|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP.
If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. |
On June 26 2013 00:48 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 00:41 jeremycafe wrote:On June 26 2013 00:30 KwarK wrote:
He was a moron with no training who got a gun and created a situation that was always likely to escalate beyond his control. He probably did shoot the guy in self defence, focussing on the incident ignores the issue that you've got morons with guns. Stupid people are always going to create situations they cannot manage and make problems they didn't anticipate and it's a weakness of American society akin to letting toddlers use grown up scissors. But if you're going to give people that kind of responsibility then they need to know that when they choose to carry a gun then they are choosing to potentially let things escalate into a lethal scenario and understand that they will be accountable for how they use it. If you cannot trust yourself to only ever use a gun on people who absolutely need to die then don't carry a gun. If you choose to carry a gun then you are responsible for the decision to escalate situations you cannot control into potentially lethal situations and if you fuck up then it's on you. "He was a moron with no training who got a gun and created a situation that was always likely to escalate beyond his control." He did have training. A patrol officer was sent to give a course on watch programs on Zimmerman's Request. He also took proper firearms training to obtain a license. Zimmerman wasn't the only person who made a bad decision that night. They both made decisions that resulted in what happened. Zimmerman should have stayed back and observed, not followed. Martin should have just gone home. He shouldn't have double backed and attacked Zimmerman. Zimmerman didn't start a fight, he was trying to follow someone to give details to the police. He never had intent to fight or interact with Martin. Like I said, they both made mistakes. Don't go overboard with your statements. It is easy for people to say he was way out of line when we don't live in the same shitty area he lived in. That is not what is in question in this case. Wrong. Maybe both made wrong decisions, but only one had the means to kill and because of that, HAS to be smarter. If he isn't, it's on him. But that's what weapons do. Give you a (wrong) feeling of safety, nothing can happen to you right? And that's exactly what happens. A gun "forces" people to make the wrong decisions, because they can't handle the responsibility that comes with a gun/that kind of power. And that is exactly what happened here, at least in my mind.
I am going to respond to both of you.
"I would like to know what you would do if a man is following you at night?"
I have been in a situation where I felt I was being followed by someone late at night. I didn't turn back to fight, I ran away and went straight home.
For you to say only one person had the means to kill is pure ignorance. You really think no one has died from solely being punched? How about the referrer that recent died from one punch from a teenage soccer player? Not to mention a head being banged against a hard surface. Both had a means to kill. If Zimmerman wasn't armed, this MAY have been a reversed situation. We don't know.
In the end of the day, Zimmerman did not MURDER someone. This is what this case is about. Zimmerman killed a person, and based on the evidence so far presented NOTHING has shown he had intent to kill prior to being attacked. That is all that matters in this case.
|
The guy disobeyed 911 dispatch, disobeyed his community watch training and ended up killing someone.
Even if he had no intention of killing him, he recklessly escalated the situation and enabled that course of action. The guys liable for sure, the question is for what?
|
On June 26 2013 00:30 KwarK wrote:
He was a moron with no training who got a gun and created a situation that was always likely to escalate beyond his control. He probably did shoot the guy in self defence, focussing on the incident ignores the issue that you've got morons with guns. Stupid people are always going to create situations they cannot manage and make problems they didn't anticipate and it's a weakness of American society akin to letting toddlers use grown up scissors. But if you're going to give people that kind of responsibility then they need to know that when they choose to carry a gun then they are choosing to potentially let things escalate into a lethal scenario and understand that they will be accountable for how they use it. If you cannot trust yourself to only ever use a gun on people who absolutely need to die then don't carry a gun. If you choose to carry a gun then you are responsible for the decision to escalate situations you cannot control into potentially lethal situations and if you fuck up then it's on you.
is this the gun control thread?
Zimmerman handled the situation quite well given the circumstances he was in.
If someone following you provokes you to attack the other guy you're looking to get shot. Starting a fight over something like that is similar to animal predator behavior. You go on a safari and follow a lion around, the lion gets mad and tries to jump on you, it gets shot and killed, does anyone ever argue that the lion was killed unjustifiably? Probably not.
