Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It is not illegal to walk behind someone while talking on the phone.
Menacing Law & Legal Definition
>>Menacing is a crime governed by state laws, which vary by state
State of Florida reference?
Menacing Law & Legal Definition
Menacing is a crime governed by state laws, which vary by state, but typically involves displaying a weapon or a course of conduct that intentionally places another person in reasonable fear of physical injury or death. The following is an example of a state law that deals with menacing:
S 120.13 Menacing in the first degree.
A person is guilty of menacing in the first degree when he or she commits the crime of menacing in the second degree and has been previously convicted of the crime of menacing in the second degree within the preceding ten years.
Menacing in the first degree is a class E felony.
S 120.14 Menacing in the second degree.
A person is guilty of menacing in the second degree when:
He or she intentionally places or attempts to place another person in reasonable fear of physical injury, serious physical injury or death by displaying a deadly weapon, dangerous instrument or what appears to be a pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or other firearm; or
He or she repeatedly follows a person or engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts over a period of time intentionally placing or attempting to place another person in reasonable fear of physical injury, serious physical injury or death; or
He or she commits the crime of menacing in the third degree in violation of that part of a duly served order of protection, or such order which the defendant has actual knowledge of because he or she was present in court when such order was issued, pursuant to article eight of the family court act, section 530.12 of the criminal procedure law, or an order of protection issued by a court of competent jurisdiction in another state, territorial or tribal jurisdiction, which directed the respondent or defendant to stay away from the person or persons on whose behalf the order was issued.
Menacing in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.
S 120.15 Menacing in the third degree.
A person is guilty of menacing in the third degree when, by physical menace, he or she intentionally places or attempts to place another person in fear of death, imminent serious physical injury or physical injury.
Menacing in the third degree is a class B misdemeanor.
Too bad you weren't honest enough to actually post that law. Li'l Trayvon couldn't have known the person BEHIND him had a gun. And someone just walking behind you ONCE is not sufficient to rise to the level of menacing.
There was a guy here convicted of menacing and it involved multiple, multiple incidences of driving too close to pedestrians on the street, flipping them off, repeated driving by their house.
Just walking behind someone ONCE and talking on the phone is not menacing. And if Li'l Trayvon was walking FORWARD he would not have seen any gun. DUH!
I'm in love with your law degree.
Too bad you weren't honest enough to actually post that law. Li'l Trayvon couldn't have known the person BEHIND him had a gun. And someone just walking behind you ONCE is not sufficient to rise to the level of menacing.
There was a guy here convicted of menacing and it involved multiple, multiple incidences of driving too close to pedestrians on the street, flipping them off, repeated driving by their house.
Just walking behind someone ONCE and talking on the phone is not menacing. And if Li'l Trayvon was walking FORWARD he would not have seen any gun. DUH!
I'm in love with your law degree.
Wish I had gotten it when I was younger. My friends tell me it turned me into Satan! LOL.
OT - on the local WESH feed there's a pest control ad that plays over and over and the ad is a bug crawling across it, it keeps freaking me out, I smacked the monitor twice. Need a different feed.
It is not illegal to walk behind someone while talking on the phone.
Menacing Law & Legal Definition
Menacing Law & Legal Definition
Menacing is a crime governed by state laws, which vary by state, but typically involves displaying a weapon or a course of conduct that intentionally places another person in reasonable fear of physical injury or death. The following is an example of a state law that deals with menacing:
S 120.13 Menacing in the first degree.
A person is guilty of menacing in the first degree when he or she commits the crime of menacing in the second degree and has been previously convicted of the crime of menacing in the second degree within the preceding ten years.
Menacing in the first degree is a class E felony.
S 120.14 Menacing in the second degree.
A person is guilty of menacing in the second degree when:
He or she intentionally places or attempts to place another person in reasonable fear of physical injury, serious physical injury or death by displaying a deadly weapon, dangerous instrument or what appears to be a pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or other firearm; or
He or she repeatedly follows a person or engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts over a period of time intentionally placing or attempting to place another person in reasonable fear of physical injury, serious physical injury or death; or
He or she commits the crime of menacing in the third degree in violation of that part of a duly served order of protection, or such order which the defendant has actual knowledge of because he or she was present in court when such order was issued, pursuant to article eight of the family court act, section 530.12 of the criminal procedure law, or an order of protection issued by a court of competent jurisdiction in another state, territorial or tribal jurisdiction, which directed the respondent or defendant to stay away from the person or persons on whose behalf the order was issued.
Menacing in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.
S 120.15 Menacing in the third degree.
