|
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 July 15 2013 03:58 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 03:50 Geiko wrote:On July 15 2013 03:44 Leporello wrote:On July 15 2013 03:38 Geiko wrote:On July 15 2013 03:34 Leporello wrote:On July 15 2013 03:32 SKC wrote:On July 15 2013 03:29 Leporello wrote:
We can look at this case and say the verdict was just -- what I don't think people in this thread are understanding, when it comes to people's displeasure at the verdict, is that it's about more than this verdict. It's about how easily we lock up black people for violent crimes, at shocking percentages, but GZ is given every benefit of the doubt, despite being an obviously foolish and bitter person, who made a mistake that night. Then complain about those cases where the black guy is locked up even though there is no evidence at all that he is guilty, if they exist, instead of complaining about a case where the law worked. People do "complain" about cases, cases which often get overturned because the police forced a testimony, doctored evidence, lied, or some other shady crap. Happens all the time to the more disenfranchised members of society. Didn't happen to GZ though, did it? People are going to resent this contrast in justice, isn't that understandable? Sure it did. Prosecution attempted to withhold evidence from Zimmerman defense. Look, if you have the pleasure of not understanding why people are disillusioned and upset with our justice system, sincerely, good for you, and I'm going to leave it at that. I'd love to have many of France's police and legal procedures implemented here. What GZ did was an undeniable crime in your country the moment he left his car with a gun in his pants. The police did not treat GZ like it treats many black criminals who're currently sitting in jail. It's just a fact that not every case is handled with the same amount of diligence, integrity, or lack thereofs, and that those differences often do fall along a racial divide. Why are you talking about France in a topic about the Trayvon Martin shooting ? We don't have the same moral rules here, nor the same laws. The fact is that this was a fair trial in accordance with the laws of florida. If you're unhappy with your country's set of laws, not much I can do for you. If Zimmerman had been black, odds are that there wouldn't even have been a trial. The police didn't even want to arrest him in the first place remember. This trial was caused by all the media hype over the headline "white man kills black kid". I'm not asking you to do anything for me. I was trying to maybe explain a cultural difference to you, that I'm not sure you fully understand or appreciate. Our justice is not blind or equal. If you disagree, I'm saying I'd gladly trade places with you.
I'm not sure you fully appreciate the state of the French justice system :p
To give you an example, we had a trial a while ago where a man was forced to pay medical bills for a burglar that got bit by his dog in his own house...
|
On July 15 2013 04:00 TheRabidDeer wrote:
I am most disappointed that they prosecuted for 2nd degree murder. I cant understand why they thought they had the evidence for that much.
Can anybody explain to me why they didnt go for negligent manslaughter or if there was a case for that?
They went for both. Still, and as has been mentioned previously, the manslaughter charge really isn't any better than the 2nd degree murder charge for the simple reason that both charges suffer from the same critical weakness: there is no way for the prosecution to disprove self-defense given the available evidence.
|
On July 15 2013 04:00 TheRabidDeer wrote:
I am most disappointed that they prosecuted for 2nd degree murder. I cant understand why they thought they had the evidence for that much.
Can anybody explain to me why they didnt go for negligent manslaughter or if there was a case for that?
There was no case for that. He was acquited because of self defense, which protects him from manslaughter charges as well. Perhaps if the prosecution had argued for manslaughter their case would have been more compelling, but the jury did consider manslaughther charges and found him innocent.
|
On July 15 2013 03:46 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 03:40 phoenix`down wrote:On July 15 2013 03:29 Leporello wrote:
We can look at this case and say the verdict was just -- what I don't think people in this thread are understanding, when it comes to people's displeasure at the verdict, is that it's about more than this verdict. It's about how easily we lock up black people for violent crimes, at shocking percentages, but GZ is given every benefit of the doubt, despite being an obviously foolish and bitter person, who made a mistake that night.
If GZ were black -- nevermind Trayvon's race -- just if GZ was black -- would he have been given all this benefit of the doubt by Florida's justice system? If you think so, I think you're naive. I don't agree with your characterization of George Zimmerman at all. I view him as someone that was donating his time to make his neighborhood safer and ended up in an unfortunate series of events that ended tragically for all parties. I understand where the people that have a problem with this verdict are coming from; Trayvon's death is sad. He died young because he made a few poor choices just like every other teenager does at some point, and unlike other teenagers he will never have a chance to mature past it; that doesn't mean George Zimmerman didn't need to protect himself though. I don't have a problem with neighborhood watch. I don't even really have a problem with GZ racial profiling the kid, and calling the cops on him for no good reason. Call the cops. If the kid has nothing to hide -- then it's not a problem. But GZ did a lot more than that.
Would you mind expanding on what more he did that was so wrong? The story of what happened after what you describe, which is consistent with evidence presented at trial, is:
1) GZ goes out of car looking to get better directions to give to police. Maybe slightly stupid and irresponsible given that he was adviced not to, but if we punished people for doing slightly foolish things before thinking of the consequences, then no one would be free.
2) GZ comes across TM who assaults him. Given that he was already out of his car looking for a street name, I don't see how GZ could have avoided this.
3) GZ is getting beaten and no ability to gain control of the situation without using his firearm. TM seems to have the intent and ability to kill GZ. GZ shoots TM in self-defense. Alternatively he could have just taken the beating and hoped that he would not sustain permanent injuries, that the police would be there any second or that TM didn't mean it when he said GZ was going to die.
|
On July 15 2013 03:56 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 20:51 Leporello wrote:On July 14 2013 14:06 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 14 2013 13:35 KonekoTyriin wrote:
The verdict may be in accordance with the law, but if so then I disagree quite strongly with the law. From what I understand of the case:
Zimmerman shot Martin with a gun. Because there was no prior intent (probably) and it was in self defense (almost certainly), it's reasonable that he did not intend to kill Martin. This sounds like an open and shut manslaughter conviction- though if testimony had uncovered intent, it could have been murder.
You can get convicted of manslaughter for building a house incautiously if it results in the house falling and killing someone inside. No matter how little you wanted that person to die or how indirectly your actions led to their death, if you kill someone, you at LEAST get manslaughter.
I don't understand how Zimmerman could possibly walk completely free from this. It does not seem consistent with justice as I understand it. if you assume its not self defense then of course you cant understand it. the jury found it was self defense. This has been repeated all thread, and it irritates me. It's half a lie, really, or half a truth -- it's people talking about reasonable doubt when it comes to the verdict, but then using that verdict to make statements of a much more absolute nature... I got banned earlier arguing about this, and I can see people are just going to keep repeating it, even the lawyers... It was not proven to be self-defense -- rather nothing was proven at all. There is simply enough reasonable doubt to suggest it may have been self-defense. It is reasonable doubt that gave Zimmerman a "Not Guilty" verdict. It wasn't proof or evidence that let Zimmerman shoot an unarmed teenager without being convicted of a crime, it was the lack thereof -- and that is what disturbs people. Several times in this thread, more than I could care to count really, people have said that self-defense has somehow been "proven", or in this case, that "the jury found it was self-defense". That's not really true, though, is it? We don't know if this was self-defense, and the jury's decision does not say anything with certainty -- there is a reason they call it "not guilty" instead of "innocent". It's just a matter of not knowing. What this verdict says is that it simply MAY have been self-defense. That's enough to avoid murder, as well manslaughter charges to my surprise, but I still feel that Zimmerman's irresponsible behavior in pursuing somebody by himself, with a weapon, should carry at least some charge of negligence. Shooting an unarmed man under pretenses of self-defense is one thing, but when you admittedly were following this person, by yourself, and had all the time to wait for police or even a friend but didn't, then you're being reckless with people's lives. A lot of half-truths in this thread from all sides. innocent until proven guilty. not proven guilty = innocent. welcome to america's legal justice system.
What you said was "the jury found it was self defense." Which is not exactly true, sorry. The jury found it may have been self-defense, enough for reasonable doubt, and that was quite clearly what I was trying to say.
And the difference between "innocent" and "not guilty" actually does exist. Innocent means you were proved innocent. Not guilty means you weren't proven guilty. Yes, it's the same by law, but the language used is used for a reason.
Do you really not see the difference? You are a lawyer, why are you being deliberately obtuse?
I am not arguing with the verdict, just your statement. Your actual words, a courtesy this thread is in short supply of.
|
So does this case changed your view on the media, fellow TL users?
|
On July 15 2013 03:45 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 03:42 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 03:30 phoenix`down wrote:On July 15 2013 03:23 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 03:16 Esk23 wrote:On July 15 2013 03:13 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 03:09 city42 wrote:On July 15 2013 02:59 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Dispatchers are a part of the police, and he disobeyed the order to not pursue, and to not get out of his car. You don't have to have legal authority to issue an order as member of a policing-organization.
What the fuck, did you watch the case at all? The dispatcher testified in court and specifically said that he can only give "suggestions," and not orders, because he can be found directly liable if he gives orders and something bad happens. Dispatchers are also not police officers. It's mind-blowing how people think they can comment on the case without having followed it. Excuse my language but the stupidity here is overflowing. Dispatchers, just like anyone else, can issue orders; in this situation it was a personal one as Zimmerman was overstepping his bounds. If I order my girlfriend to get off my computer it doesn't mean I have legal authority over her. Oh god just stop already. If you really care about knowing the truth or what really happened stop voicing your useless and unfounded opinion on the internet and go watch the trial. If you don't have an argument it's more productive to take a breather and come up with something instead of just outright crying. On July 15 2013 03:18 city42 wrote:On July 15 2013 03:13 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 03:09 city42 wrote:On July 15 2013 02:59 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Dispatchers are a part of the police, and he disobeyed the order to not pursue, and to not get out of his car. You don't have to have legal authority to issue an order as member of a policing-organization.
