A matter of the right to Privacy and Personal Soverignty

This had to be done, so I'm doing it in a lone thread. I don't care if you support the position or are opposed to it. Read what is written before replying, it is very important that everyone follows this rule.

Yes, this thread is about Mr. Martin and Mr. Zimmerman. Yes, another one, however this one is definitely different.
We are removing race from this situation until the end. It doesn't play a factor into was was infringed upon in this case. We're going to talk about personal liberty, and Mr. Zimmerman acting as if we lived within a state of nature, absent of a social contract. Sit, read, digest, and discuss civilly, or leave.

For the sake of audio reference, anyone can listen here:



Ignoring the media, let's talk facts. Martin was walking home from a convince store. There was not a weapon on his person. As he was walking home from this store, he noticed an individual not only watching him, but following him.
Zimmerman is either a self appointed or volunteer "watchman". This position holds no official authority or authorization of use of force against any other individual or persons in the area. Zimmerman noticed an individual who he found "suspicious". Zimmerman decided to do the proper thing and call 911. However, Zimmerman decided to go above and beyond this initial phone call and follow the individual.

Martin, noticing he was being followed, obviously grew nervous. Regardless of the next fact that I bring up, stranger following individuals randomly in dim lighting and rain is frightening. Now, something to consider. What is it that children have been taught for the last 25 years in regards to strangers and strange individuals? A rhetorical question, obviously, as the answer is clear. Stranger Danger is a large part of societal upbringing these days. Strings of horrid kidnappings and murders forced parents to teach and instruct their children about the dangers of strangers. This carries on later in life. Father's urge their wives and daughters not to walk alone in parking lots and to always check their surroundings. Mother's urge their mature sons not to enter vehicles with absolute strangers and to be weary in odd situations.

Now, we have a situation where this 17 year old young man is being followed as the sky is darkened and the rain falls. Martin is frightened, and understandably so. Zimmerman is overzealous and plans to do something. How can we infer this fact? Simple, the quote: "These assholes, they always get away". Now, the quote alone isn't enough to implicate Zimmerman with any intent of wrong doing, however his actions in conjunction with the quote push the situation there. Zimmerman, disregarding the instructions of the 911 dispatcher, decided to pursue and essentially stalk Martin. And so we begin.

The 911 dispatcher. It is the general procedure to work with the 911 dispatcher. They are to provide individuals with the proper instructions so that situations can unfold as smoothly as possible without overbearing collateral exploding everywhere. As many will argue, the 911 dispatcher holds no authority, and Zimmerman was not bound by his instruction. This, is partially true. It is true, if the dispatcher is not an officer of the law, Zimmerman was not required to follow his instruction. On another level, this is not true. Unless the dispatcher's instructions will end your life or the life of another unnecessarily it is understood procedure to work with them and follow their instruction so that a situation may not spiral out of hand. In this contract, certain things are expected, but even within the societal acceptance of the dispatcher's instruction, one is not REQUIRED to follow the instruction. Zimmerman decided to ignore the instructions provided to him, and so he made one step out of the social contract. Fine.

Continuing with the story, we find our Mr. Martin running from the pursuer's vehicle. This young man has no idea why this individual is following him. It is raining, it is growing darker and the mind enters the fight or flight. Martin has already chosen flight, and while he does we don't know where his mind wanders. He is on the phone with his girlfriend who has instructed him to run away. He definitely assumed his life was in danger. Some individual, who's identity remained unknown, followed him in a vehicle. This youngman undoubtedly felt a fear for his life. He ran, and ran, and eventually could not escape.

Zimmerman obviously wanted to prove something, "These assholes always get away". He was either going to lecture, question, or attempt to perform a citizen's arrest. We don't know which he desired to do, but we do know this. He overstepped his bounds. The social contract requires, nay, suggests that the police handle the conflict. The dispatcher made reference to sending officers to the location and instructed Zimmerman not to follow, however Zimmerman obviously had something else in mind. He wanted to handle and investigate the situation himself, up close and personal. Zimmerman is not batman. Batman is a fictional character. Vigilantism is a crime. Vigilantism is stepping out of the social contract and taking on the duty of distributing, regulating, and maintaining peace or justice instead of allowing the police and the court systems to handle an issue. Zimmerman is already in the wrong, not once, but twice.

Martin is now realizing that his attempts to escape his pursuer has proven to be an exercise in futility. The flight option in his mind is extinguished and rendered null. Knowing everything that could go wrong with following strangers and weird individuals following a person in society, Martin most likely decided to defend himself and his intrinsic right to life. He had a reasonable expectation of fear of death and grievous bodily harm.