I'm not saying the guy is an animal, just saying he literally made a decision that an animal would have made and generally, objectively speaking humanity is separated from the rest of the animal kingdom by our decision making. If Trayvon was instead replaced by a clinically insane person who attacked Zimmerman, people would probably write it off as the insane person acting insane, but once again, the primary difference between an insane person and a sane person is the decision making. If you're making decisions that are beyond reason you have very little room to blame the consequences on someone else.
|
On June 26 2013 00:59 Masq wrote:
The guy disobeyed 911 dispatch, disobeyed his community watch training and ended up killing someone.
Even if he had no intention of killing him, he recklessly escalated the situation and enabled that course of action. The guys liable for sure, the question is for what?
"The guy disobeyed 911 dispatch"
No he didn't. 991 dispatch is not allowed to give orders. He simply suggested it was not needed to follow. By trying to safely follow Trayvon, in no way did Zimmerman break any laws.
You cannot say Zimmerman "recklessly escalated" the situation. He was trying to keep a safe distance to report the location of Martin to the police. In no way was he trying to confront him or fight with him. Martin created a reckless situation by doubling back and attacking Zimmerman. He instigated a fight, and decided to continue attacking Zimmerman after making first contact. He had many opportunities to stay away from Zimmerman or stop attacking him.
If Zimmerman was screaming to please stop, and he continued to attack after someone else in the area told him to stop as well, Zimmerman legally made the decision to protect himself.
|
On June 26 2013 00:59 Masq wrote:
The guy disobeyed 911 dispatch, disobeyed his community watch training and ended up killing someone.
Even if he had no intention of killing him, he recklessly escalated the situation and enabled that course of action. The guys liable for sure, the question is for what?
You are wrong. He agreed with the dispatcher and stopped following. They mentioned that during opening statements.
George Zimmerman is the victim, and he wasn't "asking for it" regardless of what the victim blaming people like to say.
|
I just dont think a fight is enough for a gun to be pulled. That is my only problem, And it seems Zimmerman lied about many of the details of the fight. But we will see. As of yet I dont think his life was truly in danger. Almost all fights dont end anywhere near death.
|
On June 26 2013 01:04 jeremycafe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 00:59 Masq wrote:
The guy disobeyed 911 dispatch, disobeyed his community watch training and ended up killing someone.
Even if he had no intention of killing him, he recklessly escalated the situation and enabled that course of action. The guys liable for sure, the question is for what? "The guy disobeyed 911 dispatch" No he didn't. 991 dispatch is not allowed to give orders. He simply suggested it was not needed to follow. By trying to safely follow Trayvon, in no way to Zimmerman break any laws. You cannot say Zimmerman "recklessly escalated" the situation. He was trying to keep a safe distance to report the location of Martin to the police. In no way was he trying to confront him or fight with him. Martin created a reckless situation by doubling back and attacking Zimmerman. He instigated a fight, and decided to continue attacking Zimmerman after making first contact. He had many opportunities to stay away from Zimmerman or stop attacking him. If Zimmerman was screaming to please stop, and he continued to attack after someone else in the area told him to stop as well, Zimmerman legally made the decision to protect himself.
Very few people are 'allowed to give orders'. You mother telling you not to stick your hand in fire isn't an order, its common sense. When your doctor tells you not to take X with Y medication, its not an order. When a 911 dispatcher tells you to do something, its for a reason.
Using that logic, if he was keeping a safe distance how did the kid engage him to physically attack him?
I thought the general consensus was that they couldn't prove whom was screaming? Additionally, wasn't it stated (originally from Zimmermans father) that it wasn't him screaming? You can't really say such a thing with any credibility.
Finally, why is Martin required to run away? Why didn't Zimmerman run away if Martin was going to engage him? You can flip that argument way too easily.
|
On June 26 2013 01:11 natrus wrote:
I just dont think a fight is enough for a gun to be pulled. That is my only problem, And it seems Zimmerman lied about many of the details of the fight. But we will see. As of yet I dont think his life was truly in danger. Almost all fights dont end anywhere near death.
It wasn't a fight, it was a vicious assault on a victim who was begging for help while he was pinned on the ground having his head smacked against concrete and face pounded MMA style.
There wasn't a scratch on Trayvon except for the knuckles he used to punch George in the face.
You have a very bizarre and tortured definition of a "fight". If a white male brutally attacked a black neighborhood watchman in such a manner would you be trying to spin it as a "fight" too?
|
On June 26 2013 01:01 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 00:30 KwarK wrote:
He was a moron with no training who got a gun and created a situation that was always likely to escalate beyond his control. He probably did shoot the guy in self defence, focussing on the incident ignores the issue that you've got morons with guns. Stupid people are always going to create situations they cannot manage and make problems they didn't anticipate and it's a weakness of American society akin to letting toddlers use grown up scissors. But if you're going to give people that kind of responsibility then they need to know that when they choose to carry a gun then they are choosing to potentially let things escalate into a lethal scenario and understand that they will be accountable for how they use it. If you cannot trust yourself to only ever use a gun on people who absolutely need to die then don't carry a gun. If you choose to carry a gun then you are responsible for the decision to escalate situations you cannot control into potentially lethal situations and if you fuck up then it's on you. is this the gun control thread? Zimmerman handled the situation quite well given the circumstances he was in. If someone following you provokes you to attack the other guy you're looking to get shot. Starting a fight over something like that is similar to animal predator behavior. You go on a safari and follow a lion around, the lion gets mad and tries to jump on you, it gets shot and killed, does anyone ever argue that the lion was killed unjustifiably? Probably not. I'm not saying the guy is an animal, just saying he literally made a decision that an animal would have made and generally, objectively speaking humanity is separated from the rest of the animal kingdom by our decision making. If Trayvon was instead replaced by a clinically insane person who attacked Zimmerman, people would probably write it off as the insane person acting insane, but once again, the primary difference between an insane person and a sane person is the decision making. If you're making decisions that are beyond reason you have very little room to blame the consequences on someone else.
I'll ignore the fact that you associate Martin with a safari animal.
But if what you're accusing Martin of doing (not going home to ambush zimmerman) is true--I don't believe it is, but lets assume for a moment.
If Zimmerman had not gone towards the kid's house all we would have would be a black kid hanging around his block at night. The kid was shot about a football field from his house. They were much closer to his house than Zimmerman's car. Had zimmerman stayed in the car all we would have is a teenager walking around a block from his home.
|
On June 26 2013 01:13 Masq wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 01:04 jeremycafe wrote:On June 26 2013 00:59 Masq wrote:
The guy disobeyed 911 dispatch, disobeyed his community watch training and ended up killing someone.
Even if he had no intention of killing him, he recklessly escalated the situation and enabled that course of action. The guys liable for sure, the question is for what? "The guy disobeyed 911 dispatch" No he didn't. 991 dispatch is not allowed to give orders. He simply suggested it was not needed to follow. By trying to safely follow Trayvon, in no way to Zimmerman break any laws. You cannot say Zimmerman "recklessly escalated" the situation. He was trying to keep a safe distance to report the location of Martin to the police. In no way was he trying to confront him or fight with him. Martin created a reckless situation by doubling back and attacking Zimmerman. He instigated a fight, and decided to continue attacking Zimmerman after making first contact. He had many opportunities to stay away from Zimmerman or stop attacking him. If Zimmerman was screaming to please stop, and he continued to attack after someone else in the area told him to stop as well, Zimmerman legally made the decision to protect himself. Very few people are 'allowed to give orders'. You mother telling you not to stick your hand in fire isn't an order, its common sense. When your doctor tells you not to take X with Y medication, its not an order. When a 911 dispatcher tells you to do something, its for a reason. Using that logic, if he was keeping a safe distance how did the kid engage him to physically attack him? I thought the general consensus was that they couldn't prove whom was screaming? Additionally, wasn't it stated (originally from Zimmermans father) that it wasn't him screaming? You can't really say such a thing with any credibility. Finally, why is Martin required to run away? Why didn't Zimmerman run away if Martin was going to engage him? You can flip that argument way too easily.