What the fuck, did you watch the case at all? The dispatcher testified in court and specifically said that he can only give "suggestions," and not orders, because he can be found directly liable if he gives orders and something bad happens. Dispatchers are also not police officers. It's mind-blowing how people think they can comment on the case without having followed it. Excuse my language but the stupidity here is overflowing. Dispatchers, just like anyone else, can issue orders; in this situation it was a personal one as Zimmerman was overstepping his bounds. If I order my girlfriend to get off my computer it doesn't mean I have legal authority over her. In his testimony, Noffke said he didn’t order Zimmerman to stop. Dispatchers don’t issue such orders because of liability issues, he said. Please provide concrete evidence that George Zimmerman disobeyed a police order not to pursue. Actually, you're probably doing this on purpose to make people angry, so I shouldn't get caught up in it anymore. The dispatcher recommended Zimmerman not to pursue on transcript, however this was definitely a polite order in casual form saying "Do not do this as you're overstepping your bounds" and not a "We don't need you to do that, but if you really want to I think it would be okay". An order, implied or not, does not have to be legally admissible for it to still carry the connotation of "do not do X".Know that playing word games won't conceal the dispatcher's obvious intention with the statement. That is all great, except the dispatcher's intent is open for interpretation. When I read it, I interpret it as, "You don't need to go out of your way to do that." And since George Zimmerman has said he was only trying to find a street name, not pursue Trayvon, then it doesn't matter anyway. When Zimmerman said "he was only trying to find a street name" he was lying (transcripts also contradict this) similar to how he was also lying in his court statement about him assuming that Trayvon was only slightly younger than him as conversation transcripts from the night prove that he said Trayvon looked "late leens" even from a distance. On July 15 2013 03:32 Geiko wrote:On July 15 2013 03:23 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 03:16 Esk23 wrote:On July 15 2013 03:13 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 03:09 city42 wrote:On July 15 2013 02:59 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Dispatchers are a part of the police, and he disobeyed the order to not pursue, and to not get out of his car. You don't have to have legal authority to issue an order as member of a policing-organization.
What the fuck, did you watch the case at all? The dispatcher testified in court and specifically said that he can only give "suggestions," and not orders, because he can be found directly liable if he gives orders and something bad happens. Dispatchers are also not police officers. It's mind-blowing how people think they can comment on the case without having followed it. Excuse my language but the stupidity here is overflowing. Dispatchers, just like anyone else, can issue orders; in this situation it was a personal one as Zimmerman was overstepping his bounds. If I order my girlfriend to get off my computer it doesn't mean I have legal authority over her. Oh god just stop already. If you really care about knowing the truth or what really happened stop voicing your useless and unfounded opinion on the internet and go watch the trial. If you don't have an argument it's more productive to take a breather and come up with something instead of just outright crying about what I said. On July 15 2013 03:18 city42 wrote:On July 15 2013 03:13 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 03:09 city42 wrote:On July 15 2013 02:59 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Dispatchers are a part of the police, and he disobeyed the order to not pursue, and to not get out of his car. You don't have to have legal authority to issue an order as member of a policing-organization.
What the fuck, did you watch the case at all? The dispatcher testified in court and specifically said that he can only give "suggestions," and not orders, because he can be found directly liable if he gives orders and something bad happens. Dispatchers are also not police officers. It's mind-blowing how people think they can comment on the case without having followed it. Excuse my language but the stupidity here is overflowing. Dispatchers, just like anyone else, can issue orders; in this situation it was a personal one as Zimmerman was overstepping his bounds. If I order my girlfriend to get off my computer it doesn't mean I have legal authority over her. In his testimony, Noffke said he didn’t order Zimmerman to stop. Dispatchers don’t issue such orders because of liability issues, he said. Please provide concrete evidence that George Zimmerman disobeyed a police order not to pursue. Actually, you're probably doing this on purpose to make people angry, so I shouldn't get caught up in it anymore. The dispatcher recommended Zimmerman not to pursue on transcript, however this was definitely a polite order in casual form saying "Do not do this as you're overstepping your bounds" and not a "We don't need you to do that, but if you really want to I think it would be okay". An order, implied or not, does not have to be legally admissible for it to still carry the connotation of "do not do X".Know that playing word games won't conceal the dispatcher's obvious intention with the statement. Excuse me, what part of In his testimony, Noffke said he didn’t order Zimmerman to stop. Dispatchers don’t issue such orders because of liability issues, he said. don't you understand ? The dispatcher said it himself, he wasn't giving an order... Geez. Excuse me. What part of: On July 15 2013 03:13 DemigodcelpH wrote: An order, implied or not, does not have to be legally admissible for it to still carry the connotation of "do not do X". Do you not understand? Citation needed, since you like to do that kind of stuff. There is no definitive proof that Zimmermann wasn't looking for an adress. The prosecution couldn't debunk that statement, I doubt you can.
Stating that Zimmerman was just looking for an address is a lie attempted to imply that he was not following Tray. Therefore:
Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah.
Means that either he wasn't looking for an address, or that he was looking for an address and stalking someone — either way the purpose of the lie is destroyed by Zimmerman's own words.
On July 15 2013 03:45 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 03:42 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 03:30 phoenix`down wrote:On July 15 2013 03:23 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 03:16 Esk23 wrote:On July 15 2013 03:13 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 03:09 city42 wrote:On July 15 2013 02:59 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Dispatchers are a part of the police, and he disobeyed the order to not pursue, and to not get out of his car. You don't have to have legal authority to issue an order as member of a policing-organization.
What the fuck, did you watch the case at all? The dispatcher testified in court and specifically said that he can only give "suggestions," and not orders, because he can be found directly liable if he gives orders and something bad happens. Dispatchers are also not police officers. It's mind-blowing how people think they can comment on the case without having followed it. Excuse my language but the stupidity here is overflowing. Dispatchers, just like anyone else, can issue orders; in this situation it was a personal one as Zimmerman was overstepping his bounds. If I order my girlfriend to get off my computer it doesn't mean I have legal authority over her. Oh god just stop already. If you really care about knowing the truth or what really happened stop voicing your useless and unfounded opinion on the internet and go watch the trial. If you don't have an argument it's more productive to take a breather and come up with something instead of just outright crying. On July 15 2013 03:18 city42 wrote:On July 15 2013 03:13 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 03:09 city42 wrote:On July 15 2013 02:59 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Dispatchers are a part of the police, and he disobeyed the order to not pursue, and to not get out of his car. You don't have to have legal authority to issue an order as member of a policing-organization.
What the fuck, did you watch the case at all? The dispatcher testified in court and specifically said that he can only give "suggestions," and not orders, because he can be found directly liable if he gives orders and something bad happens. Dispatchers are also not police officers. It's mind-blowing how people think they can comment on the case without having followed it. Excuse my language but the stupidity here is overflowing. Dispatchers, just like anyone else, can issue orders; in this situation it was a personal one as Zimmerman was overstepping his bounds. If I order my girlfriend to get off my computer it doesn't mean I have legal authority over her. In his testimony, Noffke said he didn’t order Zimmerman to stop. Dispatchers don’t issue such orders because of liability issues, he said. Please provide concrete evidence that George Zimmerman disobeyed a police order not to pursue. Actually, you're probably doing this on purpose to make people angry, so I shouldn't get caught up in it anymore. The dispatcher recommended Zimmerman not to pursue on transcript, however this was definitely a polite order in casual form saying "Do not do this as you're overstepping your bounds" and not a "We don't need you to do that, but if you really want to I think it would be okay". An order, implied or not, does not have to be legally admissible for it to still carry the connotation of "do not do X".Know that playing word games won't conceal the dispatcher's obvious intention with the statement. That is all great, except the dispatcher's intent is open for interpretation. When I read it, I interpret it as, "You don't need to go out of your way to do that." And since George Zimmerman has said he was only trying to find a street name, not pursue Trayvon, then it doesn't matter anyway. When Zimmerman said "he was only trying to find a street name" he was lying (transcripts also contradict this) similar to how he was also lying in his court statement about him assuming that Trayvon was only slightly younger than him as conversation transcripts from the night prove that he said Trayvon looked "late leens" even from a distance. On July 15 2013 03:32 Geiko wrote:On July 15 2013 03:23 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 03:16 Esk23 wrote:On July 15 2013 03:13 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 03:09 city42 wrote:On July 15 2013 02:59 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Dispatchers are a part of the police, and he disobeyed the order to not pursue, and to not get out of his car. You don't have to have legal authority to issue an order as member of a policing-organization.
What the fuck, did you watch the case at all? The dispatcher testified in court and specifically said that he can only give "suggestions," and not orders, because he can be found directly liable if he gives orders and something bad happens. Dispatchers are also not police officers. It's mind-blowing how people think they can comment on the case without having followed it. Excuse my language but the stupidity here is overflowing. Dispatchers, just like anyone else, can issue orders; in this situation it was a personal one as Zimmerman was overstepping his bounds. If I order my girlfriend to get off my computer it doesn't mean I have legal authority over her. Oh god just stop already. If you really care about knowing the truth or what really happened stop voicing your useless and unfounded opinion on the internet and go watch the trial. If you don't have an argument it's more productive to take a breather and come up with something instead of just outright crying about what I said. On July 15 2013 03:18 city42 wrote:On July 15 2013 03:13 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 03:09 city42 wrote:On July 15 2013 02:59 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Dispatchers are a part of the police, and he disobeyed the order to not pursue, and to not get out of his car. You don't have to have legal authority to issue an order as member of a policing-organization.
