|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP. |
On March 25 2012 01:34 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 01:24 DeepElemBlues wrote:http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/state/witness-martin-attacked-zimmerman-03232012So according to the witness Martin did in fact attack Zimmerman. This being after Zimmerman refused to stop following him and probably provoked the attack. What a clusterfuck all around. He's admitting to the fact that he shot dead a 17-year old boy and simply because he said it was out of self-defense that's good enough? This doesn't add up. According to police Zimmerman was bloodied and had injuries, presumably from Martin. That makes perfect sense. I too would be scared shitless if someone followed me in the middle of the night. Who knows what exactly happened, the bottomline is that someone, encouraged by his surroundings( neighbour watch because recent break ins/ friendly "vigilante" laws) acted about as bad and out of his rights as possible. I can understand that notion that people want to protect their own property - even with force, but that they try to play hero and are paranoid as shit with no police training or authority whatsoever - can´t even fathom how irresponsible this behaviour is, and the law that encourages this for that matter.
I think the only one defending himself was Martin. Zimmerman probably tried to grab him or pulled his gun on him and Martin then fought back. Zimmerman then shot Martin when he started getting the upper hand (when the witness saw Martin on top of Zimmerman) and claimed self-defense to a bunch of incompetent cops who just swallowed his story.
|
What still isn't clear whatsoever, is how the hell any confrontation started in the first place. Common sense says Zimmerman saw a black kid walking outside and his racism clicked on and he went looking for trouble. The reports are getting really distorted now.
|
On March 25 2012 01:24 DeepElemBlues wrote:http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/state/witness-martin-attacked-zimmerman-03232012So according to the witness Martin did in fact attack Zimmerman. This being after Zimmerman refused to stop following him and probably provoked the attack. What a clusterfuck all around. Show nested quote +He's admitting to the fact that he shot dead a 17-year old boy and simply because he said it was out of self-defense that's good enough? This doesn't add up. According to police Zimmerman was bloodied and had injuries, presumably from Martin.
That's not new news, it's old.
That is the same witness known only as "John" that was interviewed already. He didn't see how the fight started, concluding that Martin attacked Zimmerman first isn't possible yet. Nowhere in this article does it state that.
|
What still isn't clear whatsoever, is how the hell any confrontation started in the first place.
Zimmerman followed Martin we know that, he probably screamed at Martin to stop and then tried to physically subdue him, Martin defended himself and got shot for it.
That's not new news, it's old.
That is the same witness known only as "John" that was interviewed already. He didn't see how the fight started, concluding that Martin attacked Zimmerman first isn't possible yet. Nowhere in this article does it state that.
Never said it was new, also never said Martin started anything.
Reading comprehension fail.
|
On March 24 2012 23:57 Mallard86 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 21:21 rouzga wrote:
Just lay on the ground and let someone sit above you and now imagine "if you have the time and power to pull out a gun of a holster, tip it to the chest of the one above you, was there really NO other way to defend yourself?"
Like using your arms to protect you face instead? And would someone beating the crap out of you, like zaqwe tries to make it look, really give you the time to pull out that gun?
Try it with a friend, NO chance for me to get to a gun and lifting it up to the CHEST, not the belly or stuff, without getting it slapped out of my hands. Guns are heavy, hands without a gun are way faster. Concealed carry laws mandate that you must keep the gun hidden. The typical setup used for carrying persons is a small holster that clips onto your belt or pants and sits in between your pants and your pelvic region. The typical carrying weapon is small pistol like a .38 revolver. These guns are quite small and quite light. The holster is not like a duty holster a police officer would carry. It usually doesnt have a snap and is more like a pouch for carrying the gun. They are designed to be light and allow easy withdrawal of the gun. Retrieving and discharging the gun would not be difficult and in the dark it is quite possible that an assailant would not even see you doing it. Show nested quote +
Well, I disagree. I am not sure Zimmerman would have acted the way he did, if it was not for the notion and actual possibility of this law applying to his bat shit crazy behaviour in the first place.
