more "citizen patrols, self-defense"

Started Jul 16, 2013 | Discussions thread
Chato Forum Pro • Posts: 46,027
Re: There IS a legal definition

BorisK1 wrote:

Chato wrote:

BorisK1 wrote:

Chato wrote:

BorisK1 wrote:

Is there a legal definition of "menacing someone"?

I've already posted the definition of "Assualt" which you conveniently ignored. Nor do I think Capital punishment is something I have a RIGHT to inflict just because I'm suspicious of someone. There is a huge difference in protecting YOUR home and chasing people at random.

Zimmerman did not chase Martin. Stop lying about this. You've already admitted to lying. Here's the record:

You claimed "Boris he SAID he was chasing Martin".

I pressed for the exact quote with the word "chase" marked in bold, and you admitted:

I don't NEED the "word."


He said he was "following" Martin.

Following in the distance. As opposed to "chase" - run after someone in order to catch them.

Zimmerman did not chase Martin.

Just what do YOU think Zimmerman intended by chasing someone in the night?

Zimmerman did not chase Marin. That is a lie.

You can defend his actions all you want to, but what he did, as is usually the case with vigilante justice, is to kill someone who in fact had committed no crime.

Approaching and then assaulting someone who was not an immediate physical danger is very definitely a crime.

I believe with all my heart in the right to self defense. But that does NOT include chasing strangers and them killing them.

While a fine sentiment, it has nothing to do with Zimmerman/Martin court case. Zimmerman did not chase Martin.

Zimmerman, by the legal definition of "Assualt," assualted Martin.

At Common Law, an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.

"Imminent harmful or offensive contact" means you're in physical contact, or actively trying to reach physical contact. Or you are pointing a firearm at somebody. Or slapping their face. Imminent.

"An intentional Act by one person that creates an apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact."

Well, Zimmerman did that by pacing Martin in his car for five minutes without ONCE attempting communication.

There's a big difference between just "apprehension" and "apprehension of imminent harmful or offencive contact".

Sure, Zimmerman's action could have given Martin cause to worry. His actions did not, however, cause Martin to worry for his life. Zimmerman's actions were neither direct nor immediate.

No matter how you stretch it, silently following in the distance does not qualify for assault. Even the prosecutors did not make that claim.

Ahh, you mean if Zimmerman after creating a threat MUST loudly scream at Martin?

I mean that Zimmerman's actions did not constitute an immediate, direct threat to Martin.

If Zimmerman was armed then of couse pacing Martin would be an act of imminent harm. Of course as we know Zimmerman was not armed...

An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm.

At the distance, you do not have an "apparent, present ability to cause harm". To cause harm, you need to close up the distance or pull out a weapon. There's no evidence that Zimmerman did either of those things.

It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal or civil liability. Generally, the common law definition is the same in criminal and Tort Law. There is, however, an additional Criminal Law category of assault consisting of an attempted but unsuccessful Battery.

Statutory definitions of assault in the various jurisdictions throughout the United States are not substantially different from the common-law definition.

Legal Definition

Now I have heard many say they would have done the same thing as Zimmerman.

If I was coming to my neighborhood, and saw a person acting suspiciously, I very well may call the police. If that person then looks at my car and runs between the houses, and the police asks me which way he ran, I very well may step out of the car to see better. I will not give chase or try to approach them. That is what people are saying they would've done.

Martin did none of that.

None of what?

Did NOTHING suspicious.

So you're saying that if you were going home and saw ANY Black kid, you would not only immediatley call the Cops, but you would pace him for five minutes, silently of course.

Dave, that is another lie. Please point out where I used the word "Black".

Then you would pace ANY kid simply walking on the sidewalk? You must do a lot of following kids. You get paid?

I call that a blatant lie. Not one of you would have pursued Martin, or menaced him by driving for five minutes alongside him. Not one of you!

How do you "menace" somebody who ran off somewhere and is not even visible? Oh, and I'm still waiting for the legal definition of "menacing" - didn't you say it was against the law to "menace"?

You have called me a liar with no justification.

With full justification, and proof. You lied (many times) that Zimmerman chased Martin. You lied that Zimmerman admitted to chasing Martin. When I pressed you for proof, you admitted that what he actually said doesn't matter to you. The links are right here:

You're a LIAR for denying that Zimmmeram wasn't chasing Martin. You've repeated that LIE too many times for me to keep count.

Yet here I've posted the definitionn of assualt, which fits this case to the t, AND includes menacing.


-- hide signature --

"Everyone who has ever lived, has lived in Modern Times"

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow