|
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 02:51 Leporello wrote:
When GZ was mounted with his head against the pavement, no doubt about it, that is extremely threatening.
You don't have to be a martial artist to ruin someone's spine. Simple punches from an amateur to the back of anyone's head can paralyze that person for life, all too easily.
The problem is GZ couldn't and didn't shoot TM when he was mounted. He had to have thrown TM off the mount to get his gun and pull it, and GZ even admits this happened. The problem is there GZ claims that TM reached for the gun, thus GZ had to shoot TM or lose his gun. Of course, another problem there is we aren't sure who started the fight (although GZ calling the kid a "punk" and lurking around him kind of leans me towards calling GZ the instigator). If GZ started the fight, lost it, and then pulled a gun, I'm not sure it isn't TM defending himself.
We give GZ a lot of benefit of the doubt, but we give TM none really. TM wasn't defending himself when he reached for GZ's gun? How is it that self-defense works completely in GZ's favor based on the fact that a witness saw him losing the fight before the shooting actually happened?
There is a second before GZ pulled the trigger that no one but GZ saw. It's disturbing that eye-witness testimony -- really supposed to be the most unreliable form of evidence -- means so much in cases like these. We have a body, we have a deadly weapon, but since there was a fight those things don't matter anymore -- GZ is allowed any narrative that gives him the benefit of the doubt over TM, who isn't given the luxury of narrative and can't make claims of self-defense. I understand the verdict, but I just as easily understand people's frustration that GZ acted so foolishly, and is yet able to walk away from shooting an unarmed kid based on no more than his own word.
We know TM wasn't just 'defending himself' when he refused to stop hitting GZ when Good asked him to.
|
On July 15 2013 02:41 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 02:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 15 2013 02:02 Boiler Bandsman wrote:On July 15 2013 01:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Polls spoilered: + Show Spoiler +Poll: Just looking at the arguments and facts presented in the trial...I agree with the acquittal- the prosecution failed at establishing guilt. (131) 90% Should be manslaughter- the prosecution demonstrated he was guilty of at least this. (7) 5% Should be murder- the prosecution demonstrated he was guilty of this. (4) 3% Other (3) 2% 145 total votes Your vote: Just looking at the arguments and facts presented in the trial... (Vote): I agree with the acquittal- the prosecution failed at establishing guilt.
(Vote): Should be manslaughter- the prosecution demonstrated he was guilty of at least this.
(Vote): Should be murder- the prosecution demonstrated he was guilty of this.
(Vote): Other
and Poll: Regardless of the verdict, which do you feel is most accurate?GZ is truly innocent. (89) 70% GZ truly committed manslaughter. (19) 15% Other (13) 10% GZ truly committed murder. (7) 5% 128 total votes Your vote: Regardless of the verdict, which do you feel is most accurate? (Vote): GZ is truly innocent.
(Vote): GZ truly committed manslaughter.
(Vote): GZ truly committed murder.
(Vote): Other
I think these polls are an excellent encapsulation of the fact that the best-informed people agreed with the verdict. This thread has been extremely well-done, and the discussion has made anyone who participated (and voted) better-informed about this case. Meanwhile, the drive-by types who paid no attention at all between the original sensational story and the verdict are all over Twitter advocating murder and mayhem. I agree. This is also one of the most one-sided polls I've ever seen on TL in terms of national/ international events. I was astonished that there really wasn't a solid backing for the prosecution's side. I will note that the best-informed people simply agree that the prosecution was terrible. That kind of vote isn't a proclamation of Zimmerman's innocence.
Sure, that's fine. I think the first poll shows that. I just don't know what other evidence (besides personal prejudices and predisposed notions) a person would use besides what appeared during the trial. It's not like the prosecution purposely ignored some superstrong evidence to prove his guilt.
|
On July 15 2013 02:36 SnipedSoul wrote:
Obese men aren't potent fighters either.
Having lost 50-80 pounds on >1 year of training he looks like an average guy to me.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6rgpveL.jpg)
On July 15 2013 02:56 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 02:51 Leporello wrote:
When GZ was mounted with his head against the pavement, no doubt about it, that is extremely threatening.
You don't have to be a martial artist to ruin someone's spine. Simple punches from an amateur to the back of anyone's head can paralyze that person for life, all too easily.