But the 911 didn't give him an order no matter how you spin it. Saying you "don't need" to do something is not the same as "don't do that."
|
On June 26 2013 01:13 Masq wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 01:04 jeremycafe wrote:On June 26 2013 00:59 Masq wrote:
The guy disobeyed 911 dispatch, disobeyed his community watch training and ended up killing someone.
Even if he had no intention of killing him, he recklessly escalated the situation and enabled that course of action. The guys liable for sure, the question is for what? "The guy disobeyed 911 dispatch" No he didn't. 991 dispatch is not allowed to give orders. He simply suggested it was not needed to follow. By trying to safely follow Trayvon, in no way to Zimmerman break any laws. You cannot say Zimmerman "recklessly escalated" the situation. He was trying to keep a safe distance to report the location of Martin to the police. In no way was he trying to confront him or fight with him. Martin created a reckless situation by doubling back and attacking Zimmerman. He instigated a fight, and decided to continue attacking Zimmerman after making first contact. He had many opportunities to stay away from Zimmerman or stop attacking him. If Zimmerman was screaming to please stop, and he continued to attack after someone else in the area told him to stop as well, Zimmerman legally made the decision to protect himself. Very few people are 'allowed to give orders'. You mother telling you not to stick your hand in fire isn't an order, its common sense. When your doctor tells you not to take X with Y medication, its not an order. When a 911 dispatcher tells you to do something, its for a reason. Using that logic, if he was keeping a safe distance how did the kid engage him to physically attack him? I thought the general consensus was that they couldn't prove whom was screaming? Additionally, wasn't it stated (originally from Zimmermans father) that it wasn't him screaming? You can't really say such a thing with any credibility. Finally, why is Martin required to run away? Why didn't Zimmerman run away if Martin was going to engage him? You can flip that argument way too easily.
"Very few people are 'allowed to give orders'. You mother telling you not to stick your hand in fire isn't an order, its common sense. When your doctor tells you not to take X with Y medication, its not an order. When a 911 dispatcher tells you to do something, its for a reason. "
Point is, he did nothing illegal. To say he is liable, there has to be something in place to make it so. I do not believe, and this is purely an opinion that anyone can make since it has no legal means, that following someone does not provoke a fight in a regular situation. I believe most people would flee, call the cops, or hide. Not sneak up on him and sucker punch him in the face.
"Using that logic, if he was keeping a safe distance how did the kid engage him to physically attack him? "
The claim is that Martin doubled back as Zimmerman was returning to his truck and sucker punched him. Zimmerman was no longer the pursuer in this instance, Martin was. This story has not been disproved yet, so it is what we have to assume to be the truth.
"I thought the general consensus was that they couldn't prove whom was screaming? Additionally, wasn't it stated (originally from Zimmermans father) that it wasn't him screaming? You can't really say such a thing with any credibility."
The legal consensus is yes, there is no technology to prove who the voice was. The one witness stated (before any lawyers were involved) he heard the man on the bottom calling for help. It wasn't Zimmerman's father, it was Martin's! Trayvon Martin's father TWICE after hearing the tape in the month to follow publicly stated it was not his son crying for help. All of the sudden, there is ZERO doubt it was his son. It is Mr Martin's credibility that is in doubt. In my opinion, this switch was setup to allow this case to happen and for the liability claim the parents were awarded.
"Finally, why is Martin required to run away? Why didn't Zimmerman run away if Martin was going to engage him? You can flip that argument way too easily"
Most people WOULD run away in that situation. Martin didn't know who the man was, nor did he know if the man had ill intent. Instead he decided to attack Zimmerman. It was a fatal decision. Zimmerman didn't have a chance to run away. He was sucker punched, instantly knocked on his back, and then grappled. Martin than began to punch Zimmerman and slam his head into the ground (which witness and pictures have proven to be true)
|
On June 26 2013 01:22 jeremycafe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 01:13 Masq wrote:On June 26 2013 01:04 jeremycafe wrote:On June 26 2013 00:59 Masq wrote:
The guy disobeyed 911 dispatch, disobeyed his community watch training and ended up killing someone.
