The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

We can hope...and I am sure you join me in hoping that stalkers always are brought to justice...even though we might disagree a tiny bit on what constitutes stalking.

Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah
Dispatcher: OK, we don't need you to do that.

Quote:

We can hope...and I am sure you join me in hoping that stalkers always are brought to justice...even though we might disagree a tiny bit on what constitutes stalking.

LOL I would bet that criminals would love a law that made it illegal to follow them on the public streets in order to guide the police to them.

We could call such a law the Trayvon Martin hoodlum protection act.

No one shud be put into that position of financial inconvenience
simply for defending himself, whether he followed anyone else, or not.

There shud be NO price for self defense.
Conspicuously, the right to self defense is more fundamental than any other right.
I wish that the Authors of the Constitution had the presence of mind to put that in.

David

Are you talking about the stalker who managed to precipitate
a confrontation that ended with a young man dead?

He has not even begun to pay the price
he should pay for what he did, David.

As a Neighborhood Watch captain, he should understand national standards about a) calling the police, and b) not following in pursuit of the suspect. Having a gun is also against national standards for Neighborhood Watch members

Hummm...so you are against laws that prohibit stalking?

Quote:

Hummm...so you are against laws that prohibit stalking?

I think that current stalking laws are pushing the envelope in making legal acts into illegal acts let alone the idea that someone following someone to guide that police to him is stalking.

But I am sure the criminals would love such a law.

And I agree with everything you are saying here, MiT...and I am sure there are many who agree with us about the magnificence of the great Oralloy.

So am I correct though...that you are against laws that prohibit stalking?

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/04/senate-bill-would-make-unconstitutional-anti-stalking-law-even-more

Senate Bill Would Make Unconstitutional Anti-Stalking Law Even More Unconstitutional
Just a few months ago in United States v. Cassidy, a court smacked down a prosecutor's attempt to use the federal anti-stalking law to punish a man for criticizing a religious leader on Twitter. The court ruled that the criminal charges brought against the critic ran afoul of his constitutional right to free speech. Because the law violated the First Amendment as applied to that specific Twitter user, though, the court chose not to go a step further and decide whether the statute is unconstitutional as written, which EFF had argued in a "friend of the court" brief.

Now the Senate is thinking about passing legislation to update that problematic law. Instead of fixing the statute's shortcomings, however, the bill would guarantee that it's blatantly unconstitutional on its face.

As originally written, the anti-stalking law made it a crime to intentionally put another person in reasonable fear of death or serious injury. But the law was expanded in 2006 through the Violence Against Women Act to criminalize causing "substantial emotional distress" to another person using an "interactive computer service" such as the Internet. The law doesn't even require that the offending speech be directed at a particular person — a tweet, Facebook status update, or blog post that distresses someone else could be enough to send the speaker to prison. As the Cassidy decision makes clear (and as EFF had argued), this language is so vague and overbroad that it could sweep up a great deal of legitimate online criticism squarely protected by the Constitution.

Rather than clarify the statute to solve those problems, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2011 would significantly extend the law to punish more speech — and it could go to the Senate floor as early as tomorrow.

First, section 107 of the bill would broaden the anti-stalking law to criminalize conduct that "attempts to cause, or would be reasonably expected to cause" substantial emotional distress to another person. That's a significant expansion that only amplifies the statute's free speech problems.

To make matters worse, section 1003 would amend federal telecommunications law to punish anonymous online speech that "harass[es] any specific person," as well as make it illegal to "repeatedly initiate[] communication with a telecommunications device, during which conversation or communication ensues, solely to harass any specific person." As Professor Eugene Volokh notes, these broad prohibitions would seem to apply even in situations where an online speaker is talking to the general public, rather than communicating directly with the target of the speech.

Anti-stalking laws serve an important purpose: to protect people who are put in legitimate fear for their wellbeing. Unfortunately, the language of the federal anti-stalking law is already dangerously vague and overbroad, and we're disappointed to see lawmakers think about compounding those problems with a proposal that amounts to Internet censorship legislation. (Just a few weeks ago, Arizona's legislature suffered a public backlash for passing a bill with similar flaws.) The Senate should craft a fix that protects victims while respecting free speech, not make an unconstitutional law even more unconstitutional.



Free

This is the kind of danger of misused of so call stalking laws that could take away constitutional protected rights if not stop by the courts.

Quote:

So am I correct though...that you are against laws that prohibit stalking?

No under very extreme cases the stalking laws can have a useful function but such laws are all to easy to misused and can results in more injustice then they was suppose to stop. They need to be written and apply with great care.

Now the very idea that a citizen following someone in order to guide the police to the person being follow is a fine example of the complete and almost insane used of the concept of such laws.

In other word your wish to cover the following of a maybe criminal are a fine example of the danger such laws can have on innocent actions and in fact very useful actions.

you know, stalking used to be defined as continually following someone, or staking out their house. this idea that you could follow soneone one time for an arguably valid reason and be quilty of stalking brings to mind how rape has been massively redefined.

This is the kind of danger of misused of so call stalking laws
that could take away constitutional protected rights if not stop by the courts.

Then you support the rights of free speech
of all those people who have been making death threats
against Zimmerman and posting them on the social media?

Stalking...whether it goes on for a long time or just happens one time...is still stalking. Zimmerman was stalking Martin.

Lying as one more as no 911 tape have any request on it
that he get into his car and yahoo answer is
no more a source then a posting on ask2know.org!!!!!!!

Next a neighborhood watch policy in no way limits the right of a citizen
to follow anyone on the public streets be he a member or not a member.

They could I guess kick him out of the program for not following
a policy but their policy have zero standing in any legal sense.

Love how you feel the need to lie that the 911 dispatcher
ordering him to remain in his car.