|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP.
If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. |
On July 15 2013 03:13 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.
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.
|
On July 15 2013 03:12 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I agree, as I'm not arguing with the verdict, as I've stated in several posts, including the one you're quoting. There is reasonable doubt that GZ acted in self-defense. But it's simply doubt, of which the only clue we have as to what ultimately happened is GZ's own words.
No one witnessed GZ shoot TM, no one can definitively say it was self-defense. There is some context, we have witnesses to part of the fight, we have GZ's voice recording to the dispatcher... There is so much missing information to what happened. That is why GZ is getting free --- and that is also why people are pissed.
|
Guys, maybe if you post really hard on Team Liquid, you'll change the outcome of the trial!
User was warned for this post
|
On July 15 2013 03:16 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +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:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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.
|
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.
|
On July 15 2013 03:23 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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.
|
On July 15 2013 03:29 Leporello wrote:
We can look at this case and say the verdict was just -- what I don't think people in this thread are understanding, when it comes to people's displeasure at the verdict, is that it's about more than this verdict. It's about how easily we lock up black people for violent crimes, at shocking percentages, but GZ is given every benefit of the doubt, despite being an obviously foolish and bitter person, who made a mistake that night.
Then complain about those cases where the black guy is locked up even though there is no evidence at all that he is guilty, if they exist, instead of complaining about a case where the law worked.
|
On July 15 2013 03:23 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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.
|
On July 15 2013 03:32 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 03:29 Leporello wrote:
We can look at this case and say the verdict was just -- what I don't think people in this thread are understanding, when it comes to people's displeasure at the verdict, is that it's about more than this verdict. It's about how easily we lock up black people for violent crimes, at shocking percentages, but GZ is given every benefit of the doubt, despite being an obviously foolish and bitter person, who made a mistake that night. Then complain about those cases where the black guy is locked up even though there is no evidence at all that he is guilty, if they exist, instead of complaining about a case where the law worked.
People do "complain" about cases, cases which often get overturned because the police forced a testimony, doctored evidence, lied, or some other shady crap. Happens all the time to the more disenfranchised members of society.
Didn't happen to GZ though, did it? People are going to resent this contrast in justice, isn't that understandable?
|
On July 15 2013 03:34 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 03:32 SKC wrote:On July 15 2013 03:29 Leporello wrote:
We can look at this case and say the verdict was just -- what I don't think people in this thread are understanding, when it comes to people's displeasure at the verdict, is that it's about more than this verdict. It's about how easily we lock up black people for violent crimes, at shocking percentages, but GZ is given every benefit of the doubt, despite being an obviously foolish and bitter person, who made a mistake that night. Then complain about those cases where the black guy is locked up even though there is no evidence at all that he is guilty, if they exist, instead of complaining about a case where the law worked. People do "complain" about cases, cases which often get overturned because the police forced a testimony or some other shady crap. Happens all the time. Didn't happen to GZ though. did it? People are going to resent that, isn't that understandable?
Then talk about those cases specifically. Don't act like this case was unfair just because other cases may have been unfair.
|
On July 15 2013 03:36 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 03:34 Leporello wrote:On July 15 2013 03:32 SKC wrote:On July 15 2013 03:29 Leporello wrote:
We can look at this case and say the verdict was just -- what I don't think people in this thread are understanding, when it comes to people's displeasure at the verdict, is that it's about more than this verdict. It's about how easily we lock up black people for violent crimes, at shocking percentages, but GZ is given every benefit of the doubt, despite being an obviously foolish and bitter person, who made a mistake that night. Then complain about those cases where the black guy is locked up even though there is no evidence at all that he is guilty, if they exist, instead of complaining about a case where the law worked. People do "complain" about cases, cases which often get overturned because the police forced a testimony or some other shady crap. Happens all the time. Didn't happen to GZ though. did it? People are going to resent that, isn't that understandable? Then talk about those cases specifically. Don't act like this case was unfair just because other cases may have been unfair.