What the fuck, did you watch the case at all? The dispatcher testified in court and specifically said that he can only give "suggestions," and not orders, because he can be found directly liable if he gives orders and something bad happens. Dispatchers are also not police officers. It's mind-blowing how people think they can comment on the case without having followed it. Excuse my language but the stupidity here is overflowing. Dispatchers, just like anyone else, can issue orders; in this situation it was a personal one as Zimmerman was overstepping his bounds. If I order my girlfriend to get off my computer it doesn't mean I have legal authority over her. In his testimony, Noffke said he didn’t order Zimmerman to stop. Dispatchers don’t issue such orders because of liability issues, he said. Please provide concrete evidence that George Zimmerman disobeyed a police order not to pursue. Actually, you're probably doing this on purpose to make people angry, so I shouldn't get caught up in it anymore. The dispatcher recommended Zimmerman not to pursue on transcript, however this was definitely a polite order in casual form saying "Do not do this as you're overstepping your bounds" and not a "We don't need you to do that, but if you really want to I think it would be okay". An order, implied or not, does not have to be legally admissible for it to still carry the connotation of "do not do X".Know that playing word games won't conceal the dispatcher's obvious intention with the statement. Excuse me, what part of In his testimony, Noffke said he didn’t order Zimmerman to stop. Dispatchers don’t issue such orders because of liability issues, he said. don't you understand ? The dispatcher said it himself, he wasn't giving an order... Geez. Excuse me. What part of: On July 15 2013 03:13 DemigodcelpH wrote: An order, implied or not, does not have to be legally admissible for it to still carry the connotation of "do not do X". Do you not understand? I don't understand why you are talking about implied or not implied orders when there isn't even an order to begin with. Dispatcher was giving an advice.
It was an implied order in the form of a recommendation. Considering the following scenario: my friend is drunk, and in his stupor, he is considering pouring his drink on a TV screen to "see what a rainbow looks like"; I get his attention, look him in the eyes, and tell him "You shouldn't do that".
In this situation the "order" is being presented as a recommendation, but is still an implied order. In any situation where common sense dictates that something dangerous is being done and the observer actively disagrees with it, if it suggested that action X not be done, it is less of a suggestion and more of a polite order. This is a matter of simple deductive reasoning.
Corollary: Playing word games and hiding beyond technicalities and "Devil's Proofs" won't conceal the dispatcher's obvious intention with the statement.
On July 15 2013 03:49 city42 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 03:23 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 03:18 city42 wrote:On July 15 2013 03:13 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 03:09 city42 wrote:On July 15 2013 02:59 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Dispatchers are a part of the police, and he disobeyed the order to not pursue, and to not get out of his car. You don't have to have legal authority to issue an order as member of a policing-organization.
What the fuck, did you watch the case at all? The dispatcher testified in court and specifically said that he can only give "suggestions," and not orders, because he can be found directly liable if he gives orders and something bad happens. Dispatchers are also not police officers. It's mind-blowing how people think they can comment on the case without having followed it. Excuse my language but the stupidity here is overflowing. Dispatchers, just like anyone else, can issue orders; in this situation it was a personal one as Zimmerman was overstepping his bounds. If I order my girlfriend to get off my computer it doesn't mean I have legal authority over her. In his testimony, Noffke said he didn’t order Zimmerman to stop. Dispatchers don’t issue such orders because of liability issues, he said. Please provide concrete evidence that George Zimmerman disobeyed a police order not to pursue. Actually, you're probably doing this on purpose to make people angry, so I shouldn't get caught up in it anymore. The dispatcher recommended Zimmerman not to pursue on transcript, however this was definitely a polite order in casual form saying "Do not do this as you're overstepping your bounds" and not a "We don't need you to do that, but if you really want to I think it would be okay". An order, implied or not, does not have to be legally admissible for it to still carry the connotation of "do not do X".Know that playing word games won't conceal the dispatcher's obvious intention with the statement. Connotation is subjective, and no one really cares what your interpretation of the dispatcher's statement is. This was your original post: Show nested quote +Trayvon was defending himself, as the person who was pursuing him made no signs of stopping, even directly disobeying police orders, and had a dangerous weapon. He did not directly disobey a police order. Stop saying he did.
Yes he did. It was just non-admissible as there was no legal authority involved.
|
On July 14 2013 23:29 Krohm wrote:
One of my very liberal (and stupid) friends said this this morning.
"fucker got away with rape too
so done with the judicial system~~~"
I am unable to find any source that indicates he got away with "rape".
he allegedly molested a family member.
|
I wonder if Zimmerman will try to sue media channels? He should IMO, maybe he could get O'Mara back so he can be paid by all the settlements.
1) Huffington Post for the Not Guilty* and yellow journalism which has no fairness, even trying to disgrace George's brother for defending GZ.
2) CNN for senselessly posting GZ's social security number which will cause harm and damages to GZ.
3) MSNBC for going on a witchhunt and being responsible for smearing GZ irresponsibly.
|
On July 15 2013 04:03 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 03:45 SKC wrote:On July 15 2013 03:42 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 03:30 phoenix`down wrote:On July 15 2013 03:23 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 03:16 Esk23 wrote:On July 15 2013 03:13 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 03:09 city42 wrote:On July 15 2013 02:59 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Dispatchers are a part of the police, and he disobeyed the order to not pursue, and to not get out of his car. You don't have to have legal authority to issue an order as member of a policing-organization.
What the fuck, did you watch the case at all? The dispatcher testified in court and specifically said that he can only give "suggestions," and not orders, because he can be found directly liable if he gives orders and something bad happens. Dispatchers are also not police officers. It's mind-blowing how people think they can comment on the case without having followed it. Excuse my language but the stupidity here is overflowing. Dispatchers, just like anyone else, can issue orders; in this situation it was a personal one as Zimmerman was overstepping his bounds. If I order my girlfriend to get off my computer it doesn't mean I have legal authority over her. Oh god just stop already. If you really care about knowing the truth or what really happened stop voicing your useless and unfounded opinion on the internet and go watch the trial. If you don't have an argument it's more productive to take a breather and come up with something instead of just outright crying. On July 15 2013 03:18 city42 wrote:On July 15 2013 03:13 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 03:09 city42 wrote:On July 15 2013 02:59 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Dispatchers are a part of the police, and he disobeyed the order to not pursue, and to not get out of his car. You don't have to have legal authority to issue an order as member of a policing-organization.
What the fuck, did you watch the case at all? The dispatcher testified in court and specifically said that he can only give "suggestions," and not orders, because he can be found directly liable if he gives orders and something bad happens. Dispatchers are also not police officers. It's mind-blowing how people think they can comment on the case without having followed it. Excuse my language but the stupidity here is overflowing. Dispatchers, just like anyone else, can issue orders; in this situation it was a personal one as Zimmerman was overstepping his bounds. If I order my girlfriend to get off my computer it doesn't mean I have legal authority over her. In his testimony, Noffke said he didn’t order Zimmerman to stop. Dispatchers don’t issue such orders because of liability issues, he said. Please provide concrete evidence that George Zimmerman disobeyed a police order not to pursue. Actually, you're probably doing this on purpose to make people angry, so I shouldn't get caught up in it anymore. The dispatcher recommended Zimmerman not to pursue on transcript, however this was definitely a polite order in casual form saying "Do not do this as you're overstepping your bounds" and not a "We don't need you to do that, but if you really want to I think it would be okay". An order, implied or not, does not have to be legally admissible for it to still carry the connotation of "do not do X".Know that playing word games won't conceal the dispatcher's obvious intention with the statement. That is all great, except the dispatcher's intent is open for interpretation. When I read it, I interpret it as, "You don't need to go out of your way to do that." And since George Zimmerman has said he was only trying to find a street name, not pursue Trayvon, then it doesn't matter anyway. When Zimmerman said "he was only trying to find a street name" he was lying (transcripts also contradict this) similar to how he was also lying in his court statement about him assuming that Trayvon was only slightly younger than him as conversation transcripts from the night prove that he said Trayvon looked "late leens" even from a distance. On July 15 2013 03:32 Geiko wrote:On July 15 2013 03:23 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 03:16 Esk23 wrote:On July 15 2013 03:13 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 03:09 city42 wrote:On July 15 2013 02:59 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Dispatchers are a part of the police, and he disobeyed the order to not pursue, and to not get out of his car. You don't have to have legal authority to issue an order as member of a policing-organization.
What the fuck, did you watch the case at all? The dispatcher testified in court and specifically said that he can only give "suggestions," and not orders, because he can be found directly liable if he gives orders and something bad happens. Dispatchers are also not police officers. It's mind-blowing how people think they can comment on the case without having followed it. Excuse my language but the stupidity here is overflowing. Dispatchers, just like anyone else, can issue orders; in this situation it was a personal one as Zimmerman was overstepping his bounds. If I order my girlfriend to get off my computer it doesn't mean I have legal authority over her. Oh god just stop already. If you really care about knowing the truth or what really happened stop voicing your useless and unfounded opinion on the internet and go watch the trial. If you don't have an argument it's more productive to take a breather and come up with something instead of just outright crying about what I said. On July 15 2013 03:18 city42 wrote:On July 15 2013 03:13 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 03:09 city42 wrote:On July 15 2013 02:59 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Dispatchers are a part of the police, and he disobeyed the order to not pursue, and to not get out of his car. You don't have to have legal authority to issue an order as member of a policing-organization.
