Response to someone following you

[A-R]

Sorry to open yet another thread related to the Martin-Zimmerman shooting case in Florida, but something jogged my memory about an old thread from this forum and how it relates to our understanding of the laws surrounding the Florida case, specifically what is a justified response to someone following you and putting you in reasonable fear. This could've been an add-on to sjfcontrol's worthwhile general thread relating Florida case to Texas law, but my focus here is more specific and compares two situations about which we have A LOT of background info to draw from.

Please limit discussion ONLY to discussion of proper response to a stranger following you and only as much detail about contested facets of the Florida case as are truly necessary. If you wish to argue the points of the Florida case, please do so in other threads. A recommendation of how to do this is to start your hypothetical assertion surrounding disputed matters with a preface like "If we believe X happened in Florida case, then I believe Y ..."

So my premise for this thread is whether Trayvon Martin was justified in using force or deadly force as a response to George Zimmerman's following him. We of course don't know all the facts, not least of which is how long and how persistently did Zimmerman actually follow Martin. We can make reasonable assumptions based on reported information that Martin was fearful (based on girlfriend's report of the phone call) and that Zimmerman was following in some capacity (based on him admitting to this on 911). Beyond that we don't know how closely Zimmerman followed, nor whether he disengaged from following at any point before the confrontation took place.

Some have said, and I agree, that even if Zimmerman was following Martin, doing so was not a violation of law. Others have argued that by following Martin, Zimmerman put the teen-ager in reasonable fear of an imminent attack. What law did Zimmerman break by doing this?

Well, Florida has a "stalking" statute ...
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/ind ... 4.048.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

but there's also a theory that following someone to the point of putting them in reasonable fear could be an assault ...
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/ind ... 4.011.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

then of course we have our own particular definitions of assault here in Texas ...
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... /PE.22.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So I guess we need to determine if Zimmerman's actions constitute any of these crimes.

But my epiphany came when I remembered we've already had a similar discussion on this matter in this thread from April 2010
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=33940" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So, taking into account BOTH incidents, what say you all?

Does being followed by a stranger put someone in REASONABLE fear of IMMINENT harm that would justify an IMMEDIATE self-defense use of force? What about use of deadly force?

And while there was a debate about whether pointing your laser-aimed gun at someone on a sidewalk in 2010 thread was a use of force or deadly force, what say you all about Trayvon Martin's reported punching of Zimmerman and then his repeated beating of Zimmerman's head against the sidewalk before Zimmerman shot Martin? At any time was Martin's conduct here justified? If he had punched Zimmerman and said "BACK OFF!" and then ceased physical violence, would that have been justified? Did he supercede any perceived justification by repeatedly beating Zimmerman's head against concrete? Was that an EXCESSIVE use of force? Does either instances (the punch or the repeated head bashing) constitute use of force or use of deadly force (or perhaps both)?

And if you were inserted into one of these situations (you are Martin in Florida case or you are the OP in 2010 Houston incident) how would YOU handle it?

Lastly, I take it as implied that at some point both Zimmerman AND Martin had a right to stand their ground in self-defense. At what point did either of them lose this right, thus making that person an unlawful aggressor? Unless both parties agree to use force against each other (example: bar fight where both agree to "take it outside"), then in any confrontation that ends in non-accidental death one side is illegally using force/deadly force against the other, thus giving the other justification to use force/deadly force to stop the illegal force.

[Beiruty]

Simply, Mr. Martin, should have dropped the call with his girlfriend and immediately called 911 and reported the "stalking" and kept his distance.

I am afraid, it could be the case that Mr. Martin was casing the area for potential burglary (speculating on my part) and he did not like Mr. Martin observing him walking between the houses. Turned back and assaulted Mr. Zimmernan who lost his balance, fell on the ground, got beaten up, and "BANG"

[jmra]

I'm not sure if I'm playing within all of the OPs guidelines (kinda got lost reading from my phone) but didn't the 911 call recording and Zimmerman's statement indicate that Martin had shaken Zimmerman's tail? If so, then Martin intentionally doubled back to surprise/confront Zimmerman. If this is the case (the only information that we so far suggests that it is) then Martin was no longer being followed. This would have been Martins opportunity to simply slip off to his dads house and call the authorities or call 911 while following Zimmerman.

[A-R]

I'm not sure if I'm playing within all of the OPs guidelines (kinda got lost reading from my phone) but didn't the 911 call recording and Zimmerman's statement indicate that Martin had shaken Zimmerman's tail? If so, then Martin intentionally doubled back to surprise/confront Zimmerman. If this is the case (the only information that we so far suggests that it is) then Martin was no longer being followed. This would have been Martins opportunity to simply slip off to his dads house and call the authorities or call 911 while following Zimmerman.