Maybe someone can quote my post where I call the verdict wrong or unfair. The verdict was just.
|
On July 15 2013 03:34 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 03:32 SKC wrote:On July 15 2013 03:29 Leporello wrote:
We can look at this case and say the verdict was just -- what I don't think people in this thread are understanding, when it comes to people's displeasure at the verdict, is that it's about more than this verdict. It's about how easily we lock up black people for violent crimes, at shocking percentages, but GZ is given every benefit of the doubt, despite being an obviously foolish and bitter person, who made a mistake that night. Then complain about those cases where the black guy is locked up even though there is no evidence at all that he is guilty, if they exist, instead of complaining about a case where the law worked. People do "complain" about cases, cases which often get overturned because the police forced a testimony, doctored evidence, lied, or some other shady crap. Happens all the time to the more disenfranchised members of society. Didn't happen to GZ though, did it? People are going to resent this contrast in justice, isn't that understandable?
Sure it did. Prosecution attempted to withhold evidence from Zimmerman defense.
|
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.
|
On July 15 2013 03:38 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 03:36 SKC wrote:On July 15 2013 03:34 Leporello wrote:On July 15 2013 03:32 SKC wrote:On July 15 2013 03:29 Leporello wrote:
We can look at this case and say the verdict was just -- what I don't think people in this thread are understanding, when it comes to people's displeasure at the verdict, is that it's about more than this verdict. It's about how easily we lock up black people for violent crimes, at shocking percentages, but GZ is given every benefit of the doubt, despite being an obviously foolish and bitter person, who made a mistake that night. Then complain about those cases where the black guy is locked up even though there is no evidence at all that he is guilty, if they exist, instead of complaining about a case where the law worked. People do "complain" about cases, cases which often get overturned because the police forced a testimony or some other shady crap. Happens all the time. Didn't happen to GZ though. did it? People are going to resent that, isn't that understandable? Then talk about those cases specifically. Don't act like this case was unfair just because other cases may have been unfair. Maybe someone can quote my post where I call the verdict wrong or unfair.
"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."
You are saying that it's disturbing that he is allowed to use the kind of defense he used. Which ussually means you think there is something wrong in that. It's basically complaining about innocent before proven guilty. Everyone can use his own word as evidence if there is nothing that contradicts it. And it was not GZ's own word alone that allowed him to get away. Eye witness and expert testimony added to that.
|
On July 15 2013 03:30 phoenix`down wrote:Show nested quote +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" (transcripts also directly contradict this) he was lying 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:Show nested quote +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 Show nested quote +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?
|
On July 15 2013 00:57 slyboogie wrote:
Huffpo writer Syreeta McFadden writes: "Only in America can a dead black boy go on trial for his own murder."
Disappointing verdict, but not unexpected.
Quoting the Huffpo, which is the epitome of liberal retardation.
lol
|
On July 15 2013 03:38 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 03:34 Leporello wrote:On July 15 2013 03:32 SKC wrote:On July 15 2013 03:29 Leporello wrote:
We can look at this case and say the verdict was just -- what I don't think people in this thread are understanding, when it comes to people's displeasure at the verdict, is that it's about more than this verdict. It's about how easily we lock up black people for violent crimes, at shocking percentages, but GZ is given every benefit of the doubt, despite being an obviously foolish and bitter person, who made a mistake that night. Then complain about those cases where the black guy is locked up even though there is no evidence at all that he is guilty, if they exist, instead of complaining about a case where the law worked. People do "complain" about cases, cases which often get overturned because the police forced a testimony, doctored evidence, lied, or some other shady crap. Happens all the time to the more disenfranchised members of society. Didn't happen to GZ though, did it? People are going to resent this contrast in justice, isn't that understandable? Sure it did. Prosecution attempted to withhold evidence from Zimmerman defense.
Look, if you have the pleasure of not understanding why people are disillusioned and upset with our justice system, sincerely, good for you, and I'm going to leave it at that. I'd love to have many of France's police and legal procedures implemented here. What GZ did was an undeniable crime in your country the moment he left his car with a gun in his pants.
The police did not treat GZ like it treats many black criminals who're currently sitting in jail. It's just a fact that not every case is handled with the same amount of diligence, integrity, or lack thereofs, and that those differences often do fall along a racial divide.
|
On July 15 2013 03:42 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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: Show nested quote +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.
|
On July 15 2013 03:42 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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: Show nested quote +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.
|
On July 15 2013 03:40 phoenix`down wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