What the fuck, did you watch the case at all? The dispatcher testified in court and specifically said that he can only give "suggestions," and not orders, because he can be found directly liable if he gives orders and something bad happens. Dispatchers are also not police officers. It's mind-blowing how people think they can comment on the case without having followed it. Excuse my language but the stupidity here is overflowing. Dispatchers, just like anyone else, can issue orders; in this situation it was a personal one as Zimmerman was overstepping his bounds. If I order my girlfriend to get off my computer it doesn't mean I have legal authority over her. In his testimony, Noffke said he didn’t order Zimmerman to stop. Dispatchers don’t issue such orders because of liability issues, he said. Please provide concrete evidence that George Zimmerman disobeyed a police order not to pursue. Actually, you're probably doing this on purpose to make people angry, so I shouldn't get caught up in it anymore. The dispatcher recommended Zimmerman not to pursue on transcript, however this was definitely a polite order in casual form saying "Do not do this as you're overstepping your bounds" and not a "We don't need you to do that, but if you really want to I think it would be okay". An order, implied or not, does not have to be legally admissible for it to still carry the connotation of "do not do X".Know that playing word games won't conceal the dispatcher's obvious intention with the statement. Excuse me, what part of In his testimony, Noffke said he didn’t order Zimmerman to stop. Dispatchers don’t issue such orders because of liability issues, he said. don't you understand ? The dispatcher said it himself, he wasn't giving an order... Geez. Excuse me. What part of: On July 15 2013 03:13 DemigodcelpH wrote: An order, implied or not, does not have to be legally admissible for it to still carry the connotation of "do not do X". Do you not understand? Citation needed, since you like to do that kind of stuff. There is no definitive proof that Zimmermann wasn't looking for an adress. The prosecution couldn't debunk that statement, I doubt you can. Stating that Zimmerman was just looking for an address is a lie attempted to imply that he was not following Tray. Therefore: Means that either he wasn't looking for an address, or that he was looking for an address and stalking someone — either way the purpose of the lie is destroyed by Zimmerman's own words. Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 03:45 Geiko wrote:On July 15 2013 03:42 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 03:30 phoenix`down wrote:On July 15 2013 03:23 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 03:16 Esk23 wrote:On July 15 2013 03:13 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 03:09 city42 wrote:On July 15 2013 02:59 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Dispatchers are a part of the police, and he disobeyed the order to not pursue, and to not get out of his car. You don't have to have legal authority to issue an order as member of a policing-organization.
What the fuck, did you watch the case at all? The dispatcher testified in court and specifically said that he can only give "suggestions," and not orders, because he can be found directly liable if he gives orders and something bad happens. Dispatchers are also not police officers. It's mind-blowing how people think they can comment on the case without having followed it. Excuse my language but the stupidity here is overflowing. Dispatchers, just like anyone else, can issue orders; in this situation it was a personal one as Zimmerman was overstepping his bounds. If I order my girlfriend to get off my computer it doesn't mean I have legal authority over her. Oh god just stop already. If you really care about knowing the truth or what really happened stop voicing your useless and unfounded opinion on the internet and go watch the trial. If you don't have an argument it's more productive to take a breather and come up with something instead of just outright crying. On July 15 2013 03:18 city42 wrote:On July 15 2013 03:13 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 03:09 city42 wrote:On July 15 2013 02:59 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Dispatchers are a part of the police, and he disobeyed the order to not pursue, and to not get out of his car. You don't have to have legal authority to issue an order as member of a policing-organization.
What the fuck, did you watch the case at all? The dispatcher testified in court and specifically said that he can only give "suggestions," and not orders, because he can be found directly liable if he gives orders and something bad happens. Dispatchers are also not police officers. It's mind-blowing how people think they can comment on the case without having followed it. Excuse my language but the stupidity here is overflowing. Dispatchers, just like anyone else, can issue orders; in this situation it was a personal one as Zimmerman was overstepping his bounds. If I order my girlfriend to get off my computer it doesn't mean I have legal authority over her. In his testimony, Noffke said he didn’t order Zimmerman to stop. Dispatchers don’t issue such orders because of liability issues, he said. Please provide concrete evidence that George Zimmerman disobeyed a police order not to pursue. Actually, you're probably doing this on purpose to make people angry, so I shouldn't get caught up in it anymore. The dispatcher recommended Zimmerman not to pursue on transcript, however this was definitely a polite order in casual form saying "Do not do this as you're overstepping your bounds" and not a "We don't need you to do that, but if you really want to I think it would be okay". An order, implied or not, does not have to be legally admissible for it to still carry the connotation of "do not do X".Know that playing word games won't conceal the dispatcher's obvious intention with the statement. That is all great, except the dispatcher's intent is open for interpretation. When I read it, I interpret it as, "You don't need to go out of your way to do that." And since George Zimmerman has said he was only trying to find a street name, not pursue Trayvon, then it doesn't matter anyway. When Zimmerman said "he was only trying to find a street name" he was lying (transcripts also contradict this) similar to how he was also lying in his court statement about him assuming that Trayvon was only slightly younger than him as conversation transcripts from the night prove that he said Trayvon looked "late leens" even from a distance. On July 15 2013 03:32 Geiko wrote:On July 15 2013 03:23 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 03:16 Esk23 wrote:On July 15 2013 03:13 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 03:09 city42 wrote:On July 15 2013 02:59 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Dispatchers are a part of the police, and he disobeyed the order to not pursue, and to not get out of his car. You don't have to have legal authority to issue an order as member of a policing-organization.
What the fuck, did you watch the case at all? The dispatcher testified in court and specifically said that he can only give "suggestions," and not orders, because he can be found directly liable if he gives orders and something bad happens. Dispatchers are also not police officers. It's mind-blowing how people think they can comment on the case without having followed it. Excuse my language but the stupidity here is overflowing. Dispatchers, just like anyone else, can issue orders; in this situation it was a personal one as Zimmerman was overstepping his bounds. If I order my girlfriend to get off my computer it doesn't mean I have legal authority over her. Oh god just stop already. If you really care about knowing the truth or what really happened stop voicing your useless and unfounded opinion on the internet and go watch the trial. If you don't have an argument it's more productive to take a breather and come up with something instead of just outright crying about what I said. On July 15 2013 03:18 city42 wrote:On July 15 2013 03:13 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 03:09 city42 wrote:On July 15 2013 02:59 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Dispatchers are a part of the police, and he disobeyed the order to not pursue, and to not get out of his car. You don't have to have legal authority to issue an order as member of a policing-organization.
What the fuck, did you watch the case at all? The dispatcher testified in court and specifically said that he can only give "suggestions," and not orders, because he can be found directly liable if he gives orders and something bad happens. Dispatchers are also not police officers. It's mind-blowing how people think they can comment on the case without having followed it. Excuse my language but the stupidity here is overflowing. Dispatchers, just like anyone else, can issue orders; in this situation it was a personal one as Zimmerman was overstepping his bounds. If I order my girlfriend to get off my computer it doesn't mean I have legal authority over her. In his testimony, Noffke said he didn’t order Zimmerman to stop. Dispatchers don’t issue such orders because of liability issues, he said. Please provide concrete evidence that George Zimmerman disobeyed a police order not to pursue. Actually, you're probably doing this on purpose to make people angry, so I shouldn't get caught up in it anymore. The dispatcher recommended Zimmerman not to pursue on transcript, however this was definitely a polite order in casual form saying "Do not do this as you're overstepping your bounds" and not a "We don't need you to do that, but if you really want to I think it would be okay". An order, implied or not, does not have to be legally admissible for it to still carry the connotation of "do not do X".Know that playing word games won't conceal the dispatcher's obvious intention with the statement. Excuse me, what part of In his testimony, Noffke said he didn’t order Zimmerman to stop. Dispatchers don’t issue such orders because of liability issues, he said. don't you understand ? The dispatcher said it himself, he wasn't giving an order... Geez. Excuse me. What part of: On July 15 2013 03:13 DemigodcelpH wrote: An order, implied or not, does not have to be legally admissible for it to still carry the connotation of "do not do X". Do you not understand? I don't understand why you are talking about implied or not implied orders when there isn't even an order to begin with. Dispatcher was giving an advice. It was an implied order in the form of a recommendation. Considering the following scenario: my friend is drunk, and in his stupor, he is considering pouring his drink on a TV screen to "see what a rainbow looks like"; I get his attention, look him in the eyes, and tell him "You shouldn't do that". In this situation the "order" is being presented as a recommendation, but is still an implied order. In any situation where common sense dictates that something dangerous is being done and the observer actively disagrees with it, if it suggested that action X not be done, it is less of a suggestion and more of a polite order. This is a matter of simple deductive reasoning.Corollary: Playing word games and hiding beyond technicalities and "Devil's Proofs" won't conceal the dispatcher's obvious intention with the statement.Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 03:49 city42 wrote:On July 15 2013 03:23 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 03:18 city42 wrote:On July 15 2013 03:13 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 03:09 city42 wrote:On July 15 2013 02:59 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Dispatchers are a part of the police, and he disobeyed the order to not pursue, and to not get out of his car. You don't have to have legal authority to issue an order as member of a policing-organization.