The problem is GZ couldn't and didn't shoot TM when he was mounted. He had to have thrown TM off the mount to get his gun and pull it, and GZ even admits this happened. The problem is there GZ claims that TM reached for the gun, thus GZ had to shoot TM or lose his gun. Of course, another problem there is we aren't sure who started the fight (although GZ calling the kid a "punk" and lurking around him kind of leans me towards calling GZ the instigator). If GZ started the fight, lost it, and then pulled a gun, I'm not sure it isn't TM defending himself.
We give GZ a lot of benefit of the doubt, but we give TM none really. TM wasn't defending himself when he reached for GZ's gun? How is it that self-defense works completely in GZ's favor based on the fact that a witness saw him losing the fight before the shooting actually happened?
There is a second before GZ pulled the trigger that no one but GZ saw. It's disturbing that eye-witness testimony -- really supposed to be the most unreliable form of evidence -- means so much in cases like these. We have a body, we have a deadly weapon, but since there was a fight those things don't matter anymore -- GZ is allowed any narrative that gives him the benefit of the doubt over TM, who isn't given the luxury of narrative and can't make claims of self-defense. I understand the verdict, but I just as easily understand people's frustration that GZ acted so foolishly, and is yet able to walk away from shooting an unarmed kid based on no more than his own word. We know TM wasn't just 'defending himself' when he refused to stop hitting GZ when Good asked him to.
There is actually no way to know if he even heard him.
|
On July 15 2013 02:42 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 02:34 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 02:21 ConGee wrote:On July 15 2013 02:18 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 02:01 fezvez wrote:
What I read (the conclusion of the trial) left me floored. What, TM is a 17 year old, 160 pound teenager, who was on top of GZ and punching him? The description I got from major media outlets at the time of the event are so far from reality that I am simply flabbergasted. Yes. He was born in 1995. There's also nothing unusual about fighting back when a man has been chasing you at night with no attempt to hide the fact. There's a huge difference between fighting back and escalating the confrontation to the point where the other person fears for their life. 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. This is the text-book scenario females are warned out (and all males to a lessor extent); it's only natural Trayvon fought when he realized he was in danger. Zimmerman did not disobey police orders, Dispatchers have no authority.
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.
On July 15 2013 02:42 Gorsameth wrote:This is also something Trayvon didnt know so it doesnt help him evaluate the situation.
The only thing Trayvon knew is that, on the way from the store buying snacks, he was being pursued for a long time by someone who got out of his car and continued on foot.
On July 15 2013 02:42 Gorsameth wrote:Secondly there is a 4 minute gap between Zimmerman losing sight of Trayvon after he started running and the fight starting. 4 minutes!
Citation missing.
On July 15 2013 02:42 Gorsameth wrote:Trayvon didnt see a person follow him and turn around. He ran away.
As any reasonable person would. Police transcripts support this if you mean that, once Trayvon saw Zimmerman, he ran instead of "turning around".
On July 15 2013 02:42 Gorsameth wrote:circles around and then engaged in a fight.
Citation missing.
On July 15 2013 02:42 Gorsameth wrote:Plus Trayvon likely didnt even know he had a "dangerous weapon" since it was night and the gun was concealed.
If someone is actively pursuing you alone at night, even getting out of the car and continuing on foot, common sense tends to dictate you're probably about to get robbed at the very least. This is textbook anti-creep training, and I can tell you that 29 year old men who stalk people at night don't carry candy canes.
On July 15 2013 02:52 ConGee wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 02:34 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 02:21 ConGee wrote:On July 15 2013 02:18 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 02:01 fezvez wrote:
What I read (the conclusion of the trial) left me floored. What, TM is a 17 year old, 160 pound teenager, who was on top of GZ and punching him? The description I got from major media outlets at the time of the event are so far from reality that I am simply flabbergasted. Yes. He was born in 1995. There's also nothing unusual about fighting back when a man has been chasing you at night with no attempt to hide the fact. There's a huge difference between fighting back and escalating the confrontation to the point where the other person fears for their life. 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. This is the text-book scenario females are warned out (and all males to a lessor extent); it's only natural Trayvon fought when he realized he was in danger. On July 15 2013 02:17 Taf the Ghost wrote:On July 15 2013 02:15 farvacola wrote:On July 15 2013 02:04 Boiler Bandsman wrote:On July 15 2013 02:00 slyboogie wrote:On July 15 2013 01:49 farvacola wrote:
Maybe this says something about the college I went to and the people I consort with, but where I come from, "getting your ass beat" looks way worse than what happened to Zimmerman, which looks more like, "got his nose broken and a few scrapes.". Oh well.
