Another Vigilante Case.......We Knew It Was Coming .....

Superfreak said:
So they come on his property, he tells them to leave, one of them picks up rocks knowing the guy has a gun? yep... they were definitely in the state of Misery.
Click to expand...

Just like the Zimmerman case.....

This crazy person already had the gun out waving it around. What is to say he isn't going to shoot you anyway if you try to leave. He is clearly making bad decisions and possibly on some drug because of the decisions he already made. Attempt to defend yourself and family, or try to get away and possibly get shot anyway.

This crazy person has stared at you for minutes from a car and is now chasing you. What's to say he isn't going to shoot you or outrun you. He's clearly making bad decisions and possibly on some drug because of the decisions he already made. Attempt to defend yourself, or try to get away and possibly get shot anyway.
 
Attila the Hun said:
No, you posted harassing, not stalking. Kiddo. What are you doing online kiddo? Summer break not over yet kiddo? Lemonade stand get closed kiddo? Also kiddo, following someone doesn't meet the burden for either, kiddo. I know you in your little kid world don't understand legal definitions, kiddo, but kiddo, there needs to be a PATTERN to establish if something is stalking or not, kiddo. Why don't you go ask your mommy to help you understand kiddo, just like you do for your homework kiddo.
Click to expand...

784.048 Stalking; definitions; penalties.—
(1) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes...ute&URL=0700-0799/0784/Sections/0784.048.html

Yawn.....:fu:
 
Anti-Party said:
Just like the Zimmerman case.....

This crazy person already had the gun out waving it around. What is to say he isn't going to shoot you anyway if you try to leave. He is clearly making bad decisions and possibly on some drug because of the decisions he already made. Attempt to defend yourself and family, or try to get away and possibly get shot anyway.
Click to expand...

1) They were on HIS property
2) They outnumbered him 50 to 1
3) He had a gun and told them to leave. Saying 'well he might have shot them anyway' is simply an excuse you are using to justify the rafters actions.
 
Attila the Hun said:
And able to cause 'substantial emotional distress'. Man, kids these days.
Click to expand...

Ok......next time it rains try doing that to a stranger............make sure it's a white girl though.

Sit in your car staring at her for about 1:22 seconds. When she gets spooked by you she might try to leave the area. When she does, exit your car and follow her.

Tell me if she gets "Emotionally distressed"

This will be a fun project for you kid :good4u:
 
Anti-Party said:
784.048 Stalking; definitions; penalties.—
(1) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes...ute&URL=0700-0799/0784/Sections/0784.048.html

Yawn.....:fu:
Click to expand...

What's the matter kiddo? Can't read the big boy words underneath that yet kiddo? Let me help you out kiddo.

[SIZE=-1](b) “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, which evidences a continuity of purpose. The term does not include constitutionally protected activity such as picketing or other organized protests.
Click to expand...
There kiddo, maybe you might understand it now kiddo. I doubt it kiddo, but ya never know kiddo. Maybe you will get it kiddo. It's simple stuff kiddo.

[/SIZE]
 
Superfreak said:
1) They were on HIS property
2) They outnumbered him 50 to 1
3) He had a gun and told them to leave. Saying 'well he might have shot them anyway' is simply an excuse you are using to justify the rafters actions.
Click to expand...

YAY! WE GOT A WINNER!

I knew you bone heads would eventually try to stick up for this guy! I love how predictable you are. :truestory:
 
Superfreak said:
Yet you are pretending that following someone = harassing them ... which is pretty ridiculous.
Click to expand...


See that's where my beef lies.

You claim I'm not allowed to feel threatened after noticing someone following me...but that is exactly what Zimmerman did.

Zimmerman noticed someone following him. He then turned, confronted and shot the person following him.
 
[SIZE=-1]A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.[/SIZE]
Click to expand...
Are the words big enough for you kiddo? Man kiddo, you need to read a whole thing before you post it kiddo.
 
Attila the Hun said:
What's the matter kiddo? Can't read the big boy words underneath that yet kiddo? Let me help you out kiddo.