Zimmerman probably did not initiate the encounter expecting it to deteriorate into violence. I would be extremely surprised if he approached the situation thinking of the law. Even if the law did not exist, he would still be covered by standard self defense laws because, according to witnesses and evidence, he was being attacked by Martin. That is why the law doesnt even apply here.
um, explain to me how admitting to following and confronting someone with a gun=;/= initiating the encounter expecting violence. Because I certainly think they do, and since Zimmerman has admitted to doing both.....
And no, a standard self defense would not apply here. Self defense laws vary state by state, some say you cannot use force in excess of what is being used against you (can't bring guns to knife fights in NJ) And in any state without a stand your ground, self defense applies only after following a duty to retreat. Zimmerman literally did the opposite of retreating.
I certainly do think that Zimmerman had a false sense of authority that the stand your ground law reenforced. He called 911 46 times from Jan 1st to the day he killed Martin. The neighborhood collectively says he has a fixation on young black males. He got his gun and chased after an unknown young man who he thought was acting suspicious; you don't do that if you have a duty to retreat instead of stand your ground.
And there is only a sole unidentified witness named "john" who supports zimmerman's story. Since he won't release his name or appear on camera there is absolutely no way to judge the veracity of his claim (he could literally be a Sanford officer trying to save his department--which is fucked btw) And being bloodied is certainly not enough to prove self defense.
|
On March 25 2012 01:47 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +What still isn't clear whatsoever, is how the hell any confrontation started in the first place. Zimmerman followed Martin we know that, he probably screamed at Martin to stop and then tried to physically subdue him, Martin defended himself and got shot for it.
I guess it's more like, what the hell is Zimmerman's excuse for going after Martin? He's claiming self-defense for something he obviously started, what's this guys story for how things even started?
These new reports and "witnesses" are pissing me off. I'm gonna be mad if this guy gets off with a slap on the wrist.
|
On March 25 2012 01:47 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +What still isn't clear whatsoever, is how the hell any confrontation started in the first place. Zimmerman followed Martin we know that, he probably screamed at Martin to stop and then tried to physically subdue him, Martin defended himself and got shot for it. Show nested quote +That's not new news, it's old.
That is the same witness known only as "John" that was interviewed already. He didn't see how the fight started, concluding that Martin attacked Zimmerman first isn't possible yet. Nowhere in this article does it state that. Never said it was new, also never said Martin started anything. Reading comprehension fail.
On March 25 2012 01:24 DeepElemBlues wrote:
So according to the witness Martin did in fact attack Zimmerman.
No one is arguing that the two were fighting. Saying someone "attacked" another implies they struck first. And this article doesn't add any new information that hasn't already been seen, so what was the point of posting it? It's just a rehashed article to drum up more business for the news.
|
On March 25 2012 01:47 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +What still isn't clear whatsoever, is how the hell any confrontation started in the first place. Zimmerman followed Martin we know that, he probably screamed at Martin to stop and then tried to physically subdue him, Martin defended himself and got shot for it. Show nested quote +That's not new news, it's old.
That is the same witness known only as "John" that was interviewed already. He didn't see how the fight started, concluding that Martin attacked Zimmerman first isn't possible yet. Nowhere in this article does it state that. Never said it was new, also never said Martin started anything. Reading comprehension fail.
Well I mean he's right, you say "according to the witness Martin attacked Zimmerman" And that's not what the "john" said. He said the guy in red on the bottom said help help.
Why so rude?
|
On March 25 2012 01:42 xXFireandIceXx wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 01:34 Doublemint wrote:On March 25 2012 01:24 DeepElemBlues wrote:http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/state/witness-martin-attacked-zimmerman-03232012So according to the witness Martin did in fact attack Zimmerman. This being after Zimmerman refused to stop following him and probably provoked the attack. What a clusterfuck all around. He's admitting to the fact that he shot dead a 17-year old boy and simply because he said it was out of self-defense that's good enough? This doesn't add up. According to police Zimmerman was bloodied and had injuries, presumably from Martin. That makes perfect sense. I too would be scared shitless if someone followed me in the middle of the night. Who knows what exactly happened, the bottomline is that someone, encouraged by his surroundings( neighbour watch because recent break ins/ friendly "vigilante" laws) acted about as bad and out of his rights as possible. I can understand that notion that people want to protect their own property - even with force, but that they try to play hero and are paranoid as shit with no police training or authority whatsoever - can´t even fathom how irresponsible this behaviour is, and the law that encourages this for that matter. What gets me is that the police officer on dispatch TOLD him not to confront Trayvon. But Zimmerman did so regardless. You'd think that he'd take orders from the police.