What the fuck, did you watch the case at all? The dispatcher testified in court and specifically said that he can only give "suggestions," and not orders, because he can be found directly liable if he gives orders and something bad happens. Dispatchers are also not police officers. It's mind-blowing how people think they can comment on the case without having followed it. Excuse my language but the stupidity here is overflowing. Dispatchers, just like anyone else, can issue orders; in this situation it was a personal one as Zimmerman was overstepping his bounds. If I order my girlfriend to get off my computer it doesn't mean I have legal authority over her. In his testimony, Noffke said he didn’t order Zimmerman to stop. Dispatchers don’t issue such orders because of liability issues, he said. Please provide concrete evidence that George Zimmerman disobeyed a police order not to pursue. Actually, you're probably doing this on purpose to make people angry, so I shouldn't get caught up in it anymore. The dispatcher recommended Zimmerman not to pursue on transcript, however this was definitely a polite order in casual form saying "Do not do this as you're overstepping your bounds" and not a "We don't need you to do that, but if you really want to I think it would be okay". An order, implied or not, does not have to be legally admissible for it to still carry the connotation of "do not do X".Know that playing word games won't conceal the dispatcher's obvious intention with the statement. Connotation is subjective, and no one really cares what your interpretation of the dispatcher's statement is. This was your original post: Trayvon was defending himself, as the person who was pursuing him made no signs of stopping, even directly disobeying police orders, and had a dangerous weapon. He did not directly disobey a police order. Stop saying he did. Yes he did. It was just non-admissible as there was no legal authority involved.
He lost Martin after talking to the dispatcher. He also went to look for the adress after that sentence. It doesn't prove he is lying.
|
On July 15 2013 04:03 DemigodcelpH wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 15 2013 03:45 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 03:42 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 03:30 phoenix`down wrote:On July 15 2013 03:23 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 03:16 Esk23 wrote:On July 15 2013 03:13 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 03:09 city42 wrote:On July 15 2013 02:59 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Dispatchers are a part of the police, and he disobeyed the order to not pursue, and to not get out of his car. You don't have to have legal authority to issue an order as member of a policing-organization.
What the fuck, did you watch the case at all? The dispatcher testified in court and specifically said that he can only give "suggestions," and not orders, because he can be found directly liable if he gives orders and something bad happens. Dispatchers are also not police officers. It's mind-blowing how people think they can comment on the case without having followed it. Excuse my language but the stupidity here is overflowing. Dispatchers, just like anyone else, can issue orders; in this situation it was a personal one as Zimmerman was overstepping his bounds. If I order my girlfriend to get off my computer it doesn't mean I have legal authority over her. Oh god just stop already. If you really care about knowing the truth or what really happened stop voicing your useless and unfounded opinion on the internet and go watch the trial. If you don't have an argument it's more productive to take a breather and come up with something instead of just outright crying. On July 15 2013 03:18 city42 wrote:On July 15 2013 03:13 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 03:09 city42 wrote:On July 15 2013 02:59 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Dispatchers are a part of the police, and he disobeyed the order to not pursue, and to not get out of his car. You don't have to have legal authority to issue an order as member of a policing-organization.
What the fuck, did you watch the case at all? The dispatcher testified in court and specifically said that he can only give "suggestions," and not orders, because he can be found directly liable if he gives orders and something bad happens. Dispatchers are also not police officers. It's mind-blowing how people think they can comment on the case without having followed it. Excuse my language but the stupidity here is overflowing. Dispatchers, just like anyone else, can issue orders; in this situation it was a personal one as Zimmerman was overstepping his bounds. If I order my girlfriend to get off my computer it doesn't mean I have legal authority over her. In his testimony, Noffke said he didn’t order Zimmerman to stop. Dispatchers don’t issue such orders because of liability issues, he said. Please provide concrete evidence that George Zimmerman disobeyed a police order not to pursue. Actually, you're probably doing this on purpose to make people angry, so I shouldn't get caught up in it anymore. The dispatcher recommended Zimmerman not to pursue on transcript, however this was definitely a polite order in casual form saying "Do not do this as you're overstepping your bounds" and not a "We don't need you to do that, but if you really want to I think it would be okay". An order, implied or not, does not have to be legally admissible for it to still carry the connotation of "do not do X".Know that playing word games won't conceal the dispatcher's obvious intention with the statement. That is all great, except the dispatcher's intent is open for interpretation. When I read it, I interpret it as, "You don't need to go out of your way to do that." And since George Zimmerman has said he was only trying to find a street name, not pursue Trayvon, then it doesn't matter anyway. When Zimmerman said "he was only trying to find a street name" he was lying (transcripts also contradict this) similar to how he was also lying in his court statement about him assuming that Trayvon was only slightly younger than him as conversation transcripts from the night prove that he said Trayvon looked "late leens" even from a distance. On July 15 2013 03:32 Geiko wrote:On July 15 2013 03:23 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 03:16 Esk23 wrote:On July 15 2013 03:13 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 03:09 city42 wrote:On July 15 2013 02:59 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Dispatchers are a part of the police, and he disobeyed the order to not pursue, and to not get out of his car. You don't have to have legal authority to issue an order as member of a policing-organization.
What the fuck, did you watch the case at all? The dispatcher testified in court and specifically said that he can only give "suggestions," and not orders, because he can be found directly liable if he gives orders and something bad happens. Dispatchers are also not police officers. It's mind-blowing how people think they can comment on the case without having followed it. Excuse my language but the stupidity here is overflowing. Dispatchers, just like anyone else, can issue orders; in this situation it was a personal one as Zimmerman was overstepping his bounds. If I order my girlfriend to get off my computer it doesn't mean I have legal authority over her. Oh god just stop already. If you really care about knowing the truth or what really happened stop voicing your useless and unfounded opinion on the internet and go watch the trial. If you don't have an argument it's more productive to take a breather and come up with something instead of just outright crying about what I said. On July 15 2013 03:18 city42 wrote:On July 15 2013 03:13 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 03:09 city42 wrote:On July 15 2013 02:59 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Dispatchers are a part of the police, and he disobeyed the order to not pursue, and to not get out of his car. You don't have to have legal authority to issue an order as member of a policing-organization.
What the fuck, did you watch the case at all? The dispatcher testified in court and specifically said that he can only give "suggestions," and not orders, because he can be found directly liable if he gives orders and something bad happens. Dispatchers are also not police officers. It's mind-blowing how people think they can comment on the case without having followed it. Excuse my language but the stupidity here is overflowing. Dispatchers, just like anyone else, can issue orders; in this situation it was a personal one as Zimmerman was overstepping his bounds. If I order my girlfriend to get off my computer it doesn't mean I have legal authority over her. In his testimony, Noffke said he didn’t order Zimmerman to stop. Dispatchers don’t issue such orders because of liability issues, he said. Please provide concrete evidence that George Zimmerman disobeyed a police order not to pursue. Actually, you're probably doing this on purpose to make people angry, so I shouldn't get caught up in it anymore. The dispatcher recommended Zimmerman not to pursue on transcript, however this was definitely a polite order in casual form saying "Do not do this as you're overstepping your bounds" and not a "We don't need you to do that, but if you really want to I think it would be okay". An order, implied or not, does not have to be legally admissible for it to still carry the connotation of "do not do X".Know that playing word games won't conceal the dispatcher's obvious intention with the statement. Excuse me, what part of In his testimony, Noffke said he didn’t order Zimmerman to stop. Dispatchers don’t issue such orders because of liability issues, he said. don't you understand ? The dispatcher said it himself, he wasn't giving an order... Geez. Excuse me. What part of: On July 15 2013 03:13 DemigodcelpH wrote: An order, implied or not, does not have to be legally admissible for it to still carry the connotation of "do not do X". Do you not understand? Citation needed, since you like to do that kind of stuff. There is no definitive proof that Zimmermann wasn't looking for an adress. The prosecution couldn't debunk that statement, I doubt you can. Stating that Zimmerman was just looking for an address is a lie attempted to imply that he was not following Tray. Therefore: Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah. Means that either he wasn't looking for an address, or that he was looking for an address and stalking someone — either way the purpose of the lie is destroyed by Zimmerman's own words. On July 15 2013 03:45 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 03:42 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 03:30 phoenix`down wrote:On July 15 2013 03:23 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 03:16 Esk23 wrote:On July 15 2013 03:13 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 03:09 city42 wrote:On July 15 2013 02:59 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Dispatchers are a part of the police, and he disobeyed the order to not pursue, and to not get out of his car. You don't have to have legal authority to issue an order as member of a policing-organization.
What the fuck, did you watch the case at all? The dispatcher testified in court and specifically said that he can only give "suggestions," and not orders, because he can be found directly liable if he gives orders and something bad happens. Dispatchers are also not police officers. It's mind-blowing how people think they can comment on the case without having followed it. Excuse my language but the stupidity here is overflowing. Dispatchers, just like anyone else, can issue orders; in this situation it was a personal one as Zimmerman was overstepping his bounds. If I order my girlfriend to get off my computer it doesn't mean I have legal authority over her. Oh god just stop already. If you really care about knowing the truth or what really happened stop voicing your useless and unfounded opinion on the internet and go watch the trial. If you don't have an argument it's more productive to take a breather and come up with something instead of just outright crying. On July 15 2013 03:18 city42 wrote:On July 15 2013 03:13 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 03:09 city42 wrote:On July 15 2013 02:59 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Dispatchers are a part of the police, and he disobeyed the order to not pursue, and to not get out of his car. You don't have to have legal authority to issue an order as member of a policing-organization.
