|
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 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.
In what way was he negligent? If he was negligent in a manner that was illegal, then he could be punished for that (just like if there was proof that he had assaulted TM, then he could be punished for that, even if the subsequent self-defense was warranted).
Ignoring advice from a dispatcher is not illegal so doesn't relate at all to the manslaughter charges.
There is no actual evidence to support that he was "trying to be a police officer", and even if there were a wannabe police officer are judged the same as an ordinary citizen. Being a wannabe police officer does not give you extra responsibilities, nor extra rights.
Manslaughter is a legal term and it doesn't really matter if it makes sense to you. It was clear that there was not enough evidence to support, or even come close to supporting, a manslaughter charge.
|
On July 15 2013 04:12 theodorus12 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
On July 15 2013 04:12 theodorus12 wrote:
even tho Zimmerman is actually hispanic and not white
I really hope Z sues the fuck out of NBC and huffpo
Zimmerman is half white, and many conservatives also disagree with the verdict. Stop trying to start things.
On July 15 2013 04:11 city42 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 04:03 DemigodcelpH wrote:
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. 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.
Dispatchers are considered a part of the "family" by the cops and know all of the police secrets even if the title is different.
|
On July 15 2013 04:02 rasnj wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 03:46 Leporello wrote: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.
I have to say I appreciate the sincerity of your post, thank you.
1) Right here, we are basing that entirely off of GZ's testimony and nothing else. What you are saying there is simply his story. We have no idea what his intentions were on leaving the car or approach TM. GZ called the cops on TM, and despite whatever their conversation, there was no need for GZ to do anything else. Going beyond that, and actually leaving the car with a loaded weapon, was a needless risk. At the very least, we can all agree GZ risked his own life. For what? If that's a dangerous criminal you're pursuing -- then you wait for the authorities like a normal person.
2) TM assaults GZ for no reason? Are these two guys just the most paranoid people on the planet? One guy calls the police for no reason, the other guy assaults him for no reason? I'm not sure what evidence exists beyond GZ's testimony that TM jumped GZ without any provocation on GZ's part. It is possible that GZ could have done or said something to TM that we don't know about.
3) How did he get his firearm from his back and aim it without having any control. He had an arm free, and he could obviously even lift his waist off the ground, to be able to reach the gun. Were GZ and TM in the exact position as Good saw them when he left, or did things change, did they move. Was GZ able to slip out of the mount? It kind of seems like it. At that point, we can't be sure exactly how much of a threat TM or GZ were in.
GZ doesn't claim he shot TM because of being mounted and punched -- GZ claims he shot TM because TM was reaching for his gun. That is solely based on GZ's testimony. Everyone is talking about witnesses in promoting GZ's claim of self-defense, but no one witnessed the actual action that TM supposedly died for, except for GZ.
Again, not arguing with the verdict. It could all be EXACTLY as GZ said. I just don't find myself able to say with certainty that it was self-defense for either one of them. It simply may have been. It's reasonable doubt, and that's fine.
I'm curious how the civil suit will play out, if it does. GZ didn't commit murder by getting out of his car with that gun, but it was a rash sort of decision that cost TM his life.
|
On July 15 2013 03:54 tomatriedes wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 03:50 GreyKnight wrote:On July 15 2013 03:47 tomatriedes 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. If GZ were black, do you think the media/special interest groups would have character assassinated him as a racist lunatic out for blood and ignored/distorted all the evidence in his favor? If you think so, I think you're the naive one. Thats not even addressing the same issue. He's complaining about bias against black people and ignoring the huge bias that was evident against Zimmerman in the media. It certainly is related.
It can be related but its not the same issue. Not hard to understand. He didnt dispute judicial racism against blacks, he simply gave a snarky line about liberal media bias.
|
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.
I thought it was just a not-guilty verdict for 2nd degree murder; nothing about manslaughter.
double jeopardy prevents prosecution from trialing him for both manslaughter and 2nd degree murder.
|
On July 15 2013 04:12 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 04:09 Reason wrote: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.
Why do you feel the need to call a recommendation an implied colloquial order given out of goodwill?
It was a recommendation, not an order. Unless you are deliberately trying to derail discussion then stop using terminology that is obviously upsetting a number of people in the thread when it serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever.