Even if he had no intention of killing him, he recklessly escalated the situation and enabled that course of action. The guys liable for sure, the question is for what? "The guy disobeyed 911 dispatch" No he didn't. 991 dispatch is not allowed to give orders. He simply suggested it was not needed to follow. By trying to safely follow Trayvon, in no way to Zimmerman break any laws. You cannot say Zimmerman "recklessly escalated" the situation. He was trying to keep a safe distance to report the location of Martin to the police. In no way was he trying to confront him or fight with him. Martin created a reckless situation by doubling back and attacking Zimmerman. He instigated a fight, and decided to continue attacking Zimmerman after making first contact. He had many opportunities to stay away from Zimmerman or stop attacking him. If Zimmerman was screaming to please stop, and he continued to attack after someone else in the area told him to stop as well, Zimmerman legally made the decision to protect himself. Very few people are 'allowed to give orders'. You mother telling you not to stick your hand in fire isn't an order, its common sense. When your doctor tells you not to take X with Y medication, its not an order. When a 911 dispatcher tells you to do something, its for a reason. Using that logic, if he was keeping a safe distance how did the kid engage him to physically attack him? I thought the general consensus was that they couldn't prove whom was screaming? Additionally, wasn't it stated (originally from Zimmermans father) that it wasn't him screaming? You can't really say such a thing with any credibility. Finally, why is Martin required to run away? Why didn't Zimmerman run away if Martin was going to engage him? You can flip that argument way too easily. "Very few people are 'allowed to give orders'. You mother telling you not to stick your hand in fire isn't an order, its common sense. When your doctor tells you not to take X with Y medication, its not an order. When a 911 dispatcher tells you to do something, its for a reason. " Point is, he did nothing illegal. To say he is liable, there has to be something in place to make it so. I do not believe, and this is purely an opinion that anyone can make since it has no legal means, that following someone does not provoke a fight in a regular situation. I believe most people would flee, call the cops, or hide. Not sneak up on him and sucker punch him in the face. "Using that logic, if he was keeping a safe distance how did the kid engage him to physically attack him? " The claim is that Martin doubled back as Zimmerman was returning to his truck and sucker punched him. Zimmerman was no longer the pursuer in this instance, Martin was. This story has not been disproved yet, so it is what we have to assume to be the truth. "I thought the general consensus was that they couldn't prove whom was screaming? Additionally, wasn't it stated (originally from Zimmermans father) that it wasn't him screaming? You can't really say such a thing with any credibility." The legal consensus is yes, there is no technology to prove who the voice was. The one witness stated (before any lawyers were involved) he heard the man on the bottom calling for help. It wasn't Zimmerman's father, it was Martin's! Trayvon Martin's father TWICE after hearing the tape in the month to follow publicly stated it was not his son crying for help. All of the sudden, there is ZERO doubt it was his son. It is Mr Martin's credibility that is in doubt. In my opinion, this switch was setup to allow this case to happen and for the liability claim the parents were awarded. "Finally, why is Martin required to run away? Why didn't Zimmerman run away if Martin was going to engage him? You can flip that argument way too easily" Most people WOULD run away in that situation. Martin didn't know who the man was, nor did he know if the man had ill intent. Instead he decided to attack Zimmerman. It was a fatal decision. Zimmerman didn't have a chance to run away. He was sucker punched, instantly knocked on his back, and then grappled. Martin than began to punch Zimmerman and slam his head into the ground (which witness and pictures have proven to be true)
The event happened closer to Martin's home than Zimmerman's car. You can't "doubleback" and be closer to your initial destination than the pursuer. The only thing that is proven is that Martin didn't go home--we don't know if he "double backed" or "hid" or "stayed in place" or "got lost" or "decided to play hopscotch."
