|
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 04:31 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 04:28 SKC wrote: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.
Even if that applied, which I don't think it does, you would first have to prove that Zimmermann was following him (which he says he wasn't), and that he intended a confrontation (which is very unlikely). Just following someone can't possibly apply.
Either way, that is far too general. You would some more specific like the jury instructions to be able to say something more meaningful.
|
On July 15 2013 04:32 DemigodcelpH 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. Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 04:20 theodorus12 wrote: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 . Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 04:23 city42 wrote: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.
Hahahah so it's "court semantics" when the dispatcher HIMSELF said it wasn't an order. I doubt that you are even capable of using logic lol.
|
On July 15 2013 04:34 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 04:16 DemigodcelpH wrote: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.
As a member of policing-organization it is still an implied order from said member, albeit specifically distinguished from an official one. This distinction has been made clear from the very beginning.
|
On July 15 2013 04:37 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 04:34 Hryul wrote:On July 15 2013 04:16 DemigodcelpH wrote: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. As a member of policing-organization it is still an implied order from said member, albeit specifically distinguished from an official one. This distinction has been made clear from the very beginning.
There is no such thing as an implied police order from a non-police officer. You are just using your own personal definition of the word order to make it seem like the advice from the operator was something that it was not: an authorative command.
|
On July 15 2013 04:36 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 04:31 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 15 2013 04:28 SKC wrote: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. Even if that applied, which I don't think it does, you would first have to prove that Zimmermann was following him (which he says he wasn't), and that he intended a confrontation (which is very unlikely). Just following someone can't possibly apply. Either way, that is far too general. You would some more specific like the jury instructions to be able to say something more meaningful.
Wasn't Martin recorded as saying "Why are you following me?" over the phone? And while he may not have intended a confrontation, that doesn't explain why he got out of his car in the first place. I just think that if a parent can serve time for leaving a door open, then Zimmerman should have been serving at least some time.
|
On July 15 2013 03:59 slyboogie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 03:53 rezoacken wrote:
Really all this comes down to is this.
We will never know what REALLY happened. And therefore speculating on it is irrelevant when it comes to a verdict. The verdict is based on what is exposed because that's the only thing you can work with. Not heart feelings and imaginary scenarios that fits sentiments. Based on this, after hours, the Jury decided that there is no proof of murder. Therefore, at the best of our knowledge, there is no murder.
Maybe this is a false negative. I don't know. I wasn't there. Nobody on TL was, nor CNN, nor rioting peoples. More so, we weren't even at the trial nor discussed the outcome for 15 hours with other people that were.
Any system will have false positives (being innocently sent to jail) or false negatives (being wrongly acquitted). And it sucks. But what you can do about it ? Start sending people in prison with a diminished required evidence ? In that case you also increase the risk of false positives.
To me all this comes down to what I do day and night in statistics. There is probability that I'm wrong in my conclusion, I cannot avoid it but I certainly cannot start playing with the levels of confidence just for the conclusion to work in my favor or the client's favor (or at least I'm not one of those...). But we do know 1 thing. George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin after following him through the neighborhood. Even George Zimmerman would agree with that. That stand alone fact is what makes this so aggravating.
this is exactly the biggest problem this case has. Because there is one simple fact and people like to jump to conlusions. Oh he is 28 and he is white (and can't smile to a photo, what a loser), oh the kid is 17 (and look, what a cute kid he was when 15, awwwwww), black and had a pack of skittles. Case solved.
|
On July 15 2013 04:39 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 04:36 SKC wrote:On July 15 2013 04:31 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 15 2013 04:28 SKC wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Even if that applied, which I don't think it does, you would first have to prove that Zimmermann was following him (which he says he wasn't), and that he intended a confrontation (which is very unlikely). Just following someone can't possibly apply. Either way, that is far too general. You would some more specific like the jury instructions to be able to say something more meaningful. Wasn't Martin recorded as saying "Why are you following me?" over the phone? And while he may not have intended a confrontation, that doesn't explain why he got out of his car in the first place. I just think that if a parent can serve time for leaving a door open, then Zimmerman should have been serving at least some time.
I don't think so. I belive his friend testified to that, but her testimony was quite odd and obviously biased.
Either way, this is what culpable negligence actually means:
I will now define "culpable negligence" for you. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care for others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard for human life, or for the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard for the safety and welfare of the public, or shows such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights.
Reckless disregard for human life, it must be gross and flagrant, etc. It's not as simple as following someone. He would never be convicted.
|
On July 15 2013 02:34 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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.
He got his ass beat.
In all of the situations that you mentioned their hands are pretty much registered weapons and anyone's hands can kill.
If you got your head bashed up on concrete and the crap punched out of you like GZ did that's considered an ass whooping to the point where you could get knocked unconscious and get seriously injured or killed.
