A private citizen has ZERO right to follow me and ask me my intent and I sure as hell would consider it a threat.
If I'm on an evening walk, some neighborhood watch vigilante (can't think of any better word for it) has the right to stalk and confront me? Because he thinks I'm suspicious?
I don't have to answer to POLICE without suspicion of probable cause and in the presence of an attorney. You're telling me Georgie boy fascist lawman of the gated community can chase me down and grill me as to my intent at night because he thinks I'm 'suspicious?'
I think Trayvon had every right to beat Zimmerman's head into the pavement, as far as he was concerned he was being threatened by some jackoff with a gun. Too bad he lost that fight.
Actually, a private citizen has EVERY right to ask you whatever they want. And likewise, you have the right to tell them to mind their own business. Asking someone why they're in a certain neighborhood does not constitute a "threat." Try immediately beating up every person you come into contact with who disagrees with you/accosts you/etc. and see how that goes in court. If I walk up to someone and ask them WTF they're doing in my neighborhood - even if I do it rudely/aggressively - and they beat me up for it, they're going to be putting my kids through college. Period.
If a neighborhood watch person - or ANY person - 'confronts' you, asks you what you're doing, etc., and you don't like it, you are free to tell them to mind their own business. You get to tell them if they don't like your presence there, they should call the police. Better yet,
call the police, yourself.
What you DON'T get to do is beat them up, simply because they ask you what you're doing in a particular neighborhood. That's called "assault."
FYI - there is no such thing as "suspicion of probable cause." No, you don't have to talk to the "POLICE" (??), but they can still arrest you if they have reason to believe that you committed a crime.
A lot of people seem to be automatically assuming that Zimmerman accosted this kid with a
drawn gun in his hand, brandished it, or whatever, and that's why the fight ensued. I'm not buying it - not because of Zimmerman's account or the family's. I'm not buying it because it flies in the face of common sense. That would have to involve two VERY stupid people, each doing something equally stupid at the same time. Meaning that one person is such a cowboy that - as Bofa said - he's intentionally taking an action that any normal person knows will have serious repercussions, may involve bodily harm to himself or someone else, and may end up ruining his life. And the other is dumb enough to attack a person who is
holding a gun, for no reason other than...what? For being asked why he was in the area? It doesn't add up.
Common sense tells me that Martin took offense at being "watched" by this guy (and in fairness, many people might), but made the mistake of starting a fistfight, only to find out that his opponent was armed with more than fists. After that, our country's ambulance-chasing racial pot-stirrers like Sharpton and his ilk used the media hype to their advantage a duped a shi%-load of people into believing that George Zimmerman has nothing better to do with his life than walk around his apartment community shooting black kids for sport.
I don't think it matters, though. I think this is going to go the way of Bernard Goetz case. Zimmerman will be found not guilty in the criminal trial, but Martin's family - who have already shown a glimpse of their financial motivation when they applied to have the "hoodie" image copywritten in their name (???) - will destroy his life by suing the crap out of him. That's how most of these cases go whenever race is involved.