A stand-your-ground law states that a person may use deadly force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat, without an obligation to retreat first. In some cases, a person may use deadly force in public areas without a duty to retreat. Under these legal concepts, a person is justified in using deadly force in certain situations and the "stand your ground" law would be a defense to criminal charges.

He became suspicious of his pursuer, he fled the scene, and he failed. He was then forced to stand his ground. So he did. He stood his ground. Zimmerman approached Martin with some "watchman" authority and Martin simply reacted first. The fist flew and the conflict began. By Florida Law, Martin was in the right. The social contract gave him the ability to defend himself because as far as that young man knew, his life was definitely in danger.

Martin was shot. Killed. Erased. His personal sovereignty and right to privacy, was infringed upon by an overzealous 'watchman' acting through Vigilante means. Martin's rights were trampled upon and forced into a situation of fear and uncertainty. He did what he was allowed to do within the confines of the social contract.
Zimmerman broke the contract and acted as man within a state of nature. It was Zimmerman's law beyond anyone elses rights to privacy and personal sovereignty. Martin was walking home, and was forced into a situation by some random man.
Zimmerman's law is outside of the contract and therefore wrong on many levels. A young man's right's were violated and he ended up dead.

Now, we must consider what this means. Are we to defend individuals who follow the contract, or are we to defend individuals who break the contract, and find themselves in situations that they were not prepared for only to take a life to preserve their life due to the consequences of breaking the contract.
Martin minded his own business, ran, and then stood his ground.
Zimmerman infringed upon another’s right to even exist in the area, stalked, lost a battle, and took a life.
Think about.
The inevitable: “Well, Martin should have called 911” argument is handled by the 911 call. Zimmerman makes a waistband comment in reference to the young man. Meaning that subconsciously/consciously Zimmerman believed that there was a chance that Martin held a weapon. If Martin were to have called 911 or produced or tried to conceal a phone when Zimmerman exited the care, Zimmerman could have easily thought it was the “suspected” weapon. In which case, Zimmerman would have fired anyways, and in all probability killed Martin anyways.

Martin was not walking away from this situation. He could have is he was successful in escaping, which sadly, he wasn’t. Martin died because his rights and the social contract was not respected. Regardless of race, age, gender, ethnicity, religion, or faith, this situation should hit home with all Americans because it is a fine examples of personal liberties being trampled upon and ending in the death of the infringed.
Martin’s rights were disregarded, and he died that night. At the end of the day, a young man is dead, because his rights and the social contract were not upheld.
At the end of day, in my analysis, Zimmerman is wrong.
Discuss, disagree, agree, or whatever.
Be kind, be civil, and maybe…maybe think twice when you decide to act outside of the social contract and return into a state of nature. Man in the wild is a dangerous creature…

You sir win the argument from all angels. A fight did occur, but for the sake of humanity, do you shoot someone that just kicked your ass? NO! You dont take a life cause he drew blood. You call police, say you were assaulted.

Treyvon then would have been placed under arrest and the situation professionally evaluated. If only people would stop and talk instead of rush to violence and fear and anger.

reply to post by TheOneElectric


Thank you for calm investigation/presentation of what is known. From here it should be determined that there at the very least needs to be a better investigation on the part of law enforcement to find out what happened and if the fact that Zimmerman "disregarded" almost "all" of the logical things to do in that situation in order not to escalate the situation didn't indeed lead to Trayvons death.


Again thank you for Logic and Denying Ignorance

Edit: I would like to add this information as well for clarification as to why Zimmerman was possibly out of line.

When the Retreat at Twin Lakes community told Sanford police it wanted to start a neighborhood watch, city volunteer program coordinator Wendy Dorival spoke to them in September 2011. Her PowerPoint presentation, and a neighborhood watch manual the city makes available, both make clear: Don't confront. "The philosophy is, 'No weapons. Don't confront. Call the police,' " Dorival said Wednesday. She said that was her last dealings with the neighborhood, which chose its own leaders and had no sanctioning or accrediting relationship with law enforcement. The National Sheriff's Association said Wednesday it has "no information indicating the community where the incident occurred has ever even registered with the NSA Neighborhood Watch program."

reply to post by GhettoRice


From that article you just posted, it would seem Zimmerman may have been a vigilante, which is an illegal offense. Once more prompting further investigation.

reply to post by AaronWilson


Yes this is why I do not understand at least a willingness for a lot of other people to consider more investigation for the ending of a life in unsure conditions.

To me it seems both sides are speculating too much. We don't know what was said, we don't know if Martin issued threats of violence or death, we don't know quite a bit.

reply to post by Domo1


But from what we ``do`` know there should at least be an logical basis for further investigation.

