[supersloth]

you're a fucking idiot.

[macosxnerd101]

This is a red-herring to detract from whether or not Zimmerman was in the wrong to start with.

[supersloth]

depricated, on 16 July 2013 - 10:26 AM, said:

supersloth, on 16 July 2013 - 10:08 AM, said:

well, once again, tm 'attacking' is not a fact that i'm aware of.

So use the google machine. TM attacked GZ.

once again: STILL NOT A STATEMENT OF FACT.

hey look where the google machine took me

This post has been edited by supersloth: 16 July 2013 - 09:44 AM

[atraub]

Ohhh, I was just having a little fun on that one. Don't be so pissy.

macosxnerd101, on 16 July 2013 - 12:42 PM, said:

This is a red-herring to detract from whether or not Zimmerman was in the wrong to start with.

Wrong! We are discussing the law, not morality.

[macosxnerd101]

@atraub: Way to, once again, go find technicalities to make it look like Zimmerman wasn't in the wrong once again. Way to also ignore any point I make because you wouldn't do it or don't like that the point is valid. I'm referring to your edit to add in a technicality about stalking.

Quote

Wrong! We are discussing the law, not morality.

Did I not show criminal negligence according to your definitions? Or do you just like to ignore other people's arguments because they disagree with your own? Give me a break.

[atraub]

Not at all a technicality. Following and stalking are completely different. Just because stalking sounds worse doesn't mean it automatically applies here.

[supersloth]

we've discussed both.

[macosxnerd101]

atraub, on 16 July 2013 - 12:47 PM, said:

Not at all a technicality. Following and stalking are completely different. Just because stalking sounds worse doesn't mean it automatically applies here.

Once again, I love how you ignored this post of mine and deflected it onto how Martin was wrong when I wasn't even discussing Martin's faults, but rather Zimmerman's.

Quote

Also, I was making a point that it's odd for people to follow others they don't know, and there is some legal protection from that. If someone is following me and I feel threatened, it's nice to know that I can call the police and have someone come out.

[atraub]

macosxnerd101, on 16 July 2013 - 12:48 PM, said:

atraub, on 16 July 2013 - 12:47 PM, said:

Not at all a technicality. Following and stalking are completely different. Just because stalking sounds worse doesn't mean it automatically applies here.

Once again, I love how you ignored this post of mine and deflected it onto how Martin was wrong when I wasn't even discussing Martin's faults, but rather Zimmerman's.

Good God man! I'm only 1 person, I'm responding as fast as I can, be patient!!! No, I don't believe it constitutes criminal negligence. It seems awkward to say that you can be guilty of criminal negligence if the party you put in danger through your own actions was not the party who was hurt/killed/whatever in the case. If someone died trying to save you, that'd be another story altogether. That's more of an opinion on the interpretation of the law.

[macosxnerd101]

macosxnerd101, on 16 July 2013 - 12:37 PM, said:

Not to be pedantic, but I asked if you would feel threatened if something like that happened to you. I didn't ask whether or not you attacked.

Also, I was making a point that it's odd for people to follow others they don't know, and there is some legal protection from that. If someone is following me and I feel threatened, it's nice to know that I can call the police and have someone come out.

atraub, on 16 July 2013 - 12:38 PM, said:

Attacking anyone who makes you feel threatened would certainly be unreasonable, perhaps even.... negligent?

Hardly an issue of a timely response or just missing my post. Seems more like a blatant red herring.

Quote

No, I don't believe it constitutes criminal negligence. It seems awkward to say that you can be guilty of criminal negligence if the party you put in danger through your own actions was not the party who was hurt/killed/whatever in the case.

He put his and someone else's life in danger by following someone he believed was a criminal with a loaded gun. I don't see how that's unclear, when the other two definitions you provided were very blatantly satisfied.

[atraub]

I dont' feel the the mere act of following someone puts their life in danger. Loaded gun or not.

As for the "Red herring" That was actually a tongue in cheek response to you asking me whether or not I felt threatened when I was followed. I WAS actually playing a little bit of catch up trying to respond to 2 separate people's comments.

This post has been edited by atraub: 16 July 2013 - 10:13 AM

[macosxnerd101]

Let's go back to safety rules. Does following someone you believe is a criminal a safe thing to do? On the flip side, if you are not a criminal and someone is following you, does that make you feel unsafe? This seems like something most young kids get right.

[atraub]

unsafe and "departure from rational behavior" are different things. The mere act of following someone does not inherently put the person you're following into any actual danger.

EDIT:I gotta get going in just a few minutes. Going on a road trip. I'll try to poke my head back in when I can, it'll probably be a few days.

This post has been edited by atraub: 16 July 2013 - 10:09 AM

[supersloth]

neither does shooting them with a gun, apparently.

[atraub]

supersloth, on 16 July 2013 - 01:08 PM, said:

neither does shooting them with a gun, apparently.

I don't recall saying that.