Most MMA fighters or boxers that get their ass beat in a match don't even look as bad as he did although some do but those are sanctioned fights with a referee where once someone is in danger and getting ground & pounded the fight is stopped even if it's a soft mat and not concrete.
I have been in a situation simliar to that of GZ (jumped) and trust me, if you have a weapon on you....ANY weapon, you would react in the same manner that he did and use it.
I don't care if it's a knife, sword, gun, or a damn fork/spoon, coffee mug (Chronicles of Riddick style).
You will fight for your life when in fight or flight mode like he was (could tell from his screaming and the scenario that his mindset was in fight or flight anyways)
|
On July 15 2013 04:37 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 04:34 Hryul wrote:On July 15 2013 04:16 DemigodcelpH wrote: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. As a member of policing-organization it is still an implied order from said member, albeit specifically distinguished from an official one. This distinction has been made clear from the very beginning.
But then it is not a "police order" because the police order needs the law enforcement part with it. It may or may not been an "order". But this order is not enforceable. So it is completely irrelevant.
|
On July 15 2013 04:31 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 04:28 SKC wrote: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.
You're not interpreting manslaughter appropriately. For an act to constitute manslaughter, it must actually kill the victim. Following someone is not manslaughter because it doesn't kill. Shooting a gun can be manslaughter. Stabbing someone can be manslaughter. Punching someone fatally can be manslaughter. Following someone will never be manslaughter because another act is required to cause the killing.
|
On July 15 2013 04:38 rasnj wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 04:37 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 04:34 Hryul wrote:On July 15 2013 04:16 DemigodcelpH wrote: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. As a member of policing-organization it is still an implied order from said member, albeit specifically distinguished from an official one. This distinction has been made clear from the very beginning. There is no such thing as an implied police order from a non-police officer. You are just using your own personal definition of the word order to make it seem like the advice from the operator was something that it was not: an authorative command.
Don't twist words. It was an implied order from a member of a policing-organization. This is under strict adhere to dictionary definitions.
An order, implied or not, sugar-coated or not, does not have to be legally admissible for it to still carry the connotation of "do not do X".
On July 15 2013 04:43 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 04:37 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 04:34 Hryul wrote:On July 15 2013 04:16 DemigodcelpH wrote: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. As a member of policing-organization it is still an implied order from said member, albeit specifically distinguished from an official one. This distinction has been made clear from the very beginning. It may or may not been an "order". But this order is not enforceable. So it is completely irrelevant.
Now you are understanding, and it goes without saying that it's not enforceable. However it's relevant because Zimmerman, assuming standard social competence, reasonably understood that the officer was not trying to debate with him as he called the police for instructions.
|
On July 15 2013 04:39 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 04:36 SKC wrote:On July 15 2013 04:31 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 15 2013 04:28 SKC wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Even if that applied, which I don't think it does, you would first have to prove that Zimmermann was following him (which he says he wasn't), and that he intended a confrontation (which is very unlikely). Just following someone can't possibly apply. Either way, that is far too general. You would some more specific like the jury instructions to be able to say something more meaningful. Wasn't Martin recorded as saying "Why are you following me?" over the phone? And while he may not have intended a confrontation, that doesn't explain why he got out of his car in the first place. I just think that if a parent can serve time for leaving a door open, then Zimmerman should have been serving at least some time.
I don't recall that particular quote. He got out of his car to get directions for the police (you may doubt this, but no evidence so far has suggested it is false so it would be stupid to argue with it without any kind of new evidence). Also there is no option of "some time". It was a 20 year minimum or something like that if he had been found guilty. You may take issue with Florida law, but 20 years was the mild alternative for doing something stupid. While it is sad that TM ended up dead there is no way GZ could have anticipated that outcome so I don't think we should punish him as though it was predictable.
|
On July 15 2013 04:44 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 04:38 rasnj wrote:On July 15 2013 04:37 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 04:34 Hryul wrote:On July 15 2013 04:16 DemigodcelpH wrote: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. As a member of policing-organization it is still an implied order from said member, albeit specifically distinguished from an official one. This distinction has been made clear from the very beginning. There is no such thing as an implied police order from a non-police officer. You are just using your own personal definition of the word order to make it seem like the advice from the operator was something that it was not: an authorative command. Don't twist words. It was an implied order from a member of a policing-organization. This is under strict adhere to dictionary definitions. An order, implied or not, sugar-coated or not, does not have to be legally admissible for it to still carry the connotation of "do not do X".
Are you only playing stupid or are you really that dense? Multiple people have told you exactly why you are wrong, but you simply ignore it and keep on spouting total nonsense.