A person is guilty of menacing in the third degree when, by physical menace, he or she intentionally places or attempts to place another person in fear of death, imminent serious physical injury or physical injury.
Menacing in the third degree is a class B misdemeanor.
Too bad you weren't honest enough to actually post that law. Li'l Trayvon couldn't have known the person BEHIND him had a gun. And someone just walking behind you ONCE is not sufficient to rise to the level of menacing.
There was a guy here convicted of menacing and it involved multiple, multiple incidences of driving too close to pedestrians on the street, flipping them off, repeated driving by their house.
Just walking behind someone ONCE and talking on the phone is not menacing. And if Li'l Trayvon was walking FORWARD, unless his head turned all the way around, he would not have seen any gun and if it was concealed likely wouldn't have anyway. DUH!
A person is guilty of menacing in the third degree when, by physical menace, he or she intentionally places or attempts to place another person in fear of death, imminent serious physical injury or physical injury.
OT - on the local WESH feed there's a pest control ad that plays over and over and the ad is a bug crawling across it, it keeps freaking me out, I smacked the monitor twice. Need a different feed.
I use the Orlando Sentential.
orlandosentenial.com
>>>>
OT - on the local WESH feed there's a pest control ad that plays over and over and the ad is a bug crawling across it, it keeps freaking me out, I smacked the monitor twice. Need a different feed.
I use the Orlando Sentential.
<<SNIP>>
>>>>
That link wouldn't come up for me. It goes to a domain site.
Here's one I found, for those still looking:
George Zimmerman complete coverage
Too bad you weren't honest enough to actually post that law. Li'l Trayvon couldn't have known the person BEHIND him had a gun. And someone just walking behind you ONCE is not sufficient to rise to the level of menacing.
There was a guy here convicted of menacing and it involved multiple, multiple incidences of driving too close to pedestrians on the street, flipping them off, repeated driving by their house.
Just walking behind someone ONCE and talking on the phone is not menacing. And if Li'l Trayvon was walking FORWARD, unless his head turned all the way around, he would not have seen any gun and if it was concealed likely wouldn't have anyway. DUH!
You didn't actually read the whole thing, did you?
A person is guilty of menacing in the third degree when, by physical menace, he or she intentionally places or attempts to place another person in fear of death, imminent serious physical injury or physical injury.
Willful, malicious, and repeated following or harassing. (704.048(2)); Aggravated stalking: willful, malicious and repeated following or harassing another with credible threats with the intent to place person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury; or willfully, maliciously, repeatedly follows or harasses minor under 16; or after injunction for protection or any court-imposed prohibition of conduct, knowingly, willfully, maliciously and repeatedly follows or harasses another person.
Punishment/Classification Sentencing/fines: apply 775.082, 083,084 Stalking misdemeanor is 1st degree Aggravated stalking is felony of the 3rd degree 784.048(3), (4) and (5)
Penalty for Repeat Offense In violation of injunction or domestic violence protective order: felony in 3rd degree.
OT - on the local WESH feed there's a pest control ad that plays over and over and the ad is a bug crawling across it, it keeps freaking me out, I smacked the monitor twice. Need a different feed.
I use the Orlando Sentential.
orlandosentenial.com
>>>>
That link wouldn't come up for me. It goes to a domain site.
Here's one I found, for those still looking:
George Zimmerman complete coverage
>>Mike DeForest ‏@MikeDeForest6 3m
Juror B35 thinks [MENTION=27326]The[/MENTION]RevAl Sharpton, Jesse Jackson politicized #TrayvonMartin case, made it racial issue
Yeah, we know.
Too bad you weren't honest enough to actually post that law. Li'l Trayvon couldn't have known the person BEHIND him had a gun. And someone just walking behind you ONCE is not sufficient to rise to the level of menacing.
There was a guy here convicted of menacing and it involved multiple, multiple incidences of driving too close to pedestrians on the street, flipping them off, repeated driving by their house.
Just walking behind someone ONCE and talking on the phone is not menacing. And if Li'l Trayvon was walking FORWARD, unless his head turned all the way around, he would not have seen any gun and if it was concealed likely wouldn't have anyway. DUH!
You didn't actually read the whole thing, did you?
In Florida:
Florida Stalking Laws - FindLaw
Willful, malicious, and repeated following or harassing. (704.048(2)); Aggravated stalking: willful, malicious and repeated following or harassing another with credible threats with the intent to place person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury; or willfully, maliciously, repeatedly follows or harasses minor under 16; or after injunction for protection or any court-imposed prohibition of conduct, knowingly, willfully, maliciously and repeatedly follows or harasses another person.