What the fuck, did you watch the case at all? The dispatcher testified in court and specifically said that he can only give "suggestions," and not orders, because he can be found directly liable if he gives orders and something bad happens. Dispatchers are also not police officers. It's mind-blowing how people think they can comment on the case without having followed it. Excuse my language but the stupidity here is overflowing. Dispatchers, just like anyone else, can issue orders; in this situation it was a personal one as Zimmerman was overstepping his bounds. If I order my girlfriend to get off my computer it doesn't mean I have legal authority over her. In his testimony, Noffke said he didn’t order Zimmerman to stop. Dispatchers don’t issue such orders because of liability issues, he said. Please provide concrete evidence that George Zimmerman disobeyed a police order not to pursue. Actually, you're probably doing this on purpose to make people angry, so I shouldn't get caught up in it anymore. The dispatcher recommended Zimmerman not to pursue on transcript, however this was definitely a polite order in casual form saying "Do not do this as you're overstepping your bounds" and not a "We don't need you to do that, but if you really want to I think it would be okay". An order, implied or not, does not have to be legally admissible for it to still carry the connotation of "do not do X".Know that playing word games won't conceal the dispatcher's obvious intention with the statement. That is all great, except the dispatcher's intent is open for interpretation. When I read it, I interpret it as, "You don't need to go out of your way to do that." And since George Zimmerman has said he was only trying to find a street name, not pursue Trayvon, then it doesn't matter anyway. When Zimmerman said "he was only trying to find a street name" he was lying (transcripts also contradict this) similar to how he was also lying in his court statement about him assuming that Trayvon was only slightly younger than him as conversation transcripts from the night prove that he said Trayvon looked "late leens" even from a distance. On July 15 2013 03:32 Geiko wrote:On July 15 2013 03:23 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 03:16 Esk23 wrote:On July 15 2013 03:13 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 03:09 city42 wrote:On July 15 2013 02:59 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Dispatchers are a part of the police, and he disobeyed the order to not pursue, and to not get out of his car. You don't have to have legal authority to issue an order as member of a policing-organization.
What the fuck, did you watch the case at all? The dispatcher testified in court and specifically said that he can only give "suggestions," and not orders, because he can be found directly liable if he gives orders and something bad happens. Dispatchers are also not police officers. It's mind-blowing how people think they can comment on the case without having followed it. Excuse my language but the stupidity here is overflowing. Dispatchers, just like anyone else, can issue orders; in this situation it was a personal one as Zimmerman was overstepping his bounds. If I order my girlfriend to get off my computer it doesn't mean I have legal authority over her. Oh god just stop already. If you really care about knowing the truth or what really happened stop voicing your useless and unfounded opinion on the internet and go watch the trial. If you don't have an argument it's more productive to take a breather and come up with something instead of just outright crying about what I said. On July 15 2013 03:18 city42 wrote:On July 15 2013 03:13 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 03:09 city42 wrote:On July 15 2013 02:59 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Dispatchers are a part of the police, and he disobeyed the order to not pursue, and to not get out of his car. You don't have to have legal authority to issue an order as member of a policing-organization.
What the fuck, did you watch the case at all? The dispatcher testified in court and specifically said that he can only give "suggestions," and not orders, because he can be found directly liable if he gives orders and something bad happens. Dispatchers are also not police officers. It's mind-blowing how people think they can comment on the case without having followed it. Excuse my language but the stupidity here is overflowing. Dispatchers, just like anyone else, can issue orders; in this situation it was a personal one as Zimmerman was overstepping his bounds. If I order my girlfriend to get off my computer it doesn't mean I have legal authority over her. In his testimony, Noffke said he didn’t order Zimmerman to stop. Dispatchers don’t issue such orders because of liability issues, he said. Please provide concrete evidence that George Zimmerman disobeyed a police order not to pursue. Actually, you're probably doing this on purpose to make people angry, so I shouldn't get caught up in it anymore. The dispatcher recommended Zimmerman not to pursue on transcript, however this was definitely a polite order in casual form saying "Do not do this as you're overstepping your bounds" and not a "We don't need you to do that, but if you really want to I think it would be okay". An order, implied or not, does not have to be legally admissible for it to still carry the connotation of "do not do X".Know that playing word games won't conceal the dispatcher's obvious intention with the statement. Excuse me, what part of In his testimony, Noffke said he didn’t order Zimmerman to stop. Dispatchers don’t issue such orders because of liability issues, he said. don't you understand ? The dispatcher said it himself, he wasn't giving an order... Geez. Excuse me. What part of: On July 15 2013 03:13 DemigodcelpH wrote: An order, implied or not, does not have to be legally admissible for it to still carry the connotation of "do not do X". Do you not understand? I don't understand why you are talking about implied or not implied orders when there isn't even an order to begin with. Dispatcher was giving an advice. It was an implied order in the form of a recommendation. Considering the following scenario: my friend is drunk, and in his stupor, he is considering pouring his drink on a TV screen to "see what a rainbow looks like"; I get his attention, look him in the eyes, and tell him "You shouldn't do that". In this situation the "order" is being presented as a recommendation, but is still an implied order. In any situation where common sense dictates that something dangerous is being done and the observer actively disagrees with it, if it suggested that action X not be done, it is less of a suggestion and more of a polite order. This is a matter of simple deductive reasoning.Corollary: Playing word games and hiding beyond technicalities and "Devil's Proofs" won't conceal the dispatcher's obvious intention with the statement.On July 15 2013 03:49 city42 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 03:23 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 03:18 city42 wrote:On July 15 2013 03:13 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 03:09 city42 wrote:On July 15 2013 02:59 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Dispatchers are a part of the police, and he disobeyed the order to not pursue, and to not get out of his car. You don't have to have legal authority to issue an order as member of a policing-organization.
What the fuck, did you watch the case at all? The dispatcher testified in court and specifically said that he can only give "suggestions," and not orders, because he can be found directly liable if he gives orders and something bad happens. Dispatchers are also not police officers. It's mind-blowing how people think they can comment on the case without having followed it. Excuse my language but the stupidity here is overflowing. Dispatchers, just like anyone else, can issue orders; in this situation it was a personal one as Zimmerman was overstepping his bounds. If I order my girlfriend to get off my computer it doesn't mean I have legal authority over her. In his testimony, Noffke said he didn’t order Zimmerman to stop. Dispatchers don’t issue such orders because of liability issues, he said. Please provide concrete evidence that George Zimmerman disobeyed a police order not to pursue. Actually, you're probably doing this on purpose to make people angry, so I shouldn't get caught up in it anymore. The dispatcher recommended Zimmerman not to pursue on transcript, however this was definitely a polite order in casual form saying "Do not do this as you're overstepping your bounds" and not a "We don't need you to do that, but if you really want to I think it would be okay". An order, implied or not, does not have to be legally admissible for it to still carry the connotation of "do not do X".Know that playing word games won't conceal the dispatcher's obvious intention with the statement. Connotation is subjective, and no one really cares what your interpretation of the dispatcher's statement is. This was your original post: Show nested quote +Trayvon was defending himself, as the person who was pursuing him made no signs of stopping, even directly disobeying police orders, and had a dangerous weapon. He did not directly disobey a police order. Stop saying he did. Yes he did. It was just non-admissible as there was no legal authority involved.
What part of stop using the word order do you not understand?
If the person who made the recommendation specifically said his recommendation was not an order, you calling it an order and attempting to justify your use of the word is really just going to upset people. You're the only person playing word games here.
It wasn't an order. Get over it.
On July 15 2013 04:03 karpotoss wrote:
So does this case changed your view on the media, fellow TL users?
nope
|
On July 15 2013 04:02 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 04:00 TheRabidDeer wrote:
I am most disappointed that they prosecuted for 2nd degree murder. I cant understand why they thought they had the evidence for that much.
Can anybody explain to me why they didnt go for negligent manslaughter or if there was a case for that? There was no case for that. He was acquited because of self defense, which protects him from manslaughter charges as well. Perhaps if the prosecution had argued for manslaughter their case would have been more compelling, but the jury did consider manslaughther charges and found him innocent.
That just makes no sense for me, he was negligent. He ignored sound advice from the dispatcher, he was trying to be a police officer so he should've been aware of the dangers of his actions. Him being found not guilty of negligent manslaughter even seems like it opens up a whole new door for harassment and murder.
|
On July 15 2013 04:09 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 04:02 SKC wrote:On July 15 2013 04:00 TheRabidDeer wrote:
I am most disappointed that they prosecuted for 2nd degree murder. I cant understand why they thought they had the evidence for that much.
Can anybody explain to me why they didnt go for negligent manslaughter or if there was a case for that? There was no case for that. He was acquited because of self defense, which protects him from manslaughter charges as well. Perhaps if the prosecution had argued for manslaughter their case would have been more compelling, but the jury did consider manslaughther charges and found him innocent. That just makes no sense for me, he was negligent. He ignored sound advice from the dispatcher, he was trying to be a police officer so he should've been aware of the dangers of his actions. Him being found not guilty of negligent manslaughter even seems like it opens up a whole new door for harassment and murder.
There was no proof he was "trying to be a police officer", whatever that is supposed to mean in legal terms, and ignoring sound advice is not illegal, else we would have a lot more people behind bars. There is a difference between being negligent and criminally negligent. There are laws regarding what negligent manslaughter actually is.
|
On July 15 2013 04:03 DemigodcelpH wrote:Yes he did. It was just non-admissible as there was no legal authority involved.
Sorry, did you miss the part where a dispatcher is not a member of the police? It is a non-sworn civilian position. Saying that he disobeyed a police order is factually untrue, even if your subjective interpretation of a "suggestion" as an "order" is taken as fact.
|
On July 15 2013 04:03 karpotoss wrote:
So does this case changed your view on the media, fellow TL users?
Yes, the liberal media is just sad with all the manipulation etc. even faking audio tapes in order to make him look guilty.
Hell even the fucking president thought he had to comment on this in Trayvons favour only because both are black...
And never mind the "race war" the media tried to push, even tho Zimmerman is actually hispanic and not white
I really hope Z sues the fuck out of NBC and huffpo
|
On July 15 2013 04:09 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 04:03 DemigodcelpH wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 15 2013 03:45 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 03:42 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 03:30 phoenix`down wrote:On July 15 2013 03:23 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 03:16 Esk23 wrote:On July 15 2013 03:13 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 03:09 city42 wrote:On July 15 2013 02:59 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Dispatchers are a part of the police, and he disobeyed the order to not pursue, and to not get out of his car. You don't have to have legal authority to issue an order as member of a policing-organization.