However, the incident happened closer to Martin's house than Zimmerman's car, which means zimmerman walked towards Martin's house more than Martin walked back to Zimmerman's car.
|
Now that we have actual evidence in this trial, can we please put aside this "disobeyed the dispatcher" argument ? That 911 operator (it was actually a non-emergency call at the time) testified (making it actual evidence) that his training is such that he cannot and does not give orders, for the reason to avoid liability. He specifically testified given the scenario that if he were on the phone with someone in their home, while the police were engaged in a gunfight outside that home, and the person he was on the phone with said they were going to go outside, he would not say "Don't go outside, stay in your home", but instead he would say "We don't need you to go outside". Now, going outside in the middle of a gunfight is about the dumbest thing someone can do, and the dispatcher testified that even then, he was not to give instructions one way or the other, but to state "We don't need you to do that". The reason for this is that even in that extreme scenario, if a stray bullet came into the house where the person was hiding at the instruction of the 911 operator, there would be liability. Similar to how the scenario potentially could have played out with Zimmerman, had the suspicious person broken into someone's house after Zimmerman would have lost track of him, per instructions. Bad endings can happen no matter what the caller does in any scenario. Due to legal liability, the government avoids responsibility by being careful to not instruct what the caller should do, even to assert that any action taken by the caller is not requested or needed. That's all that should be construed from "We don't need you to do that". That is the testimony, and thus the evidence, which is all that is to be considered by the jury, so conclusions that Zimmerman was ordered or instructed and he disobeyed are not evidence, will not be evidence, and are not only irrelevant in the discussion, but completely opposite to the actual evidence presented by the prosecution's witness in this case.
|
On June 26 2013 01:13 Masq wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 01:04 jeremycafe wrote:On June 26 2013 00:59 Masq wrote:
The guy disobeyed 911 dispatch, disobeyed his community watch training and ended up killing someone.
Even if he had no intention of killing him, he recklessly escalated the situation and enabled that course of action. The guys liable for sure, the question is for what? "The guy disobeyed 911 dispatch" No he didn't. 991 dispatch is not allowed to give orders. He simply suggested it was not needed to follow. By trying to safely follow Trayvon, in no way to Zimmerman break any laws. You cannot say Zimmerman "recklessly escalated" the situation. He was trying to keep a safe distance to report the location of Martin to the police. In no way was he trying to confront him or fight with him. Martin created a reckless situation by doubling back and attacking Zimmerman. He instigated a fight, and decided to continue attacking Zimmerman after making first contact. He had many opportunities to stay away from Zimmerman or stop attacking him. If Zimmerman was screaming to please stop, and he continued to attack after someone else in the area told him to stop as well, Zimmerman legally made the decision to protect himself. Very few people are 'allowed to give orders'. You mother telling you not to stick your hand in fire isn't an order, its common sense. When your doctor tells you not to take X with Y medication, its not an order. When a 911 dispatcher tells you to do something, its for a reason. Using that logic, if he was keeping a safe distance how did the kid engage him to physically attack him? I thought the general consensus was that they couldn't prove whom was screaming? Additionally, wasn't it stated (originally from Zimmermans father) that it wasn't him screaming? You can't really say such a thing with any credibility. Finally, why is Martin required to run away? Why didn't Zimmerman run away if Martin was going to engage him? You can flip that argument way too easily.
The argument about disobeying is pointless, because Zimmerman agreed with the dispatcher and stopped following.
Trayvon was able to attack him by approaching him from behind and ambushing him after George was finished on the phone call. He may have been lurking and waiting for an opportunity, or he may have been doubled back. He had a minute and a half while George was on the phone to leave the area if he wanted to.
It was actually Trayvon's father who said it wasn't Trayvon's voice. A witness also saw George pinned on the ground being beaten and shouting for help, and George's account of events always included him shouting for help.
Trayvon wasn't required to do anything. He could have stopped to talk, loitered around and not talked, he could have ran or leisurely walked away (he had a full 1:30). But he wasn't legally allowed to savagely clobber a neighborhood watchman for phoning police on him. Why are you turning this into a dogfight scenario? They weren't opposing sides at war.
|
On June 26 2013 01:16 bugser wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 01:11 natrus wrote:
I just dont think a fight is enough for a gun to be pulled. That is my only problem, And it seems Zimmerman lied about many of the details of the fight. But we will see. As of yet I dont think his life was truly in danger. Almost all fights dont end anywhere near death. It wasn't a fight, it was a vicious assault on a victim who was begging for help while he was pinned on the ground having his head smacked against concrete and face pounded MMA style. There wasn't a scratch on Trayvon except for the knuckles he used to punch George in the face. You have a very bizarre and tortured definition of a "fight". If a white male brutally attacked a black neighborhood watchman in such a manner would you be trying to spin it as a "fight" too?