Perhaps we can all move on soon enough. I completely agree! I'm not someone to question a man's fear of his own life, but I've been ASS BEAT before and I woke up sore and without my wallet. This is how it goes. But if you're a mewling coward, yes, you just shoot him GZ's head was being beaten repeatedly into the goddamn concrete. There was physical evidence backing this up, if not outright confirming it. Martin was using lethal force. Those injuries are not consistent with lethal force. Not in the least. Having someone on the ground and taking swings at them is "lethal force". One solid connection to the head, which hits the pavement and you can quite easily kill someone. It's the same reason that using a knife is "lethal force", even if you have to connect to one of a few spots to actually kill someone. You must have a sheltered mindset, as this definitely isn't even remotely comparable to a "real beating". Do you know what a Mafia enforcer will do to you? Yazkua? Anyone with fighting experience? Even a bar confrontation between two grown men? Zimmerman's injuries were on the level of a playground shuffle compared to an actual deadly fight. Also, of course this is an anecdote, but being someone tall and skinny I can tell you that when I was 17 years old and 6'1 (150-160 pounds like Tray) there were probably girls at my high school that could take me yet alone a 29 year old guy. Ectomorphs have terrible centers of gravity, and the tall ones at that age especially aren't potent fighters because of small torso, long limbs, and low fat/muscle. So it's defending yourself when you're pounding someone who's screaming for help? It's defending yourself to continue pummeling someone when a bystander is yelling for you to stop?
If I strap a gun under my shirt and chase isolated people at night without stopping even when I'm spotted I might get punched? Who would've thought? The real question is how he managed to kill someone and get away with highschool-lunchroom-brawl level injuries.
|
It wasn't an order. It was something like "Okay. We don't need you to do that." not "Don't do that."
edit: I think trying to minimize his injuries is also kind of ridiculous. "Pre-schoolers get worse injuries from falling off the monkey-bars lolol." George Zimmerman had multiple lacerations on the back of his head from it being knocked into the cement, and a broken nose; when you are getting hit hard enough to cause those injuries I seriously doubt your thought process is along the lines of, "Most people don't die from stuff like this, I can probably take 10 more punches and be okay."
|
On July 15 2013 02:58 Oleo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 02:36 SnipedSoul wrote:
Obese men aren't potent fighters either. Having lost 50-80 pounds on >1 year of training he looks like an average guy to me. Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 02:56 Geiko wrote:On July 15 2013 02:51 Leporello wrote:
When GZ was mounted with his head against the pavement, no doubt about it, that is extremely threatening.
You don't have to be a martial artist to ruin someone's spine. Simple punches from an amateur to the back of anyone's head can paralyze that person for life, all too easily.
The problem is GZ couldn't and didn't shoot TM when he was mounted. He had to have thrown TM off the mount to get his gun and pull it, and GZ even admits this happened. The problem is there GZ claims that TM reached for the gun, thus GZ had to shoot TM or lose his gun. Of course, another problem there is we aren't sure who started the fight (although GZ calling the kid a "punk" and lurking around him kind of leans me towards calling GZ the instigator). If GZ started the fight, lost it, and then pulled a gun, I'm not sure it isn't TM defending himself.
We give GZ a lot of benefit of the doubt, but we give TM none really. TM wasn't defending himself when he reached for GZ's gun? How is it that self-defense works completely in GZ's favor based on the fact that a witness saw him losing the fight before the shooting actually happened?
There is a second before GZ pulled the trigger that no one but GZ saw. It's disturbing that eye-witness testimony -- really supposed to be the most unreliable form of evidence -- means so much in cases like these. We have a body, we have a deadly weapon, but since there was a fight those things don't matter anymore -- GZ is allowed any narrative that gives him the benefit of the doubt over TM, who isn't given the luxury of narrative and can't make claims of self-defense. I understand the verdict, but I just as easily understand people's frustration that GZ acted so foolishly, and is yet able to walk away from shooting an unarmed kid based on no more than his own word. We know TM wasn't just 'defending himself' when he refused to stop hitting GZ when Good asked him to. There is actually no way to know if he even heard him.