What the fuck, did you watch the case at all? The dispatcher testified in court and specifically said that he can only give "suggestions," and not orders, because he can be found directly liable if he gives orders and something bad happens. Dispatchers are also not police officers. It's mind-blowing how people think they can comment on the case without having followed it. Excuse my language but the stupidity here is overflowing. Dispatchers, just like anyone else, can issue orders; in this situation it was a personal one as Zimmerman was overstepping his bounds. If I order my girlfriend to get off my computer it doesn't mean I have legal authority over her. Oh god just stop already. If you really care about knowing the truth or what really happened stop voicing your useless and unfounded opinion on the internet and go watch the trial. If you don't have an argument it's more productive to take a breather and come up with something instead of just outright crying. On July 15 2013 03:18 city42 wrote:On July 15 2013 03:13 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 03:09 city42 wrote:On July 15 2013 02:59 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Dispatchers are a part of the police, and he disobeyed the order to not pursue, and to not get out of his car. You don't have to have legal authority to issue an order as member of a policing-organization.
What the fuck, did you watch the case at all? The dispatcher testified in court and specifically said that he can only give "suggestions," and not orders, because he can be found directly liable if he gives orders and something bad happens. Dispatchers are also not police officers. It's mind-blowing how people think they can comment on the case without having followed it. Excuse my language but the stupidity here is overflowing. Dispatchers, just like anyone else, can issue orders; in this situation it was a personal one as Zimmerman was overstepping his bounds. If I order my girlfriend to get off my computer it doesn't mean I have legal authority over her. In his testimony, Noffke said he didn’t order Zimmerman to stop. Dispatchers don’t issue such orders because of liability issues, he said. Please provide concrete evidence that George Zimmerman disobeyed a police order not to pursue. Actually, you're probably doing this on purpose to make people angry, so I shouldn't get caught up in it anymore. The dispatcher recommended Zimmerman not to pursue on transcript, however this was definitely a polite order in casual form saying "Do not do this as you're overstepping your bounds" and not a "We don't need you to do that, but if you really want to I think it would be okay". An order, implied or not, does not have to be legally admissible for it to still carry the connotation of "do not do X".Know that playing word games won't conceal the dispatcher's obvious intention with the statement. That is all great, except the dispatcher's intent is open for interpretation. When I read it, I interpret it as, "You don't need to go out of your way to do that." And since George Zimmerman has said he was only trying to find a street name, not pursue Trayvon, then it doesn't matter anyway. When Zimmerman said "he was only trying to find a street name" he was lying (transcripts also contradict this) similar to how he was also lying in his court statement about him assuming that Trayvon was only slightly younger than him as conversation transcripts from the night prove that he said Trayvon looked "late leens" even from a distance. On July 15 2013 03:32 Geiko wrote:On July 15 2013 03:23 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 03:16 Esk23 wrote:On July 15 2013 03:13 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 03:09 city42 wrote:On July 15 2013 02:59 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Dispatchers are a part of the police, and he disobeyed the order to not pursue, and to not get out of his car. You don't have to have legal authority to issue an order as member of a policing-organization.
What the fuck, did you watch the case at all? The dispatcher testified in court and specifically said that he can only give "suggestions," and not orders, because he can be found directly liable if he gives orders and something bad happens. Dispatchers are also not police officers. It's mind-blowing how people think they can comment on the case without having followed it. Excuse my language but the stupidity here is overflowing. Dispatchers, just like anyone else, can issue orders; in this situation it was a personal one as Zimmerman was overstepping his bounds. If I order my girlfriend to get off my computer it doesn't mean I have legal authority over her. Oh god just stop already. If you really care about knowing the truth or what really happened stop voicing your useless and unfounded opinion on the internet and go watch the trial. If you don't have an argument it's more productive to take a breather and come up with something instead of just outright crying about what I said. On July 15 2013 03:18 city42 wrote:On July 15 2013 03:13 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 03:09 city42 wrote:On July 15 2013 02:59 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Dispatchers are a part of the police, and he disobeyed the order to not pursue, and to not get out of his car. You don't have to have legal authority to issue an order as member of a policing-organization.
What the fuck, did you watch the case at all? The dispatcher testified in court and specifically said that he can only give "suggestions," and not orders, because he can be found directly liable if he gives orders and something bad happens. Dispatchers are also not police officers. It's mind-blowing how people think they can comment on the case without having followed it. Excuse my language but the stupidity here is overflowing. Dispatchers, just like anyone else, can issue orders; in this situation it was a personal one as Zimmerman was overstepping his bounds. If I order my girlfriend to get off my computer it doesn't mean I have legal authority over her. In his testimony, Noffke said he didn’t order Zimmerman to stop. Dispatchers don’t issue such orders because of liability issues, he said. Please provide concrete evidence that George Zimmerman disobeyed a police order not to pursue. Actually, you're probably doing this on purpose to make people angry, so I shouldn't get caught up in it anymore. The dispatcher recommended Zimmerman not to pursue on transcript, however this was definitely a polite order in casual form saying "Do not do this as you're overstepping your bounds" and not a "We don't need you to do that, but if you really want to I think it would be okay". An order, implied or not, does not have to be legally admissible for it to still carry the connotation of "do not do X".Know that playing word games won't conceal the dispatcher's obvious intention with the statement. Excuse me, what part of In his testimony, Noffke said he didn’t order Zimmerman to stop. Dispatchers don’t issue such orders because of liability issues, he said. don't you understand ? The dispatcher said it himself, he wasn't giving an order... Geez. Excuse me. What part of: On July 15 2013 03:13 DemigodcelpH wrote: An order, implied or not, does not have to be legally admissible for it to still carry the connotation of "do not do X". Do you not understand? Citation needed, since you like to do that kind of stuff. There is no definitive proof that Zimmermann wasn't looking for an adress. The prosecution couldn't debunk that statement, I doubt you can. Stating that Zimmerman was just looking for an address is a lie attempted to imply that he was not following Tray. Therefore: Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah. Means that either he wasn't looking for an address, or that he was looking for an address and stalking someone — either way the purpose of the lie is destroyed by Zimmerman's own words. On July 15 2013 03:45 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 03:42 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 03:30 phoenix`down wrote:On July 15 2013 03:23 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 03:16 Esk23 wrote:On July 15 2013 03:13 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 03:09 city42 wrote:On July 15 2013 02:59 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Dispatchers are a part of the police, and he disobeyed the order to not pursue, and to not get out of his car. You don't have to have legal authority to issue an order as member of a policing-organization.
What the fuck, did you watch the case at all? The dispatcher testified in court and specifically said that he can only give "suggestions," and not orders, because he can be found directly liable if he gives orders and something bad happens. Dispatchers are also not police officers. It's mind-blowing how people think they can comment on the case without having followed it. Excuse my language but the stupidity here is overflowing. Dispatchers, just like anyone else, can issue orders; in this situation it was a personal one as Zimmerman was overstepping his bounds. If I order my girlfriend to get off my computer it doesn't mean I have legal authority over her. Oh god just stop already. If you really care about knowing the truth or what really happened stop voicing your useless and unfounded opinion on the internet and go watch the trial. If you don't have an argument it's more productive to take a breather and come up with something instead of just outright crying. On July 15 2013 03:18 city42 wrote:On July 15 2013 03:13 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 03:09 city42 wrote:On July 15 2013 02:59 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Dispatchers are a part of the police, and he disobeyed the order to not pursue, and to not get out of his car. You don't have to have legal authority to issue an order as member of a policing-organization.
What the fuck, did you watch the case at all? The dispatcher testified in court and specifically said that he can only give "suggestions," and not orders, because he can be found directly liable if he gives orders and something bad happens. Dispatchers are also not police officers. It's mind-blowing how people think they can comment on the case without having followed it. Excuse my language but the stupidity here is overflowing. Dispatchers, just like anyone else, can issue orders; in this situation it was a personal one as Zimmerman was overstepping his bounds. If I order my girlfriend to get off my computer it doesn't mean I have legal authority over her. In his testimony, Noffke said he didn’t order Zimmerman to stop. Dispatchers don’t issue such orders because of liability issues, he said. Please provide concrete evidence that George Zimmerman disobeyed a police order not to pursue. Actually, you're probably doing this on purpose to make people angry, so I shouldn't get caught up in it anymore. The dispatcher recommended Zimmerman not to pursue on transcript, however this was definitely a polite order in casual form saying "Do not do this as you're overstepping your bounds" and not a "We don't need you to do that, but if you really want to I think it would be okay". An order, implied or not, does not have to be legally admissible for it to still carry the connotation of "do not do X".Know that playing word games won't conceal the dispatcher's obvious intention with the statement. That is all great, except the dispatcher's intent is open for interpretation. When I read it, I interpret it as, "You don't need to go out of your way to do that." And since George Zimmerman has said he was only trying to find a street name, not pursue Trayvon, then it doesn't matter anyway. When Zimmerman said "he was only trying to find a street name" he was lying (transcripts also contradict this) similar to how he was also lying in his court statement about him assuming that Trayvon was only slightly younger than him as conversation transcripts from the night prove that he said Trayvon looked "late leens" even from a distance. On July 15 2013 03:32 Geiko wrote:On July 15 2013 03:23 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 03:16 Esk23 wrote:On July 15 2013 03:13 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 03:09 city42 wrote:On July 15 2013 02:59 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Dispatchers are a part of the police, and he disobeyed the order to not pursue, and to not get out of his car. You don't have to have legal authority to issue an order as member of a policing-organization.