Thanks for posting n a non-emotionally-provoked way.

I think the guy had a reason for shooting the kid. A good reason? Not really. But in his head, it was some kind of reason. But, Things like this actually aren't rare--colored people (all people really) are killed in questionable situations pretty often, but the media barely covers them, Why? Because that's usually the work of officers or government. They'd never want to point the finger at the authorities.

But when a citizen does it, that sparks a chance to exploit the situation, having everyone point the finger at another race or group, manifesting division, controversy, and conflict between the people. They exploit it this way to distract and divert us. From what? Don't know yet.... we'll probrably find out soon, though.

Am I saying the whole thing was a plan, decided from the get-go? Maybe, maybe not. I am saying it's being used, though. If you care to look into it, pieces of the puzzle are sliding into place, possibly preparing us for an official world war three, and even martial law. That's what they're distracting us from.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'm just getting fed up with all of you people getting led around by the nose, by whichever pointless, BS Internet meme that happens to come along. First the Kony flap, and now this garbage.

Someone died. At the risk of sounding sociopathic, big deal. In the time it takes me to write this post, probably more than a hundred other people on the planet will have joined him. It's been statistically proven that one person dies at least every three minutes.

Please stop caring about CRAP, ATS. Please stop showing yourselves to be mindless, groupthinking sheep and drama addicts. None of you who pretend to care about this, actually do; not a single one of you. It happened to someone else who you don't know, and who has had zero interaction with your own life whatsoever.

You're just addicted to drama. You just want a story of some disaster to obsess over, in order to prevent yourselves from getting bored. That is all this is.

This site used to be a great place, once. There were people here who were willing to have really worthwhile, intelligent conversations about important topics. Now, pretty much the only thing that gets reported on here, is the most depraved murders that anyone can find; over and over again. Kids killing each other, police bashing people, etc.

It's all done so that you can hypocritically sit there and feel apocalyptic, and ooh and ah about how completely hugged up the world currently is. Again; it's purely about drama.

I am truly, truly sick of it.

reply to post by petrus4


Eh, I made it to talk about it logically. Sorry if you're offended. I can't help that. To be honest with you, I try to make legitimately interesting threads about conspiracy and things of that matter but it seems ATS only wants to talk about social issues and politics now.

What happened to the good old days of the Illuminati, Time Travel, Aliens, and Cryptids?
Just saying.

reply to post by XxNightAngelusxX

Obama just made it legal to seize all resources from citizens if the government finds itself in a needy situation (IE, war) like farmland, transportation, guns, food and water rations, ect. Did you hear that on the news? Nope.

Wait.

WHAT?
Can you source this, please?

I'm sure that this is of high relevance.

articles.orlandosentinel.com... er

Report: Jeb Bush says 'stand your ground' law doesn't apply in Trayvon Martin shooting 11:40 p.m. EST, March 24, 2012 The death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin has put Florida's "stand your ground" law under scrutiny after police cited it as one reason they did not arrest George Zimmerman, the 28-year-old Neighborhood Watch volunteer who said he shot Trayvon in self-defense. But the man who signed "stand your ground" into law says officials have it wrong. Speaking Friday in Texas, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said "stand your ground" doesn't apply to this case."Stand your ground means stand your ground. It doesn't mean chase after somebody who's turned their back," Bush told The Dallas Morning News.

www.cbsnews.com... n-martin/?tag=re1.channel

"He has no protection under my law," former Sen. Durell Peaden told the newspaper. Florida's law, called "stand your ground" by supporters and "shoot first" by critics, was passed in 2005 and permits residents to use deadly force if they "reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony." Traditionally, self-defense laws did not typically extend beyond a person's home, but the Florida law, and at least 20 more passed across the country since them, allows a resident to "meet force with force" almost anywhere, including the street or a bar. Zimmerman, 28, reportedly admitted to police that he shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin on the evening of February 26. He was released without being charged after claiming he killed the boy in self-defense. But 911 recordings released over the weekend suggest that Zimmerman, who has a concealed weapons permit and volunteered in an apparently informal neighborhood watch program, pursued Martin, despite being told police were on their way. It is the fact that Zimmerman ignored the 911 operator's advice not to follow Martin that former Sen. Peaden says disqualifies him from claiming self-defense under the law. "The guy lost his defense right then," Peaden told the Miami Herald. "When he said 'I'm following him,' he lost his defense." Rep. Dennis Baxley, Peaden's co-sponsor in the Florida House, agrees with his former colleague, telling the newspaper that the law does not license neighborhood watch or others who feel "like they have the authority to pursue and confront people. That is aggravating an incident right there."

Now it gets even more complicated.