The neighbor from across the street heard him while she was inside her house... And trayvon martin being 40 feet away didn't ?
|
On July 15 2013 03:02 phoenix`down wrote:
It wasn't an order. It was something like "Okay. We don't need you to do that." not "Don't do that."
Intention is what matters, and the dispatchers intention was for Zimmerman to cease following — considering this it's a polite order, and not "We don't need you to do that, but if you really want to I think it would be okay".
|
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.
|
On July 15 2013 03:07 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 03:02 phoenix`down wrote:
It wasn't an order. It was something like "Okay. We don't need you to do that." not "Don't do that." Intention is what matters, and the dispatchers intention was for Zimmerman to cease following — considering this it's a polite order, and not "We don't need you to do that, but if you really want to I think it would be okay".
It's not an order, dispatchers don't give orders so they can't be held responsible if things go wrong. Besides, following someone isn't illegal...
|
I couldn't be more pleased with the outcome. Looks to me like an innocent man survived a hell of a railroad. And once again a thank you to dAPhREAk especially but everyone else in both threads who spoke reason and self-restraint in the face of overwhelming mob opinion.
|
On July 15 2013 03:07 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 03:02 phoenix`down wrote:
It wasn't an order. It was something like "Okay. We don't need you to do that." not "Don't do that." Intention is what matters, and the dispatchers intention was for Zimmerman to cease following — considering this it's a polite order, and not "We don't need you to do that, but if you really want to I think it would be okay".
Oh, stop. You're just making shit up. That dispatcher testified that they don't give orders, in fact they go out of their way NOT to give anything resembling orders.
|
On July 15 2013 03:04 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 02:58 Oleo wrote:On July 15 2013 02:36 SnipedSoul wrote:
Obese men aren't potent fighters either. Having lost 50-80 pounds on >1 year of training he looks like an average guy to me. On July 15 2013 02:56 Geiko wrote:On July 15 2013 02:51 Leporello wrote:
When GZ was mounted with his head against the pavement, no doubt about it, that is extremely threatening.
You don't have to be a martial artist to ruin someone's spine. Simple punches from an amateur to the back of anyone's head can paralyze that person for life, all too easily.
The problem is GZ couldn't and didn't shoot TM when he was mounted. He had to have thrown TM off the mount to get his gun and pull it, and GZ even admits this happened. The problem is there GZ claims that TM reached for the gun, thus GZ had to shoot TM or lose his gun. Of course, another problem there is we aren't sure who started the fight (although GZ calling the kid a "punk" and lurking around him kind of leans me towards calling GZ the instigator). If GZ started the fight, lost it, and then pulled a gun, I'm not sure it isn't TM defending himself.
We give GZ a lot of benefit of the doubt, but we give TM none really. TM wasn't defending himself when he reached for GZ's gun? How is it that self-defense works completely in GZ's favor based on the fact that a witness saw him losing the fight before the shooting actually happened?
There is a second before GZ pulled the trigger that no one but GZ saw. It's disturbing that eye-witness testimony -- really supposed to be the most unreliable form of evidence -- means so much in cases like these. We have a body, we have a deadly weapon, but since there was a fight those things don't matter anymore -- GZ is allowed any narrative that gives him the benefit of the doubt over TM, who isn't given the luxury of narrative and can't make claims of self-defense. I understand the verdict, but I just as easily understand people's frustration that GZ acted so foolishly, and is yet able to walk away from shooting an unarmed kid based on no more than his own word. We know TM wasn't just 'defending himself' when he refused to stop hitting GZ when Good asked him to. There is actually no way to know if he even heard him. The neighbor from across the street heard him while she was inside her house... And trayvon martin being 40 feet away didn't ?
Thats possible, while focused on something intense, its not at all unlikely to miss someone shouting (focus elsewhere), while someone listening from far away to an unknown altercation is quite likely to hear someone at that location shouting (focus on any noise from that specific event)
|
On July 15 2013 02:51 Leporello wrote:
We give GZ a lot of benefit of the doubt, but we give TM none really. TM wasn't defending himself when he reached for GZ's gun? How is it that self-defense works completely in GZ's favor based on the fact that a witness saw him losing the fight before the shooting actually happened?