User was warned for this post
|
On July 15 2013 04:44 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 04:38 rasnj wrote:On July 15 2013 04:37 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 04:34 Hryul wrote:On July 15 2013 04:16 DemigodcelpH wrote: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. As a member of policing-organization it is still an implied order from said member, albeit specifically distinguished from an official one. This distinction has been made clear from the very beginning. There is no such thing as an implied police order from a non-police officer. You are just using your own personal definition of the word order to make it seem like the advice from the operator was something that it was not: an authorative command. Don't twist words. It was an implied order from a member of a policing-organization. This is under strict adhere to dictionary definitions. An order, implied or not, sugar-coated or not, does not have to be legally admissible for it to still carry the connotation of "do not do X".
What is an order to you? Would you mind giving the dictionary definition, because for me it is something like "An authorative command." When the person giving it has no authority then it is at best a command, but when it is just "we don't need you to do that", then it is a non-authorative suggestion or advice. What was given was advice, and there is not even any evidence that he disobeyed that. He went outside his car to get directions, not to follow TM.
|
On July 15 2013 04:46 theodorus12 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 04:44 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 04:38 rasnj wrote:On July 15 2013 04:37 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 04:34 Hryul wrote:On July 15 2013 04:16 DemigodcelpH wrote: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. As a member of policing-organization it is still an implied order from said member, albeit specifically distinguished from an official one. This distinction has been made clear from the very beginning. There is no such thing as an implied police order from a non-police officer. You are just using your own personal definition of the word order to make it seem like the advice from the operator was something that it was not: an authorative command. Don't twist words. It was an implied order from a member of a policing-organization. This is under strict adhere to dictionary definitions. An order, implied or not, sugar-coated or not, does not have to be legally admissible for it to still carry the connotation of "do not do X". Are you only playing stupid or are you really that dense? Multiple people have told you exactly why you are wrong, but you simply ignore it and keep on spouting total nonsense.
Congratulations on your 3rd substance-less post in a row. I've refuted all rebuttals presented so far; if you're unclear about something I can cite it.
|
Don't tell people not to twist things, demigodcelph, when this new "Trayvon was defending himself" twist is the biggest twist since THE Twist.
Also the Mashed Potato.
At no time was Trayvon Martin ever defending himself against anything except being bothered by some "creepy-ass cracker." You don't get to beat crackers up because they're pissing you off. That isn't self-defense.
You have also rebutted nothing, you're into dual blowhard-tryhard mode now.
|
On July 15 2013 04:48 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 04:46 theodorus12 wrote:On July 15 2013 04:44 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 04:38 rasnj wrote:On July 15 2013 04:37 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 04:34 Hryul wrote:On July 15 2013 04:16 DemigodcelpH wrote: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. As a member of policing-organization it is still an implied order from said member, albeit specifically distinguished from an official one. This distinction has been made clear from the very beginning. There is no such thing as an implied police order from a non-police officer. You are just using your own personal definition of the word order to make it seem like the advice from the operator was something that it was not: an authorative command. Don't twist words. It was an implied order from a member of a policing-organization. This is under strict adhere to dictionary definitions. An order, implied or not, sugar-coated or not, does not have to be legally admissible for it to still carry the connotation of "do not do X". Are you only playing stupid or are you really that dense? Multiple people have told you exactly why you are wrong, but you simply ignore it and keep on spouting total nonsense. Congratulations on your 3rd substance-less post in a row. I've refuted all rebuttals presented so far; if you're unclear about something I can cite it.
Posting substance less bs is all you did in this thread.
I make it easy so even you can follow.
The dispatcher is not a police officer.
So he has no authority.
So Z doesn't have to follow his order and the court simply ignores it.
This was confirmed by the dispatcher himself.
|
The thing that disturbs me most about this trial is the media coverage it has gotten, all over the world. Very little of it has anything to do with why the jurors came to the outcome or if justice was served. If I wasn't following this case closely I'd have an obsurdly skewed view on it thanks to what popular media outlets focus on.
|
On July 15 2013 04:51 DannyJ wrote:
The thing that disturbs me most about this trial is the media coverage it has gotten, all over the world. Very little of it has anything to do with why the jurors came to the outcome or if justice was served. If I wasn't following this case closely I'd have an obsurdly skewed view on it thanks to what popular media outlets focus on.
Welcome to the liberal media, even faking audio tapes in order to make someone look guilty.
|
The death of Trayvon Martin was a tragedy. Not just for his family, or for any one community, but for America. I know this case has elicited strong passions. And in the wake of the verdict, I know those passions may be running even higher. But we are a nation of laws, and a jury has spoken. I now ask every American to respect the call for calm reflection from two parents who lost their young son. And as we do, we should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to widen the circle of compassion and understanding in our own communities. We should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to stem the tide of gun violence that claims too many lives across this country on a daily basis. We should ask ourselves, as individuals and as a society, how we can prevent future tragedies like this. As citizens, that’s a job for all of us. That’s the way to honor Trayvon Martin.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/07/14/statement-president
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