Your inability to understand that dispatch did not ORDER Zimmerman is unfortunate, but nevertheless renders your opinion pretty much irrelevant.
|
|
|
On March 25 2012 01:49 Zeller wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 01:47 DeepElemBlues wrote:What still isn't clear whatsoever, is how the hell any confrontation started in the first place. Zimmerman followed Martin we know that, he probably screamed at Martin to stop and then tried to physically subdue him, Martin defended himself and got shot for it. I guess it's more like, what the hell is Zimmerman's excuse for going after Martin? He's claiming self-defense for something he obviously started, what's this guys story for how things even started? These new reports and "witnesses" are pissing me off. I'm gonna be mad if this guy gets off with a slap on the wrist.
He won't get off, Zimmerman will go down because the Martin family pursued it and sued and got national attention. The Sanford PD Chief already resigned. The DA for Sanford passed the case onto a Specially designated state attorney. The case has been picked up by every major news network. The freaking Justice Department is involved.
What's much more important here (obviously not trying to under value Martin's life) is the fact that nearly 170 similar cases (armed man kills unarmed man, claims stand your ground defense, gets off) have occurred since the law has been passed. Only 1 out of 168 cases were both individuals armed. What exactly were those 168 people each doing that was so life threatening as to warrant the use of deadly force?
And Furthermore (in case that wasn't bad enough) this case wouldn't even count towards those statistics because no charges were filed (those 168 cases were defenses against a accusation of homicide). How many hundreds of murders get swept under the rug because of this law?
And this law is in 19 states.
|
On March 25 2012 01:59 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 01:49 Zeller wrote:On March 25 2012 01:47 DeepElemBlues wrote:What still isn't clear whatsoever, is how the hell any confrontation started in the first place. Zimmerman followed Martin we know that, he probably screamed at Martin to stop and then tried to physically subdue him, Martin defended himself and got shot for it. I guess it's more like, what the hell is Zimmerman's excuse for going after Martin? He's claiming self-defense for something he obviously started, what's this guys story for how things even started? These new reports and "witnesses" are pissing me off. I'm gonna be mad if this guy gets off with a slap on the wrist. He won't get off, Zimmerman will go down because the Martin family pursued it and sued and got national attention. The Sanford PD Chief already resigned. The DA for Sanford passed the case onto a Specially designated state attorney. The case has been picked up by every major news network. The freaking Justice Department is involved. What's much more important here (obviously not trying to under value Martin's life) is the fact that nearly 170 similar cases (armed man kills unarmed man, claims stand your ground defense, gets off) have occurred since the law has been passed. Only 1 out of 168 cases were both individuals armed. What exactly were those 168 people each doing that was so life threatening as to warrant the use of deadly force? And Furthermore (in case that wasn't bad enough) this case wouldn't even count towards those statistics because no charges were filed (those 168 cases were defenses against a accusation of homicide). How many hundreds of murders get swept under the rug because of this law? And this law is in 19 states.
That's a very interesting statisic. Just before the law was enacted the then Chief of Police warned that it would be "encouraging people to possibly use deadly physical force where it shouldn't be used." And I think he's probably right.
|
On March 25 2012 01:53 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 01:42 xXFireandIceXx wrote:On March 25 2012 01:34 Doublemint wrote:On March 25 2012 01:24 DeepElemBlues wrote:http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/state/witness-martin-attacked-zimmerman-03232012So according to the witness Martin did in fact attack Zimmerman. This being after Zimmerman refused to stop following him and probably provoked the attack. What a clusterfuck all around. He's admitting to the fact that he shot dead a 17-year old boy and simply because he said it was out of self-defense that's good enough? This doesn't add up. According to police Zimmerman was bloodied and had injuries, presumably from Martin. That makes perfect sense. I too would be scared shitless if someone followed me in the middle of the night. Who knows what exactly happened, the bottomline is that someone, encouraged by his surroundings( neighbour watch because recent break ins/ friendly "vigilante" laws) acted about as bad and out of his rights as possible. I can understand that notion that people want to protect their own property - even with force, but that they try to play hero and are paranoid as shit with no police training or authority whatsoever - can´t even fathom how irresponsible this behaviour is, and the law that encourages this for that matter. What gets me is that the police officer on dispatch TOLD him not to confront Trayvon. But Zimmerman did so regardless. You'd think that he'd take orders from the police. Your inability to understand that dispatch did not ORDER Zimmerman is unfortunate, but nevertheless renders your opinion pretty much irrelevant.