This doesn't make any sense. First, Trayvon isn't on trial. He's dead. Second, and more importantly, no one is saying that they are certain that Trayvon initiated the fight for the same reason no one is saying that they are certain that Zimmerman didn't start the fight. A verdict of not guilty merely means that the jury isn't sure beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman didn't act in self-defense. Again, that's the whole problem with prosecuting this stupid case to begin with. There isn't enough competent evidence to say one way or another what happened and who truly was at fault. Sure, I tend to think that it is more probable than not that Trayvon was the instigator given the available evidence, but I'd be an idiot to say that I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Trayvon was the instigator and that Zimmerman acted in self-defense.
|
Demigod, it's obvious you didn't watched the case. Go look on youtube at the closing statements, 6 h to watch (2+3+1) but you'll learn to no longer ask citations for things spoken at trial.
And look up the police dispatcher testimony as well, you'll learn that is FORBIDDEN to give orders during calls.
|
I honestly can't see how the NAACP have approached the Feds as to make this a Civil Rights case.
|
On July 15 2013 03:09 city42 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
This is what the media does to people. And this is what happens when people rely too much on the mainstream media for their info.
The 6 women jurors were the ones who were their for every second of the case. They followed and watched closely. They unanimously agreed that Zimmerman was not guilty in accordance with the evidence and the law.
Remember, in the USA you are innocent until proven guilty and he was proven not guilty.
|
On July 15 2013 03:12 Kakaru2 wrote:
Demigod, it's obvious you didn't watched the case. Go look on youtube at the closing statements, 6 h to watch (2+3+1) but you'll learn to no longer ask citations for things spoken at trial.
And look up the police dispatcher testimony as well, you'll learn that is FORBIDDEN to give orders during calls.
On July 15 2013 03:09 city42 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
As I said earlier: intention is what matters, and the dispatchers intention was for Zimmerman to cease following — considering this it's a polite order, and not "We don't need you to do that, but if you really want to I think it would be okay". Legally admissible is completely irrelevant as the dispatcher was just reciting his employment rules because he doesn't want to lose his position or be held responsible on some kind of technicality.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Most people arguing against the verdict are using talking points from the media blitz a year ago. They're not the ones who paid scrupulous attention to the trial. That's true not only here but across almost all media outlets as well.
|
On July 15 2013 02:56 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 02:51 Leporello wrote:
When GZ was mounted with his head against the pavement, no doubt about it, that is extremely threatening.
You don't have to be a martial artist to ruin someone's spine. Simple punches from an amateur to the back of anyone's head can paralyze that person for life, all too easily.
The problem is GZ couldn't and didn't shoot TM when he was mounted. He had to have thrown TM off the mount to get his gun and pull it, and GZ even admits this happened. The problem is there GZ claims that TM reached for the gun, thus GZ had to shoot TM or lose his gun. Of course, another problem there is we aren't sure who started the fight (although GZ calling the kid a "punk" and lurking around him kind of leans me towards calling GZ the instigator). If GZ started the fight, lost it, and then pulled a gun, I'm not sure it isn't TM defending himself.
We give GZ a lot of benefit of the doubt, but we give TM none really. TM wasn't defending himself when he reached for GZ's gun? How is it that self-defense works completely in GZ's favor based on the fact that a witness saw him losing the fight before the shooting actually happened?
There is a second before GZ pulled the trigger that no one but GZ saw. It's disturbing that eye-witness testimony -- really supposed to be the most unreliable form of evidence -- means so much in cases like these. We have a body, we have a deadly weapon, but since there was a fight those things don't matter anymore -- GZ is allowed any narrative that gives him the benefit of the doubt over TM, who isn't given the luxury of narrative and can't make claims of self-defense. I understand the verdict, but I just as easily understand people's frustration that GZ acted so foolishly, and is yet able to walk away from shooting an unarmed kid based on no more than his own word. We know TM wasn't just 'defending himself' when he refused to stop hitting GZ when Good asked him to.
What if GZ told TM he was going to kill him, said to TM "I'm tired of you a-hole getting away with it", just like he did to the police dispatcher, and/or told him to "stay put or he'd shoot" without giving any hint of police being on their way -- which could be interpreted by TM as any number of things.
What we know from the Good testimony is that at one point, before the shooting, TM was ruthlessly attacking GZ -- and if GZ had shot him at that point (although he really couldn't have), his self-defense claim would be more solid to me. But Good's testimony doesn't definitively prove that TM wasn't defending himself from what he perceived as a threat, and it doesn't prove that at the moment of the shooting, GZ was in actual danger.
|
On July 15 2013 03:13 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