A man holding on to a gun is unlikely to punch back. He is likely to shoot back though, which is what happened. You can't punch if you're holding on to something.
|
On June 26 2013 01:10 bugser wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 00:59 Masq wrote:
The guy disobeyed 911 dispatch, disobeyed his community watch training and ended up killing someone.
Even if he had no intention of killing him, he recklessly escalated the situation and enabled that course of action. The guys liable for sure, the question is for what? You are wrong. He agreed with the dispatcher and stopped following. They mentioned that during opening statements. George Zimmerman is the victim, and he wasn't "asking for it" regardless of what the victim blaming people like to say.
He agreed so much that he was near Martin's house, away from his car, while still holding his gun.
Yup, sounds like he "agreed" alright.
|
On June 26 2013 01:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 01:16 bugser wrote:On June 26 2013 01:11 natrus wrote:
I just dont think a fight is enough for a gun to be pulled. That is my only problem, And it seems Zimmerman lied about many of the details of the fight. But we will see. As of yet I dont think his life was truly in danger. Almost all fights dont end anywhere near death. It wasn't a fight, it was a vicious assault on a victim who was begging for help while he was pinned on the ground having his head smacked against concrete and face pounded MMA style. There wasn't a scratch on Trayvon except for the knuckles he used to punch George in the face. You have a very bizarre and tortured definition of a "fight". If a white male brutally attacked a black neighborhood watchman in such a manner would you be trying to spin it as a "fight" too? A man holding on to a gun is unlikely to punch back. He is likely to shoot back though, which is what happened. You can't punch if you're holding on to something.
He wasn't holding onto it. Stop turning this into Rambo running around with a gun out. He was on his bag crying for help. He had no means to fight back, he was overweight and had no muscles compared the much more fit Martin. If he had the means to fight back, I think it is safe to say he would have avoided getting his head smashed in and nose nearly broken. Use common sense and stop making shit up for fuck sake.
|
On June 26 2013 01:30 bugser wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 01:13 Masq wrote:On June 26 2013 01:04 jeremycafe wrote:On June 26 2013 00:59 Masq wrote:
The guy disobeyed 911 dispatch, disobeyed his community watch training and ended up killing someone.
Even if he had no intention of killing him, he recklessly escalated the situation and enabled that course of action. The guys liable for sure, the question is for what? "The guy disobeyed 911 dispatch" No he didn't. 991 dispatch is not allowed to give orders. He simply suggested it was not needed to follow. By trying to safely follow Trayvon, in no way to Zimmerman break any laws. You cannot say Zimmerman "recklessly escalated" the situation. He was trying to keep a safe distance to report the location of Martin to the police. In no way was he trying to confront him or fight with him. Martin created a reckless situation by doubling back and attacking Zimmerman. He instigated a fight, and decided to continue attacking Zimmerman after making first contact. He had many opportunities to stay away from Zimmerman or stop attacking him. If Zimmerman was screaming to please stop, and he continued to attack after someone else in the area told him to stop as well, Zimmerman legally made the decision to protect himself. Very few people are 'allowed to give orders'. You mother telling you not to stick your hand in fire isn't an order, its common sense. When your doctor tells you not to take X with Y medication, its not an order. When a 911 dispatcher tells you to do something, its for a reason. Using that logic, if he was keeping a safe distance how did the kid engage him to physically attack him? I thought the general consensus was that they couldn't prove whom was screaming? Additionally, wasn't it stated (originally from Zimmermans father) that it wasn't him screaming? You can't really say such a thing with any credibility. Finally, why is Martin required to run away? Why didn't Zimmerman run away if Martin was going to engage him? You can flip that argument way too easily. The argument about disobeying is pointless, because Zimmerman agreed with the dispatcher and stopped following. Trayvon was able to attack him by approaching him from behind and ambushing him after George was finished on the phone call. He may have been lurking and waiting for an opportunity, or he may have been doubled back. He had a minute and a half while George was on the phone to leave the area if he wanted to. It was actually Trayvon's father who said it wasn't Trayvon's voice. A witness also saw George pinned on the ground being beaten and shouting for help, and George's account of events always included him shouting for help. Trayvon wasn't required to do anything. He could have stopped to talk, loitered around and not talked, he could have ran or leisurely walked away (he had a full 1:30). But he wasn't legally allowed to savagely clobber a neighborhood watchman for phoning police on him. Why are you turning this into a dogfight scenario? They weren't opposing sides at war.