I don't fucking understand this. It's an incredibly pedantic kind of stance. The dispatcher was being more colloquial and less confrontational, it's called expressing VOLITION compared to an actual command. If the dispatcher knew how fucked up Zimmerman is, or that he was armed and carrying a weapon, I'm sure it would've turned into a more direct order. It takes a special kind of paranoid person to disobey the volition of authority anyways. Seriously, this is not some kind of excuse for anything that occurred, and his opinion is not irrelevant.
|
On March 25 2012 01:53 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 01:42 xXFireandIceXx wrote:On March 25 2012 01:34 Doublemint wrote:On March 25 2012 01:24 DeepElemBlues wrote:http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/state/witness-martin-attacked-zimmerman-03232012So according to the witness Martin did in fact attack Zimmerman. This being after Zimmerman refused to stop following him and probably provoked the attack. What a clusterfuck all around. He's admitting to the fact that he shot dead a 17-year old boy and simply because he said it was out of self-defense that's good enough? This doesn't add up. According to police Zimmerman was bloodied and had injuries, presumably from Martin. That makes perfect sense. I too would be scared shitless if someone followed me in the middle of the night. Who knows what exactly happened, the bottomline is that someone, encouraged by his surroundings( neighbour watch because recent break ins/ friendly "vigilante" laws) acted about as bad and out of his rights as possible. I can understand that notion that people want to protect their own property - even with force, but that they try to play hero and are paranoid as shit with no police training or authority whatsoever - can´t even fathom how irresponsible this behaviour is, and the law that encourages this for that matter. What gets me is that the police officer on dispatch TOLD him not to confront Trayvon. But Zimmerman did so regardless. You'd think that he'd take orders from the police. Your inability to understand that dispatch did not ORDER Zimmerman is unfortunate, but nevertheless renders your opinion pretty much irrelevant.
Such an inane comment. No shit, Sherlock, the police dispatcher did not issue an order -- that's not what dispatchers do. Don't be so retardedly literal, guy. The dispatcher ***firmly suggested*** that Zimmerman refrain from pursuing/getting involved.
|
On March 25 2012 02:08 Chessz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 01:53 Kaitlin wrote:On March 25 2012 01:42 xXFireandIceXx wrote:On March 25 2012 01:34 Doublemint wrote:On March 25 2012 01:24 DeepElemBlues wrote:http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/state/witness-martin-attacked-zimmerman-03232012So according to the witness Martin did in fact attack Zimmerman. This being after Zimmerman refused to stop following him and probably provoked the attack. What a clusterfuck all around. He's admitting to the fact that he shot dead a 17-year old boy and simply because he said it was out of self-defense that's good enough? This doesn't add up. According to police Zimmerman was bloodied and had injuries, presumably from Martin. That makes perfect sense. I too would be scared shitless if someone followed me in the middle of the night. Who knows what exactly happened, the bottomline is that someone, encouraged by his surroundings( neighbour watch because recent break ins/ friendly "vigilante" laws) acted about as bad and out of his rights as possible. I can understand that notion that people want to protect their own property - even with force, but that they try to play hero and are paranoid as shit with no police training or authority whatsoever - can´t even fathom how irresponsible this behaviour is, and the law that encourages this for that matter. What gets me is that the police officer on dispatch TOLD him not to confront Trayvon. But Zimmerman did so regardless. You'd think that he'd take orders from the police. Your inability to understand that dispatch did not ORDER Zimmerman is unfortunate, but nevertheless renders your opinion pretty much irrelevant. I don't fucking understand this. It's an incredibly pedantic kind of stance. The dispatcher was being more colloquial and less confrontational, it's called expressing VOLITION compared to an actual command. If the dispatcher knew how fucked up Zimmerman is, or that he was armed and carrying a weapon, I'm sure it would've turned into a more direct order. It takes a special kind of paranoid person to disobey the volition of authority anyways. Seriously, this is not some kind of excuse for anything that occurred, and his opinion is not irrelevant.