If this theory is true, I agree it would make Martin's hypothetical self-defense claim more difficult. But couldn't he have just been "hiding" from Zimmerman and then when he saw Zimmerman still looking for him he decided then to "stand his ground"? And if so, is any use of force/deadly force justified based on the notion that Zimmerman WAS following him?

[jmra]

I'm not sure if I'm playing within all of the OPs guidelines (kinda got lost reading from my phone) but didn't the 911 call recording and Zimmerman's statement indicate that Martin had shaken Zimmerman's tail? If so, then Martin intentionally doubled back to surprise/confront Zimmerman. If this is the case (the only information that we so far suggests that it is) then Martin was no longer being followed. This would have been Martins opportunity to simply slip off to his dads house and call the authorities or call 911 while following Zimmerman.

If this theory is true, I agree it would make Martin's hypothetical self-defense claim more difficult. But couldn't he have just been "hiding" from Zimmerman and then when he saw Zimmerman still looking for him he decided then to "stand his ground"? And if so, is any use of force/deadly force justified based on the notion that Zimmerman WAS following him?

If we want to assume that Zimmerman was hunting Martin, and Martin from his hiding place saw Zimmerman with his hand on his gun poking through bushes looking for Martin. Then we would have to assume that Martin felt that his life was in danger and would be justified in going on the offensive. But I think that given what we do know, that would be reaching very far.

[Ameer]

Ambushes are good tactics sometimes but they don't fall under the standing your ground laws.

If I think someone is following me I will make some turns that will (a) "out" the tail, (b) make the tail back off, or (c) show that the person was following me coincidentally. Outcomes (b) and (c) look alike but either way there's usually not a problem afterward. I know I have a problem with (a) but the problem also knows I know unless he's an idiot, so if he keeps following after being outed that's whole different ballgame.

[A-R]

Very good tactics, Ameer. Well thought out.

[Katygunnut]

Ambushes are good tactics sometimes but they don't fall under the standing your ground laws.

If I think someone is following me I will make some turns that will (a) "out" the tail, (b) make the tail back off, or (c) show that the person was following me coincidentally. Outcomes (b) and (c) look alike but either way there's usually not a problem afterward. I know I have a problem with (a) but the problem also knows I know unless he's an idiot, so if he keeps following after being outed that's whole different ballgame.

I routinely (some would say excessively) do the same thing. I just did this last night in fact. An SUV I didn't recognize followed me into my sub-division, so I did what I always do. I slowed down a bit til he was close, then I made an unsignaled left turn at the street before mine and watched as he drove on. The street I turned down is such that 3 consecutive lefts and a right put you back where you started only heading out of the subdivision instead on in. I haven't had anyone follow me for all of these turns yet, but if I do, my next stop is the local police station about a mile away. No way I'm going anywhere near my house if there is even the smallest chance that someone is following me.

Back to the point of this thread, regardless of whether Martin had the right to stand his ground, he did the wrong thing if we assume that he had any reasonable opportunity for escape. He appears to have been in better shape than Zimmerman, and Zimmerman by all accounts exited his vehicle at some point. This alone would have created sufficient opportunity for Martin to escape. This is even more true if Zimmerman lost sight of Martin at some point.

As noted above, my primary plan of action if anyone is following me is to find an escape route. I only resort to the use of force if there is no reasonable opportunity for escape (for example, if I am walking with my kids, etc).

[karder]

If I felt certain someone was following me, I would stop moving. For instance if I was on foot and noticed someone tailing me, I would sit down on park bench or lean up against a pole and wait. This would put them in a position where they have to make a choice, confront or move on. By allowing them to continue to follow, you allow them time to think about what they are going to do and plot their next action.

I am not suggesting that others do this, it is just what I would do. Odds are, the person who is following you is just walking in the same direction. If he is not, by stopping, you can take a quick moment to adjust yourself, take the safety off you gun or whatever. I would not confront the person unless they confronted me but I would require them to make a choice, hopefully before they are ready. If they keep walking, I let them go on by. If they stop and talk, I am way in the red zone. If they attempt to engage, I am positioned and ready. Once again, this may not be a good tactic for a lot of folks, but I would rather have a suspicious person in front of me than behind me.

[mamabearCali]

If someone is following you and you don't know their intentions (they haven't shouted out to you in some way) I think you have a few legal and moral options.

#1 If you are near a place of safety (a busy store/home/shopping center) make a beeline for it. If they pursue call the police. (This saved my life 2 times)

#2 Attempt to shake the tail.

