traced. It is "special" in that it provides evidence in perpetuity of a previous agreement, a verbal contract, which imparts an obligation on both parties. Law then is negotiation hopefully preserved so precisely as to remove all ambiguity and defray all future challenge (lawyers struggle immensely with the English language, btw; they must employ writers). We run into problems with law when one party seeks legislation to gain favor a majority would not willingly grant; it lands on the Supreme Court to determine if constitutional or federated rights have been violated - rights of course are also a negotiated item; in statutory form they are "constituted" as part and parcel of the structure of governance. Federal law is only binding to the extent that a majority is willing submit to their authority and protection. There is nothing - except Lincoln - to prevent us from nullifying federal law.

International law is only binding to the extend authority can impose; if such an entity existed the US would either buy it lock stock and barrel or immediately destroy it. Because we've never been big on being subjugated (I would add that a willingness to submit varies culturally and genetically - some are far more willing to submit than others). And I think it would probably take a tremendous power to subjugate a population so large over so vast a territory. So I don't see international governance as possible.

[-] -1 points by BattleRoyale (-1) 6 years ago

Careful now. You are obviously dealing with a badass here.

[-] 0 points by Misaki (893) 6 years ago

The US has so many guns

[+] -4 points by GirlFriday (17435) 6 years ago

There's nothing to be a bad ass about, Fuck nut.


[-] -1 points by BlackRepublic (-33) from East Windsor, CT 6 years ago

Welcome to Anatomy 101: Everyone knows the reason we wear hoodies is to preserve true identity; the reason we wear baggies is to conceal items stolen and prohibited; the reason our ass is exposed to the world is because items concealed have encountered the unknown and too ill-considered force labeled as gravity.

And don't think for a minute that it has gone unnoticed that many now "protesting" are Bloods.

Do you think the average Blood has any concept of law beyond "Mommy told you not to do that." Or, "Step away from the vehicle"?

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 6 years ago

I thought we wore hoodies because it was chilly. It's a plot. A plot using skittles and tea.

I don't give two flips about sagging. I do find it amusing when the 250 pound bleach blond chic wearing a K-Mart matching pant set decides to be critical. Or the guy with a hairy back wearing a speedo is critical or even those people wearing leggings.

[-] -1 points by BlackRepublic (-33) from East Windsor, CT 6 years ago

I tend to view clothing as environmental defense and choice of decor, or artful attire, as purposeful advertisement. I'm not big on the sagging but my concern is the lack of concern for physical limitation; it's about as practical as the spiked heel. It is the arrogance with which they discard conformity that I think annoys. We would be much less offended if they just walked around naked (?) But I'm not disliking your response.

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

Right-on - and that is where Florida and those assholes screwed Trayvon - they said that he an unarmed kid could not defend himself from an armed attacker.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 6 years ago

As I just said to someone else. Besides the message of don't be black, with candy, headed towards Dad's house in a gated community, there is another message. That message is all about intimidation. I have been listening to a bunch of hilljacks talk about guns and the right to defend themselves and utilizing intimidation tactics for some five years. A good seven months on this forum. I'm down with self defense.

But, now, you can be a dickhead with a gun and utilize intimidation factors, instigate a bunch of crap, murder someone and walk. Nice job. And these asshats truly think they won something. Ya? Nah. Not really.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

The idiots are cheering for chaos on the streets.