In the Q&A .pdf linked earlier in the thread, the police made it clear that it was not an order to Zimmerman. It was merely making it clear that if Zimmerman chose to continue following Trayvon, the police department would not be held liable for Zimmerman acting at their behest. It was not the dispatcher being colloquial or non-confrontational. It was the dispatcher making a clear distinction for the record that if Zimmerman chose to follow Trayvon, it was his own decision.
People repeatedly say he was 'ordered' to not follow, they based their entire line of reasoning on that assumption, and it's completely wrong from the start.
|
Seriously can we get a mod edit on the OP or above it with the facts, so we can stop having the same argument every time someone new joins the thread without reading anything but the OP which is biased as all hell and lists several "facts" that are just wrong and/or have been disproved.
|
On March 25 2012 02:15 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 01:53 Kaitlin wrote:On March 25 2012 01:42 xXFireandIceXx wrote:On March 25 2012 01:34 Doublemint wrote:On March 25 2012 01:24 DeepElemBlues wrote:http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/state/witness-martin-attacked-zimmerman-03232012So according to the witness Martin did in fact attack Zimmerman. This being after Zimmerman refused to stop following him and probably provoked the attack. What a clusterfuck all around. He's admitting to the fact that he shot dead a 17-year old boy and simply because he said it was out of self-defense that's good enough? This doesn't add up. According to police Zimmerman was bloodied and had injuries, presumably from Martin. That makes perfect sense. I too would be scared shitless if someone followed me in the middle of the night. Who knows what exactly happened, the bottomline is that someone, encouraged by his surroundings( neighbour watch because recent break ins/ friendly "vigilante" laws) acted about as bad and out of his rights as possible. I can understand that notion that people want to protect their own property - even with force, but that they try to play hero and are paranoid as shit with no police training or authority whatsoever - can´t even fathom how irresponsible this behaviour is, and the law that encourages this for that matter. What gets me is that the police officer on dispatch TOLD him not to confront Trayvon. But Zimmerman did so regardless. You'd think that he'd take orders from the police. Your inability to understand that dispatch did not ORDER Zimmerman is unfortunate, but nevertheless renders your opinion pretty much irrelevant. Such an inane comment. No shit, Sherlock, the police dispatcher did not issue an order -- that's not what dispatchers do. Don't be so retardedly literal, guy. The dispatcher ***firmly suggested*** that Zimmerman refrain from pursuing/getting involved.
Nor was it a firm suggestion.
|
On March 25 2012 02:16 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 02:15 FallDownMarigold wrote:On March 25 2012 01:53 Kaitlin wrote:On March 25 2012 01:42 xXFireandIceXx wrote:On March 25 2012 01:34 Doublemint wrote:On March 25 2012 01:24 DeepElemBlues wrote:http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/state/witness-martin-attacked-zimmerman-03232012So according to the witness Martin did in fact attack Zimmerman. This being after Zimmerman refused to stop following him and probably provoked the attack. What a clusterfuck all around. He's admitting to the fact that he shot dead a 17-year old boy and simply because he said it was out of self-defense that's good enough? This doesn't add up. According to police Zimmerman was bloodied and had injuries, presumably from Martin. That makes perfect sense. I too would be scared shitless if someone followed me in the middle of the night. Who knows what exactly happened, the bottomline is that someone, encouraged by his surroundings( neighbour watch because recent break ins/ friendly "vigilante" laws) acted about as bad and out of his rights as possible. I can understand that notion that people want to protect their own property - even with force, but that they try to play hero and are paranoid as shit with no police training or authority whatsoever - can´t even fathom how irresponsible this behaviour is, and the law that encourages this for that matter. What gets me is that the police officer on dispatch TOLD him not to confront Trayvon. But Zimmerman did so regardless. You'd think that he'd take orders from the police. Your inability to understand that dispatch did not ORDER Zimmerman is unfortunate, but nevertheless renders your opinion pretty much irrelevant. Such an inane comment. No shit, Sherlock, the police dispatcher did not issue an order -- that's not what dispatchers do. Don't be so retardedly literal, guy. The dispatcher ***firmly suggested*** that Zimmerman refrain from pursuing/getting involved. Nor was it a firm suggestion.