#3 Confront the person. This does not have to be a fist to the face at 2 feet away. Turning and asking "Can I help you?" when they are 25 feet away is perfectly acceptable. If they are trying to return your car keys or were just happen to be behind you should be able to tell by their answer. Additionally those who wish to attack people want to get the drop on them so if they were going to attack you they are now outted and you have a half a chance of defending yourself. They might decide to attack a different target.. Now if I decided to confront someone, I would not pull a weapon, but I would be ready to do so if attacked (peppers spray bottle in hand), shirt made so it is easy to draw. If they are trying to give you something you dropped, ask them to set it on the sidewalk and you will come and get it cause you have a terrible cold you don't want to give them (or something like that).

What you should not do is automatically attack someone. After all they may just happen to be walking behind you, or you might have dropped your keys two blocks ago. Or like in the Z and M situation, they may be just a local citizen and you aroused their suspicions. That conversation might go like this. "Can I help you?" "What are you doing here." "On my way home, sir." I make a point of calling most people I don't know sir and mam, just makes things easier (like please and thank you). This goes double in tense situations. At that point I imagine the community watch fellow would probably say something along the lines of "gone on then." Now if the person says " Insulting explicative, I want to have a word with you." That is when you go to high alert and tell him to "leave you alone in no uncertain terms" and treat the situation like a dangerous dog. Never turn your back, don't run, move slowly away, be ready to defend yourself, and get the authorities on speed dial.

[Kabong30]

I was followed one time that I can think of. I didn't recognize the vehicle, I was young and stupid. No weapons on me past a pocket knife. I took a couple of random turns with increasing speed and then as soon as I had some space spun my truck around flipped on the brights and drove back at the following vehicle. They stopped, I stopped, I got out and moved toward the other vehicle. Turns out it was my wife riding with a friend in a car I didn't know. Scared the stuffing out of them and then later me when I realized what could have happened had it been a BG. In the following years since that incident I've tried to know where the nearest police station is or what public area is nearest with a lot of people around.

[Lambda Force]

If I'm in a vehicle and possibly being followed by someone in a vehicle, I can make turns like others have described to either lose them or confirm they're following me. If they're following I can go somewhere they would be unwise to follow me. I know a prime location near my home, but everybody has to figure out what works for them.

If I'm on foot and possibly being followed by someone in a vehicle, I can do things a vehicle doesn't normally do. I can stop and see if they stop. I can reverse my direction on the sidewalk. Those are good if I'm slightly suspicious but if there's no traffic and they're driving at a walking speed, it's time to be less subtle. I can cut between parked cars to change direction. I can cut across lawns and through back yards in a residential neighborhood. I can go into a store or office building if I'm not in a residential area. Either they have to get out to follow me, or drive through things that will create a lot of attention and make my self-defense case a slam-dunk.

If I'm on foot and possibly being followed by someone on foot, I can reverse direction randomly but this has risks if they already selected me as a target. On the other hand, it's better than waiting to be attacked on their terms. What's the actual risk you're worried about? Pepper spray can be used like the smokescreen from a James Bond car to deter someone following you, but that probably isn't such a good idea if your tail is an FBI agent instead of a crack head looking for an easy few bucks.

If I'm in a vehicle and possibly being followed by someone on foot, I can probably lose them pretty easily.

[sjfcontrol]

If I'm in a vehicle and possibly being followed by someone on foot, I can probably lose them pretty easily.

Well, unless you're being followed by "the six million dollar man" (We have the technology!)

[Lambda Force]

True but even a Honda Civi outweighs Steve Austin...

[The Annoyed Man]

I was followed one time that I can think of. I didn't recognize the vehicle, I was young and stupid. No weapons on me past a pocket knife. I took a couple of random turns with increasing speed and then as soon as I had some space spun my truck around flipped on the brights and drove back at the following vehicle. They stopped, I stopped, I got out and moved toward the other vehicle. Turns out it was my wife riding with a friend in a car I didn't know. Scared the stuffing out of them and then later me when I realized what could have happened had it been a BG. In the following years since that incident I've tried to know where the nearest police station is or what public area is nearest with a lot of people around.

HUGE mistake! You're lucky that it worked out well for you.

The one advantage (besides presumably being armed) you have when being tailed into your neighborhood is a superior knowledge of the geography. Use it to your advantage to A) ditch the tail, B) try and gather intelligence about the tail or setup an ambush if necessary, and C) get away if possible. But you're silhouetted between your headlights and their headlights, and you can't see who they are, and you walk up to their vehicle? You're lucky to be alive.