It would appear you're doing the same thing with the dispatcher himself....
|
On July 15 2013 04:17 Leporello wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 15 2013 04:02 rasnj wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 03:46 Leporello wrote: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. I highly appreciate the sincerity of your post. 1) Right here, we are basing that entirely off of GZ's testimony and nothing else. What you are saying there is simply his story. We have no idea what his intentions were on leaving the car or approach TM. GZ called the cops on TM, and despite whatever their conversation, there was no need for GZ to do anything else. Going beyond that, and actually leaving the car with a loaded weapon, was a needless risk. At the very least, we can all agree he risked his own life. For what? 2) TM assaults GZ for no reason? Are these two guys just the most paranoid people on the planet? One guy calls the police for no reason, the other guy assaults him for no reason? I'm not sure what evidence exists beyond GZ's testimony that TM jumped GZ without any provocation on GZ's part. It is possible that GZ could have done or said something to TM that we don't know about. 3) How did he get his firearm from his back and aim it without having any control. He had an arm free, and he could obviously even lift his waist off the ground, to be able to reach the gun. Were GZ and TM in the exact position as Good saw them when he left, or did things change, did they move. Was GZ able to slip out of the mount? It kind of seems like it. At that point, we can't be sure exactly how much of a threat TM was in. Again, not arguing with the verdict. It could all be EXACTLY as GZ said. I just don't find myself able to say with certainty that it was self-defense for either one of them. It simply may have been. It's reasonable doubt, and that's fine. I'm curious how the civil suit will play out, if it does. GZ didn't commit murder by getting out of his car with that gun, but it was a rash sort of decision that cost TM his life.
Noone is saying they are 100% sure it happened as GZ said it did. A lot of people are saying blaming GZ, prosecuting GZ or starting a witchhunt against GZ when you don't know what happened is obviously wrong.
If noone knows what happened, you cannot say GZ was doing something wrong at all. Comments about the way Martin acted are done mostly in a way to support Zimmermann, and as such are consistent with his story. Noone is trying to convict Martin.
|
On July 15 2013 04:16 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 04:12 theodorus12 wrote: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. Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 04:12 theodorus12 wrote:
even tho Zimmerman is actually hispanic and not white
I really hope Z sues the fuck out of NBC and huffpo Zimmerman is half white, and many conservatives also disagree with the verdict. Stop trying to start things. Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 04:11 city42 wrote:On July 15 2013 04:03 DemigodcelpH wrote:
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. 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. Dispatchers are considered a part of the "family" by the cops and know all of the police secrets even if the title is different.
Obama is also half white.
And it was the liberal media who tried as hard as they could to make this a race thing, not me.
Can you just stop twisting words? the dispatcher said himself it wasn't an order, even the media figured that out half a year ago.
|
On July 15 2013 04:19 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 04:12 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 04:09 Reason wrote: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. Why do you feel the need to call a recommendation an implied colloquial order given out of goodwill? It was a recommendation, not an order. Unless you are deliberately trying to derail discussion then stop using terminology that is obviously upsetting a number of people in the thread when it serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever. It would appear you're doing the same thing with the dispatcher himself....
Don't worry about it, he's doing this on purpose. I should have known better than to fall into his trap over and over. Guess my internet skills need some work.
|
On July 15 2013 04:18 wei2coolman 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. I thought it was just a not-guilty verdict for 2nd degree murder; nothing about manslaughter. double jeopardy prevents prosecution from trialing him for both manslaughter and 2nd degree murder.
Smaller charges are considered along with Second Degree Murder, so he was tried for manslaughter as well. They jury even asked for more detailed instructions regarding manslaughter, so they clearly considered it.
He was even tried for something regarding child abuse, I'm not fully aware of the exact term, because Martin was 17, which was quite odd.
|
There isn't even evidence that George Zimmerman followed Trayvon Martin after the dispatcher told him to stop following. The dispatcher said "We don’t need you to do that." and GZ responded "OK." and then starts discussing where the police can meet him.
|
On July 15 2013 04:15 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 04:14 TheRabidDeer wrote: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.
What I am implying is that since he was trying to be a police officer, he should have some knowledge of what his actions could cause. He would've been aware that he may have needed to use his gun if he decided to approach Martin. Because of that and the fact that he ignored sound advice he was taking an unreasonable risk that resulted in Martin dying.
I mean, people get hit with negligent homicide for seemingly less. If you are a parent and you accidentally leave the door open and your child walks into the street and gets hit by a car, you are guilty.
|
On July 15 2013 04:26 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 04:15 SKC wrote:On July 15 2013 04:14 TheRabidDeer wrote: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. What I am implying is that since he was trying to be a police officer, he should have some knowledge of what his actions could cause. He would've been aware that he may have needed to use his gun if he decided to approach Martin. Because of that and the fact that he ignored sound advice he was taking an unreasonable risk that resulted in Martin dying. I mean, people get hit with negligent homicide for seemingly less. If you are a parent and you accidentally leave the door open and your child walks into the street and gets hit by a car, you are guilty.
