At 3/26/12 11:07 PM, RacistBassist wrote:
They don't wish him to, but it is also not an active order to stand down.
You do realize a 911 dispatcher has no authority to order anyone to do anything right? The dispatcher in question probably felt she was telling him to stop as clearly as possible.
A lot of cops also don't want you to fight back a lot of the time but instead run, but that's also not an order.
There is a huge difference between the two.
There is. One of the principal differences is one has the authority to do what Zimmerman did, the other doesn't. Guess which one Zimmerman belonged to?
Nothing. Zimm was following. Didn't try to confront.
Zimm had no right to follow/chase. Zero. By following/chasing, it can be inferred he was at the least WILLING to confront, if not actively seeking a confrontation.
It implies running after.
It actually doesn't according to the dictionary definition of a later reply to you.
Following in his truck. Following. Not trying to confront.
You keep missing the part where he has absolutely ZERO authority or legal right to be doing that. You also absolve him of the fact that any confrontation would result from the chain of causality that begins with his decision to follow/chase without said authority or right.
So basically it ends up with Trayvon having more of a right to be in the neighborhood, so he can just attack him?
If you completely didn't understand what I was saying and made some stuff up in your head? Yeah, sure, it could go that way.
But in the real world of what I was actually saying? I'm saying you've got a private citizen who has decided to chase another private citizen, with two deadly weapons in his possession (his truck, his gun) and when they reach a piece of private property that is neither citizen's residence, the chased confronts the chaser. Honestly, if Martin had survived the encounter, it seems to me he'd have a better defense under Stand Your Ground then Zimmerman could ever hope to.
Reports of the time spent following differ, but most indicate it at around one block.
Doesn't matter, he has no right to follow Martin. This is the critical point that overrides all this hair splitting you try to do.
Yes, and I've had people get road rage on me since we were going the same way. Therefore, they can attack me right?
The two situations are nowhere near comparable. You can't compare apples to oranges, though you seem bound and determined to try.
7:00 PM. Hardly middle of the night like reported. Yes, I believe Zimmerman should be brought under scrutiny for following, but remember, he was the one attacked.
That is not proven. But even if he did, that attack would have occurred as a result of his unlawful decision to follow Martin with two deadly weapons. Again, if Martin lives, he's got a slam dunk defense under Stand Your Ground against Zimmerman based on the emerging facts so far.
Zimmerman clearly believed this kid was scoping places out to commit a crime.
So what? He's not a cop, he's not a profiler, he's got NO AUTHORITY to do what he did.
He was trying to prevent it. He did not block him off in his car and attack him, he called 9-11 and followed.
He never should of followed him, he had NO RIGHT OR AUTHORITY TO FOLLOW!! This is why all your arguments will continue to fall to pieces, because of this fact. He has no right or business following this kid, none. He violated the rules of his own volunteer group by doing so, if not the law in general.
Uh, he does have the right to be armed, and he was on the phone with police.
Uh, no, 911 is not the police. My brother is a 911 dispatcher, but not a police officer. The two work together, but are not the same. I never said he didn't have a right to be armed, just that he had no right to do what he did, especially while armed.
He did nothing illegal, nor did he violate any rights.
This is so flat out wrong it's insane. But again, a black kid gets shot, a guy with "Racist" in his username defends the shooter...I shouldn't be shocked.
It's perfectly legal and moral to carry a gun, and following criminals through the neighborhood but not going up to them is perfectly within the rights.
Except that it well and truly is not. Unless you can show me a law which says you can. Also when did you magically find evidence saying Martin WAS a criminal? Because if you have some irrefutable proof, please stop talking about it on an internet forum and contact the county prosecutor in Sanford.
Cool. My grandparents were part of the watch. Didn't stop him from being packing. Considering that, you know, criminals don't take kindly to people reporting them.
Were they in THIS neighborhood watch? Because if they were, and they did what Zimmerman did, then they would have broke the rules and guidelines of the watch like Zimmerman did.
The lady that disputed it did NOT see it go down. She said she believed it didn't. Yes, there should be an investigation, but a hit by the BP is a little much.
The BP? Does BP stand for "Black Person"? If so, why does he have to be identified by his race?
Second, it's more then one person disputing Zimmerman you know, right?
Yeah, and who was the first to exchange words?
It doesn't matter because he had NO LEGAL RIGHT TO FOLLOW/CHASE THIS KID!!! Who confronts who is fairly irrelevant when the whole situation could have been avoided if Zimmerman stopped following when 911 told him he wasn't required to do so.
He's the neighbor watch. It's what he does. He did so at a distance.
That is NOT what the neighborhood watch does! EVERY article on this, EVERY person within that particular watch who was interviewed corroborates that fact! He had NO business or right doing what he did. The end!
Nowhere did he break any law.
I fully believe he did, or at the least the law isn't protecting him on chasing some kid because he thinks he's up to no good. Show me the law that says he can.
Seriously, find me the law where he isn't allowed to get out of his truck.
That's a sin of omission and you know it.
Find me the law that says he isn't allowed to be on the phone with police trying to get them on the scene.
Again, convenient omissions. You know damn well where he steps outside of the bounds of what he is legally allowed to do is.
He really did a great job attempting to evade the 250 IB overweight man.
He did until he decided to try and find out why this guy was following him. Then we have someone pushing someone, and a gun shot (based off what Martin's g/f is testifying to).
The scenario where all testimony from eye witnesses corroborate Zimmerman? That scenario?
Oh that is a total lie and you know it. Don't discuss things if you don't want to do it honestly.
What did he do?
He chased a private citizen with two deadly weapons prompting a confrontation that resulted in the other citizen dying. That is what he did. You keep omitting this from almost all your argumentation.
Who Trayvon did not know was armed.
How do you know what Trayvon knew or didn't know, and when he did or didn't know it? I sure don't, I'm going to make an educated guess you don't either.
Either way, even if it was Zimmerman attacking, which I highly doubt, Trayvon forfeited all claim of self defense by bashing his head against the ground.
Except it doesn't based on Florida's version of Stand Your Ground. Martin would have been defending himself in a situation where he felt threatened. You know, the defense Zimmerman is trying to use?
I'd call i following.
Well, the dictionary calls it chasing. Guess which one I go with?
Trayvon turned around and engaged. That's pretty clear intent to confront.
He turned around and verbally engaged, the rest is conjecture. Also Zimmerman still is the ultimate cause because this results from his original decision to chase. If Martin had lived, and Zimmerman pressed charges, I'm almost 100% confident the case would have been tossed because Zimmerman's decisions directly lead to the confrontation.