There kiddo, maybe you might understand it now kiddo. I doubt it kiddo, but ya never know kiddo. Maybe you will get it kiddo. It's simple stuff kiddo.

[/SIZE][/FONT]
Click to expand...

So are you stating that it's ok to harass someone or are you saying it's ok to stalk someone?

You are just another bone head trying to justify the situation because you have a bias. Everyone knows what that bias is.

"He wasn't technically stalking, he was only harassing"........come on dude. :fu:
 
Anti-Party said:
So are you stating that it's ok to harass someone or are you saying it's ok to stalk someone?
Click to expand...

Kiddo, I know it's patently obvious (that means plain to see kiddo) that you don't know how to read well kiddo. But kiddo, Zimmermans actions didn't meet the definition of either stalking or harassment kiddo. Like I said kiddo, you should really read more than 1 sentence kiddo.
 
Attila the Hun said:
Kiddo, I know it's patently obvious (that means plain to see kiddo) that you don't know how to read well kiddo. But kiddo, Zimmermans actions didn't meet the definition of either stalking or harassment kiddo. Like I said kiddo, you should really read more than 1 sentence kiddo.
Click to expand...

I love that you got so insulted by it when I called you kiddo. You seem to be reflecting. Hell you are over reflecting lol......kiddo :)
 
Attila the Hun said:
Kiddo, I know it's patently obvious (that means plain to see kiddo) that you don't know how to read well kiddo. But kiddo, Zimmermans actions didn't meet the definition of either stalking or harassment kiddo. Like I said kiddo, you should really read more than 1 sentence kiddo.
Click to expand...

So what is your perspective on this case there kiddo? Do you think he had the right to wave his gun around to get people off his property? Or are you going to have to check with Fox News before you take a side?
 
Anti-Party said:
YAY! WE GOT A WINNER!

I knew you bone heads would eventually try to stick up for this guy! I love how predictable you are. :truestory:
Click to expand...

LMAO... refuting your absurdities does not mean I am sticking up for this guy. You liberals have a hard time with facts. I was just trying to help you out.
 
Anti-Party said:
I love that you got so insulted by it when I called you kiddo. You seem to be reflecting. Hell you are over reflecting lol......kiddo :)
Click to expand...

Aw, what's the matter kiddo? Can't refute my point kiddo? You used to be all about 'debate' kiddo, but like a whole host (that means list of things kiddo) of other words kiddo, it doesn't seem you know what it means kiddo.
 
Anti-Party said:
So what is your perspective on this case there kiddo? Do you think he had the right to wave his gun around to get people off his property? Or are you going to have to check with Fox News before you take a side?
Click to expand...

It's his property kiddo. I know you don't understand the concept of property yet kiddo, because you don't have any property of your own kiddo, but kiddo, when you ask someone to leave your property kiddo (assuming you do well enough in school to afford property kiddo), and they refuse kiddo, well kiddo, then yeah, you can escalate the situation kiddo. Assuming of course that's what happened. I don't know what happened kiddo, and I'm not going to say one way or the other what did happen kiddo. You see kiddo, rational adults like to have facts before making a decision kiddo. I'd say ask your parents about that kiddo, but they let you on the internet kiddo, which means that they can't be rational individuals kiddo.
 
Attila the Hun said:
Aw, what's the matter kiddo? Can't refute my point kiddo? You used to be all about 'debate' kiddo, but like a whole host (that means list of things kiddo) of other words kiddo, it doesn't seem you know what it means kiddo.
Click to expand...

You were correct that the law states it has to be on multiple occasions to be considered "stalking" but that is just using technicalities of law to justify a wrong doing. Any law loopholes on the term harassment? I don't give a FUCK what laws use as loopholes. It is what it is.

Under Florida law, it's technically not stalking but maybe it's harassment, both are illegal.

Under the general definition of stalking though; "Stalking is unwanted or obsessive attention by an individual or group toward another person."

So open a beer on your win that stalking has to be repeated in Florida. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top