What the fuck, did you watch the case at all? The dispatcher testified in court and specifically said that he can only give "suggestions," and not orders, because he can be found directly liable if he gives orders and something bad happens. Dispatchers are also not police officers. It's mind-blowing how people think they can comment on the case without having followed it. Excuse my language but the stupidity here is overflowing. Dispatchers, just like anyone else, can issue orders; in this situation it was a personal one as Zimmerman was overstepping his bounds. If I order my girlfriend to get off my computer it doesn't mean I have legal authority over her. Oh god just stop already. If you really care about knowing the truth or what really happened stop voicing your useless and unfounded opinion on the internet and go watch the trial. If you don't have an argument it's more productive to take a breather and come up with something instead of just outright crying about what I said. On July 15 2013 03:18 city42 wrote:On July 15 2013 03:13 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 03:09 city42 wrote:On July 15 2013 02:59 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Dispatchers are a part of the police, and he disobeyed the order to not pursue, and to not get out of his car. You don't have to have legal authority to issue an order as member of a policing-organization.
What the fuck, did you watch the case at all? The dispatcher testified in court and specifically said that he can only give "suggestions," and not orders, because he can be found directly liable if he gives orders and something bad happens. Dispatchers are also not police officers. It's mind-blowing how people think they can comment on the case without having followed it. Excuse my language but the stupidity here is overflowing. Dispatchers, just like anyone else, can issue orders; in this situation it was a personal one as Zimmerman was overstepping his bounds. If I order my girlfriend to get off my computer it doesn't mean I have legal authority over her. In his testimony, Noffke said he didn’t order Zimmerman to stop. Dispatchers don’t issue such orders because of liability issues, he said. Please provide concrete evidence that George Zimmerman disobeyed a police order not to pursue. Actually, you're probably doing this on purpose to make people angry, so I shouldn't get caught up in it anymore. The dispatcher recommended Zimmerman not to pursue on transcript, however this was definitely a polite order in casual form saying "Do not do this as you're overstepping your bounds" and not a "We don't need you to do that, but if you really want to I think it would be okay". An order, implied or not, does not have to be legally admissible for it to still carry the connotation of "do not do X".Know that playing word games won't conceal the dispatcher's obvious intention with the statement. Excuse me, what part of In his testimony, Noffke said he didn’t order Zimmerman to stop. Dispatchers don’t issue such orders because of liability issues, he said. don't you understand ? The dispatcher said it himself, he wasn't giving an order... Geez. Excuse me. What part of: On July 15 2013 03:13 DemigodcelpH wrote: An order, implied or not, does not have to be legally admissible for it to still carry the connotation of "do not do X". Do you not understand? I don't understand why you are talking about implied or not implied orders when there isn't even an order to begin with. Dispatcher was giving an advice. It was an implied order in the form of a recommendation. Considering the following scenario: my friend is drunk, and in his stupor, he is considering pouring his drink on a TV screen to "see what a rainbow looks like"; I get his attention, look him in the eyes, and tell him "You shouldn't do that". In this situation the "order" is being presented as a recommendation, but is still an implied order. In any situation where common sense dictates that something dangerous is being done and the observer actively disagrees with it, if it suggested that action X not be done, it is less of a suggestion and more of a polite order. This is a matter of simple deductive reasoning.Corollary: Playing word games and hiding beyond technicalities and "Devil's Proofs" won't conceal the dispatcher's obvious intention with the statement.On July 15 2013 03:49 city42 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 03:23 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 03:18 city42 wrote:On July 15 2013 03:13 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 03:09 city42 wrote:On July 15 2013 02:59 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Dispatchers are a part of the police, and he disobeyed the order to not pursue, and to not get out of his car. You don't have to have legal authority to issue an order as member of a policing-organization.
What the fuck, did you watch the case at all? The dispatcher testified in court and specifically said that he can only give "suggestions," and not orders, because he can be found directly liable if he gives orders and something bad happens. Dispatchers are also not police officers. It's mind-blowing how people think they can comment on the case without having followed it. Excuse my language but the stupidity here is overflowing. Dispatchers, just like anyone else, can issue orders; in this situation it was a personal one as Zimmerman was overstepping his bounds. If I order my girlfriend to get off my computer it doesn't mean I have legal authority over her. In his testimony, Noffke said he didn’t order Zimmerman to stop. Dispatchers don’t issue such orders because of liability issues, he said. Please provide concrete evidence that George Zimmerman disobeyed a police order not to pursue. Actually, you're probably doing this on purpose to make people angry, so I shouldn't get caught up in it anymore. The dispatcher recommended Zimmerman not to pursue on transcript, however this was definitely a polite order in casual form saying "Do not do this as you're overstepping your bounds" and not a "We don't need you to do that, but if you really want to I think it would be okay". An order, implied or not, does not have to be legally admissible for it to still carry the connotation of "do not do X".Know that playing word games won't conceal the dispatcher's obvious intention with the statement. Connotation is subjective, and no one really cares what your interpretation of the dispatcher's statement is. This was your original post: Show nested quote +Trayvon was defending himself, as the person who was pursuing him made no signs of stopping, even directly disobeying police orders, and had a dangerous weapon. He did not directly disobey a police order. Stop saying he did. Yes he did. It was just non-admissible as there was no legal authority involved. What part of stop using the word order do you not understand? If the person who made the recommendation specifically said his recommendation was not an order, you calling it an order and attempting to justify your use of the word is really just going to upset people. You're the only person playing word games here. It wasn't an order. Get over it.
Order officially recognized in the sense of legal authority =! implied colloquial order given out of goodwill. Get over it.
|
On July 15 2013 04:03 DemigodcelpH wrote:
It was an implied order in the form of a recommendation. Considering the following scenario: my friend is drunk, and in his stupor, he is considering pouring his drink on a TV screen to "see what a rainbow looks like"; I get his attention, look him in the eyes, and tell him "You shouldn't do that".
In this situation the "order" is being presented as a recommendation, but is still an implied order. In any situation where common sense dictates that something dangerous is being done and the observer actively disagrees with it, if it suggested that action X not be done, it is less of a suggestion and more of a polite order. This is a matter of simple deductive reasoning.
Corollary: Playing word games and hiding beyond technicalities and "Devil's Proofs" won't conceal the dispatcher's obvious intention with the statement.
I don't have a problem with you calling it an order. I don't see the point though. Z-man was under no obligation to follow the order, nor was it completely obvious ex ante that the order was going to save a life.
|
On July 15 2013 04:11 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 04:09 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 15 2013 04:02 SKC wrote:On July 15 2013 04:00 TheRabidDeer wrote:
I am most disappointed that they prosecuted for 2nd degree murder. I cant understand why they thought they had the evidence for that much.
Can anybody explain to me why they didnt go for negligent manslaughter or if there was a case for that? There was no case for that. He was acquited because of self defense, which protects him from manslaughter charges as well. Perhaps if the prosecution had argued for manslaughter their case would have been more compelling, but the jury did consider manslaughther charges and found him innocent. That just makes no sense for me, he was negligent. He ignored sound advice from the dispatcher, he was trying to be a police officer so he should've been aware of the dangers of his actions. Him being found not guilty of negligent manslaughter even seems like it opens up a whole new door for harassment and murder. There was no proof he was "trying to be a police officer", whatever that is supposed to mean in legal terms, and ignoring sound advice is not illegal, else we would have a lot more people behind bars. There is a difference between being negligent and criminally negligent. There are laws regarding what negligent manslaughter actually is.
I mean he was actually trying to become a police officer for his job, but was rejected. Not that he was attempting to be an officer in this situation.
|
On July 15 2013 04:09 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 04:02 SKC wrote:On July 15 2013 04:00 TheRabidDeer wrote:
I am most disappointed that they prosecuted for 2nd degree murder. I cant understand why they thought they had the evidence for that much.
Can anybody explain to me why they didnt go for negligent manslaughter or if there was a case for that? There was no case for that. He was acquited because of self defense, which protects him from manslaughter charges as well. Perhaps if the prosecution had argued for manslaughter their case would have been more compelling, but the jury did consider manslaughther charges and found him innocent. That just makes no sense for me, he was negligent. He ignored sound advice from the dispatcher, he was trying to be a police officer so he should've been aware of the dangers of his actions. Him being found not guilty of negligent manslaughter even seems like it opens up a whole new door for harassment and murder.
And convicting him of manslaughter based on the evidence opens up for a whole lot of innocent people ending up in jail. But hey...
|
On July 15 2013 04:14 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 04:11 SKC wrote:On July 15 2013 04:09 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 15 2013 04:02 SKC wrote:On July 15 2013 04:00 TheRabidDeer wrote:
I am most disappointed that they prosecuted for 2nd degree murder. I cant understand why they thought they had the evidence for that much.
Can anybody explain to me why they didnt go for negligent manslaughter or if there was a case for that? There was no case for that. He was acquited because of self defense, which protects him from manslaughter charges as well. Perhaps if the prosecution had argued for manslaughter their case would have been more compelling, but the jury did consider manslaughther charges and found him innocent. That just makes no sense for me, he was negligent. He ignored sound advice from the dispatcher, he was trying to be a police officer so he should've been aware of the dangers of his actions. Him being found not guilty of negligent manslaughter even seems like it opens up a whole new door for harassment and murder. There was no proof he was "trying to be a police officer", whatever that is supposed to mean in legal terms, and ignoring sound advice is not illegal, else we would have a lot more people behind bars. There is a difference between being negligent and criminally negligent. There are laws regarding what negligent manslaughter actually is. I mean he was actually trying to become a police officer for his job, but was rejected. Not that he was attempting to be an officer in this situation.
I don't know why that would make him criminally negligent then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