Punishment/Classification Sentencing/fines: apply 775.082, 083,084 Stalking misdemeanor is 1st degree Aggravated stalking is felony of the 3rd degree 784.048(3), (4) and (5)
Penalty for Repeat Offense In violation of injunction or domestic violence protective order: felony in 3rd degree.
Seems that following someone IS against the law in Florida.
You didn't actually read the whole thing, did you?
In Florida:
Florida Stalking Laws - FindLaw
Willful, malicious, and repeated following or harassing. (704.048(2)); Aggravated stalking: willful, malicious and repeated following or harassing another with credible threats with the intent to place person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury; or willfully, maliciously, repeatedly follows or harasses minor under 16; or after injunction for protection or any court-imposed prohibition of conduct, knowingly, willfully, maliciously and repeatedly follows or harasses another person.
Punishment/Classification Sentencing/fines: apply 775.082, 083,084 Stalking misdemeanor is 1st degree Aggravated stalking is felony of the 3rd degree 784.048(3), (4) and (5)
Penalty for Repeat Offense In violation of injunction or domestic violence protective order: felony in 3rd degree.
Seems that following someone IS against the law in Florida.
Are you reading something into this that I'm missing that has to do with this, because I don't see what this has to do with the price of tea in China:
784.048
Stalking Defined as Willful, malicious, and repeated following or harassing. (704.048(2)); Aggravated stalking: willful, malicious and repeated following or harassing another with credible threats with the intent to place person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury; or willfully, maliciously, repeatedly follows or harasses minor under 16; or after injunction for protection or any court-imposed prohibition of conduct, knowingly, willfully, maliciously and repeatedly follows or harasses another person.
Punishment/Classification Sentencing/fines: apply 775.082, 083,084 Stalking misdemeanor is 1st degree Aggravated stalking is felony of the 3rd degree 784.048(3), (4) and (5)
Penalty for Repeat Offense In violation of injunction or domestic violence protective order: felony in 3rd degree
Arrest or Restraining Order Specifically Authorized by Statute? Arrest without warrant if probable cause to believe statute is violated. (784.048(6))
Constitutionally Protected Activities Exempted? Yes. (784.048(1)(b)); includes picketing and organized protests
They are the facts because it is supported by the tape to 911...he was following trying to give a location deep into the complex (he gave the approximate apartment number)....then he was told to stop and he was almost back to his car when trayvon approached him...the proximitiy of the fight and where he was when he gave 911 the location suggests and proves that he was on his way back to his car as the dispatcher suggested he do.
If the fight was in the back of the complex, then I could see your point...it wasnt and that is in evidence and complies with the GZ story. It is not criminal for a NW captain to follow someone who looks suspicious to him...it is a crime to punch someone that is going back to their car and then slamming their head into the pavement. Those facts do not bode well for trayvon and its why MSNBC did their creative editing to fit their narrative...remember that?
No I dont think we should skip the trial at all. I think the case should be heard by a jury...but florida law is florida law and according to the law, GZ has a good case for self defense....the law says he can do what he did.
I think that because it was a kid and someone died, then a jury does need to hear it for sure. Otherwise everyone would just make up a self defense and never be arrested. When someone dies, that changes things, when it is someone under the age of 18 killed by an adult 10 years older, then I think a jury most definitely needs to hear it. Im just saying that Trayvon could have avoided it...he was being followed from a distance and the follower was going back to his car. Trayvon was not cornered at gun point...he wasnt chased and screamed at or threatened. Trayvon wanted to fight...if he didnt want to fight, then he didnt have to...he could have just went home...agree?
It is not illegal to walk behind someone while talking on the phone.
I don't believe he was actually told to stop, the dispatcher said "we don't need you to do that".
It is not illegal to walk behind someone while talking on the phone.
I don't believe he was actually told to stop, the dispatcher said "we don't need you to do that".
She should have drawn him a picture of a stop sign, then?
This is why verdicts seem so incomprehensible to the public who aren't in the courtroom. What you hear and see is carefully monitored by whoever it is that's doing the reporting. Everyone who posts an opinion on what happened on any message board made up their minds from whatever they were spoon fed.
How about the statement that Trayvon Martin was screaming for his life. That's an assumption made by someone who needs Trayvon Martin to scream for his life to support their notion of what happened. In the courtroom, the screaming is so ambiguous that the Judge may not let it in, or if it does get in, experts on both sides will present evidence that it was the guy whose interests they represent. The jury will make up its mind independently of message boards.
Liberals have no argument except "Polls show that George Zimmerman wanted a broken nose and split open head."