That's your opinion.
|
On March 25 2012 02:20 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 02:16 Kaitlin wrote:On March 25 2012 02:15 FallDownMarigold wrote:On March 25 2012 01:53 Kaitlin wrote:On March 25 2012 01:42 xXFireandIceXx wrote:On March 25 2012 01:34 Doublemint wrote:On March 25 2012 01:24 DeepElemBlues wrote:http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/state/witness-martin-attacked-zimmerman-03232012So according to the witness Martin did in fact attack Zimmerman. This being after Zimmerman refused to stop following him and probably provoked the attack. What a clusterfuck all around. He's admitting to the fact that he shot dead a 17-year old boy and simply because he said it was out of self-defense that's good enough? This doesn't add up. According to police Zimmerman was bloodied and had injuries, presumably from Martin. That makes perfect sense. I too would be scared shitless if someone followed me in the middle of the night. Who knows what exactly happened, the bottomline is that someone, encouraged by his surroundings( neighbour watch because recent break ins/ friendly "vigilante" laws) acted about as bad and out of his rights as possible. I can understand that notion that people want to protect their own property - even with force, but that they try to play hero and are paranoid as shit with no police training or authority whatsoever - can´t even fathom how irresponsible this behaviour is, and the law that encourages this for that matter. What gets me is that the police officer on dispatch TOLD him not to confront Trayvon. But Zimmerman did so regardless. You'd think that he'd take orders from the police. Your inability to understand that dispatch did not ORDER Zimmerman is unfortunate, but nevertheless renders your opinion pretty much irrelevant. Such an inane comment. No shit, Sherlock, the police dispatcher did not issue an order -- that's not what dispatchers do. Don't be so retardedly literal, guy. The dispatcher ***firmly suggested*** that Zimmerman refrain from pursuing/getting involved. Nor was it a firm suggestion. That's your opinion.
No. Not my opinion. The result of reading the police Q&A on the matter.
|
On March 25 2012 02:21 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 02:20 FallDownMarigold wrote:On March 25 2012 02:16 Kaitlin wrote:On March 25 2012 02:15 FallDownMarigold wrote:On March 25 2012 01:53 Kaitlin wrote:On March 25 2012 01:42 xXFireandIceXx wrote:On March 25 2012 01:34 Doublemint wrote:On March 25 2012 01:24 DeepElemBlues wrote:http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/state/witness-martin-attacked-zimmerman-03232012So according to the witness Martin did in fact attack Zimmerman. This being after Zimmerman refused to stop following him and probably provoked the attack. What a clusterfuck all around. He's admitting to the fact that he shot dead a 17-year old boy and simply because he said it was out of self-defense that's good enough? This doesn't add up. According to police Zimmerman was bloodied and had injuries, presumably from Martin. That makes perfect sense. I too would be scared shitless if someone followed me in the middle of the night. Who knows what exactly happened, the bottomline is that someone, encouraged by his surroundings( neighbour watch because recent break ins/ friendly "vigilante" laws) acted about as bad and out of his rights as possible. I can understand that notion that people want to protect their own property - even with force, but that they try to play hero and are paranoid as shit with no police training or authority whatsoever - can´t even fathom how irresponsible this behaviour is, and the law that encourages this for that matter. What gets me is that the police officer on dispatch TOLD him not to confront Trayvon. But Zimmerman did so regardless. You'd think that he'd take orders from the police. Your inability to understand that dispatch did not ORDER Zimmerman is unfortunate, but nevertheless renders your opinion pretty much irrelevant. Such an inane comment. No shit, Sherlock, the police dispatcher did not issue an order -- that's not what dispatchers do. Don't be so retardedly literal, guy. The dispatcher ***firmly suggested*** that Zimmerman refrain from pursuing/getting involved. Nor was it a firm suggestion. That's your opinion. No. Not my opinion. The result of reading the police Q&A on the matter.
Cite and insert the quote pls
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