You are not doing a good job connecting all that with the actual laws though. Yes, his previous experience could mean his actions were slightly "dumber" than they would be for some else, but that doesn't mean they are any more illegal.
The laws regarding what parents must take into account is far more strict, afaik. Everything considering small children is a completelly diferent subject, since they are supposed to be protected by their parents and cannot protect themselves.
|
Demigodcelph I hear what you're sayin about the "order." I feel you I really do. What GZ did was truly stupid, I don't think many disagree with that, but the legality is what matters.
|
On July 15 2013 04:18 GreyKnight wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 03:54 tomatriedes wrote:On July 15 2013 03:50 GreyKnight wrote:On July 15 2013 03:47 tomatriedes 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. If GZ were black, do you think the media/special interest groups would have character assassinated him as a racist lunatic out for blood and ignored/distorted all the evidence in his favor? If you think so, I think you're the naive one. Thats not even addressing the same issue. He's complaining about bias against black people and ignoring the huge bias that was evident against Zimmerman in the media. It certainly is related. It can be related but its not the same issue. Not hard to understand. He didnt dispute judicial racism against blacks, he simply gave a snarky line about liberal media bias.
Jury members may be sequestered during a trial but it's pretty hard to find jury members who have completely avoided any media before the trial. Media bias can have a huge impact.
Also, FYI I'm a liberal myself, at least on most issues. Usually 'liberal media' is far more objective but in this case they clearly outdid Fox News in emotional manipulation such as using the photo of Martin as a 12-yr old and doctoring recording of Zimmerman. We should be better than that.
|
On July 15 2013 04:28 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 04:26 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 15 2013 04:15 SKC wrote:On July 15 2013 04:14 TheRabidDeer wrote: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. What I am implying is that since he was trying to be a police officer, he should have some knowledge of what his actions could cause. He would've been aware that he may have needed to use his gun if he decided to approach Martin. Because of that and the fact that he ignored sound advice he was taking an unreasonable risk that resulted in Martin dying. I mean, people get hit with negligent homicide for seemingly less. If you are a parent and you accidentally leave the door open and your child walks into the street and gets hit by a car, you are guilty. You are not doing a good job connecting all that with the actual laws though. Yes, his previous experience could mean his actions were slightly "dumber" than they would be for some else, but that doesn't mean they are any more illegal.
This is my understanding of what criminally negligent manslaughter is:
Criminally Negligent Manslaughter A homicide resulting from the taking of an unreasonable and high degree of risk is usually considered criminally negligent manslaughter. Jurisdictions are divided on the question of whether the defendant must be aware of the risk. Modern criminal codes generally require a consciousness of risk, although, under some codes, the absence of this element makes the offense a less serious homicide.
Given his knowledge and experience, then it should be understood that there was a high degree of risk when he followed and approached Martin. It is common knowledge that you don't follow strangers around at night, and even more common knowledge that you don't follow strangers that you suspect to be criminals (a burglar) and feel the need to call the police about.
|
On July 15 2013 04:19 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 04:12 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 04:09 Reason wrote: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. Why do you feel the need to call a recommendation an implied colloquial order given out of goodwill? It was a recommendation, not an order. Unless you are deliberately trying to derail discussion then stop using terminology that is obviously upsetting a number of people in the thread when it serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever.
On July 15 2013 04:12 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.
Until you can refute the above your argument holds no ground.
On July 15 2013 04:20 theodorus12 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 04:16 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 04:12 theodorus12 wrote: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. On July 15 2013 04:12 theodorus12 wrote:
even tho Zimmerman is actually hispanic and not white
I really hope Z sues the fuck out of NBC and huffpo Zimmerman is half white, and many conservatives also disagree with the verdict. Stop trying to start things. On July 15 2013 04:11 city42 wrote:On July 15 2013 04:03 DemigodcelpH wrote:
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. 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. Dispatchers are considered a part of the "family" by the cops and know all of the police secrets even if the title is different. Obama is also half white.
+ Show Spoiler +http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule
On July 15 2013 04:12 theodorus12 wrote:Can you just stop twisting words? the dispatcher said himself it wasn't an order, even the media figured that out half a year ago.
I'm not twisting words. I'm using the logical interpretation as opposed to being anal over court semantics.
On July 15 2013 04:25 Whole wrote:
There isn't even evidence that George Zimmerman followed Trayvon Martin after the dispatcher told him to stop following. The dispatcher said "We don’t need you to do that." and GZ responded "OK." and then starts discussing where the police can meet him.