Zimmerman had 1:30 minutes to go home, but instead brought a gun with him to pursue a black kid.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On June 26 2013 01:13 Masq wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 01:04 jeremycafe wrote:On June 26 2013 00:59 Masq wrote:
The guy disobeyed 911 dispatch, disobeyed his community watch training and ended up killing someone.
Even if he had no intention of killing him, he recklessly escalated the situation and enabled that course of action. The guys liable for sure, the question is for what? "The guy disobeyed 911 dispatch" No he didn't. 991 dispatch is not allowed to give orders. He simply suggested it was not needed to follow. By trying to safely follow Trayvon, in no way to Zimmerman break any laws. You cannot say Zimmerman "recklessly escalated" the situation. He was trying to keep a safe distance to report the location of Martin to the police. In no way was he trying to confront him or fight with him. Martin created a reckless situation by doubling back and attacking Zimmerman. He instigated a fight, and decided to continue attacking Zimmerman after making first contact. He had many opportunities to stay away from Zimmerman or stop attacking him. If Zimmerman was screaming to please stop, and he continued to attack after someone else in the area told him to stop as well, Zimmerman legally made the decision to protect himself. Very few people are 'allowed to give orders'. You mother telling you not to stick your hand in fire isn't an order, its common sense. When your doctor tells you not to take X with Y medication, its not an order. When a 911 dispatcher tells you to do something, its for a reason. Using that logic, if he was keeping a safe distance how did the kid engage him to physically attack him? I thought the general consensus was that they couldn't prove whom was screaming? Additionally, wasn't it stated (originally from Zimmermans father) that it wasn't him screaming? You can't really say such a thing with any credibility. Finally, why is Martin required to run away? Why didn't Zimmerman run away if Martin was going to engage him? You can flip that argument way too easily.
I don't think you realize that the dispatchers have to follow certain scripts for things to do, it protects them legally and in this case, it was not an order. This has been discussed many times in the thread and its been determined that he didn't have to follow it. That also doesn't take into account that he said "we don't need you" which isn't even an order(wording).
@bolded no, it was Trayvon's father who said that it was not his son screaming when he first heard the screams then guess what, he did a double take and said that it was probably. Zimmerman's family all believe it was him that was screaming. I doubt we can ever say 100% who it was though.
|
On June 26 2013 01:32 jeremycafe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 01:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 26 2013 01:16 bugser wrote:On June 26 2013 01:11 natrus wrote:
I just dont think a fight is enough for a gun to be pulled. That is my only problem, And it seems Zimmerman lied about many of the details of the fight. But we will see. As of yet I dont think his life was truly in danger. Almost all fights dont end anywhere near death. It wasn't a fight, it was a vicious assault on a victim who was begging for help while he was pinned on the ground having his head smacked against concrete and face pounded MMA style. There wasn't a scratch on Trayvon except for the knuckles he used to punch George in the face. You have a very bizarre and tortured definition of a "fight". If a white male brutally attacked a black neighborhood watchman in such a manner would you be trying to spin it as a "fight" too? A man holding on to a gun is unlikely to punch back. He is likely to shoot back though, which is what happened. You can't punch if you're holding on to something. He wasn't holding onto it. Stop turning this into Rambo running around with a gun out. He was on his bag crying for help. He had no means to fight back, he was overweight and had no muscles compared the much more fit Martin. If he had the means to fight back, I think it is safe to say he would have avoided getting his head smashed in and nose nearly broken. Use common sense and stop making shit up for fuck sake.
We don't know if he was holding a gun or not. No evidence for or against.
But a man holding a gun is unlikely to punch back, especially if he shoots the kid instead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