Responding "OK." does not mean he stopped following him. Considering that Trayvon ran after realized he was being stalked logic dictates that the pursuit continued.
On July 15 2013 04:23 city42 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 04:19 Reason wrote:On July 15 2013 04:12 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 04:09 Reason wrote: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. Why do you feel the need to call a recommendation an implied colloquial order given out of goodwill? It was a recommendation, not an order. Unless you are deliberately trying to derail discussion then stop using terminology that is obviously upsetting a number of people in the thread when it serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever. It would appear you're doing the same thing with the dispatcher himself.... Don't worry about it, he's doing this on purpose. I should have known better than to fall into his trap over and over. Guess my internet skills need some work.
You got me. This is certainly all of a big scheme to mask the fact that you have no argument.
|
On July 15 2013 04:16 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 04:11 city42 wrote:On July 15 2013 04:03 DemigodcelpH wrote:
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. 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. Dispatchers are considered a part of the "family" by the cops and know all of the police secrets even if the title is different.
You are trying to argue something without sense. Commonly a "police order" is a right for a "police officer" granted by the lawmaker. If you resist police orders, police officers have the right to enforce them.
This is not equivalent to something a member of a policing-organization said to you over the phone.
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.
If you don't hold legal authority over something the court will simply dismiss it.
|
Anyone seen the guy at Akron, MS rally. Wonder if the NAACP will respond to that.
|
On July 15 2013 04:17 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 04:02 rasnj wrote:On July 15 2013 03:46 Leporello wrote: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. I highly appreciate the sincerity of your post. 1) Right here, we are basing that entirely off of GZ's testimony and nothing else. What you are saying there is simply his story. We have no idea what his intentions were on leaving the car or approach TM. GZ called the cops on TM, and despite whatever their conversation, there was no need for GZ to do anything else. Going beyond that, and actually leaving the car with a loaded weapon, was a needless risk. At the very least, we can all agree he risked his own life. For what? 2) TM assaults GZ for no reason? Are these two guys just the most paranoid people on the planet? One guy calls the police for no reason, the other guy assaults him for no reason? I'm not sure what evidence exists beyond GZ's testimony that TM jumped GZ without any provocation on GZ's part. It is possible that GZ could have done or said something to TM that we don't know about. 3) How did he get his firearm from his back and aim it without having any control. He had an arm free, and he could obviously even lift his waist off the ground, to be able to reach the gun. Were GZ and TM in the exact position as Good saw them when he left, or did things change, did they move. Was GZ able to slip out of the mount? It kind of seems like it. At that point, we can't be sure exactly how much of a threat TM was in. Again, not arguing with the verdict. It could all be EXACTLY as GZ said. I just don't find myself able to say with certainty that it was self-defense for either one of them. It simply may have been. It's reasonable doubt, and that's fine. I'm curious how the civil suit will play out, if it does. GZ didn't commit murder by getting out of his car with that gun, but it was a rash sort of decision that cost TM his life.
1) There is no evidence to contradict GZ's story and in such cases we are really forced to give him the benefit of the doubt. It would be a sad world if whenever someone cannot conclusively prove something, then they are assumed to be lying. GZ has not proven to be a liar, and there is no circumstantial evidence to suggest his story is false.
In hindsight leaving the car was probably stupid, but it was a quick decision, and I think it is an exaggaration to say he risked his life. He couldn't know how Trayvon would react and he couldn't know he would run into Trayvon. If I confronted a potential burglar I would expect the burglar to run away or at most throw a punch and then run away, I would never imagine that they would assault me (why would they do that?). I agree it was stupid and an unneccessary risk, but as I said in my previous post we can't lock people up for not being completely rational.
2) It is possible, but when there is no evidence that such a thing happened, then it really makes no sense to go speculating about. What if I were to suggest that a year prior to the incident GZ killed a black kid and threw him in the ocean? You would(/should) say I'm stupid for making such a statement without any evidence. When there is no evidence of wrongdoing we really should not assume wrongdoing just because we can't disprove it. This is not just a legal point, we just can't reasonably go around judging people based on our own worst interpretation of them consistent with what we know.
I just don't see why GZ would assault TM. He knew the police were on their way and he had no idea if there were witnesses. He had done nothing wrong. It would be incredibly stupid to assault TM. I'm not saying we know exactly what happened, but based on the evidence there is no reason to believe GZ did provoke TM.
3) I don't know how he got his gun from his holster. I don't really see why that would be so much of a problem, and with TM being just on top of him and GZ aiming for his chest it shouldn't be that hard to hit. We know TM was still on top.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
