Zimmerman Trial

Use this forum to suggest topics, and to find others to debate with.

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby uglypeoplefucking » Tue Jul 16, 2013 10:01 pm

Pav and Stuart, i think you would need testimony from the 911 dispatcher about why, if for any particular reason, she said what she did. My assumption is that when you call 911 you take them in earnest when they suggest to you what you should or shouldn't do. Perhaps the only reason she phrased the statement the way she did is because she is not in a position of authority, can't tell Zimmerman what to do, and knows it. Or maybe the only reason she said it is she sensed Zimmerman might have been a bit on edge or paranoid and even a bit dangerous himself (As an aside: perhaps Martin sensed the same thing and ran and then later attacked because of it - we'll never know). i don't know, someone would need to ask her, but to me "we don't need you to do that" means the same thing as "don't do that", at least coming from a 911 dispatcher. It's perhaps a bit more polite than giving a direct command, which apparently they aren't authorized to do anyway, but i suspect politeness is really the sum of the difference. All that said, i would also caution against overanalyzing the semantics of what the 911 dispatcher said, as she may not really have been all that aware of them herself. The point for me is rather the contrast between what Zimmerman was told and what he did. He was told that he was not needed, yet he persisted in his pursuit. The second he did that, it becomes clear to me that he was looking to catch the kid and . . . well, who knows what. After all, he was armed, convinced (based on appearance) that Martin was an "asshole", and taking it upon himself to chase him down. That says to me that he is a dangerous man.
i am brilliant, you are stupid. Therefore, you are wrong.
uglypeoplefucking
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4147
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 2:47 pm
Location: throughout

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby Moreno » Tue Jul 16, 2013 10:40 pm

uglypeoplefucking wrote: That says to me that he is a dangerous man.

I agree with this. I have a feeling if I had been on the jury, I would have acquitted him. I don't know the details, just going on the broad strokes I have Heard. This is nto because I Think he is innocent, but because it seems like we simply don't know what happened between the two men. However he was reckless and reckless with a gun. I Think he should lose his gun rights. Not much solace to the Martin family, but it seems a minimum reaction. Whatever we Think of the right to bear arms, we don't want people deciding to act like police while armed, out on the streets - iow we are not talking about someone defending himself against an intruder in his home or a mugger. He sought out someone who he suspected of being up to no good and somehow confronted him. I don't want armed amateurs doing that. Not that I am thrilled with the way professionals are doing this these Days. If Zimmerman had been a policeman, for example, the fact that someone got shot to Death should be seen, in that instance, as an extreme failure on the part of the policeman. An inability to handle such situations to such a degree that someone died. Here we have an untrained lone wolf amateur and he should not be allowed to be in that position again.
User avatar
Moreno
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10305
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby Orbie » Tue Jul 16, 2013 10:54 pm

Latest on public outrage; Steve Wonder declared, he is canceling his Florida concert because of the Florida law which gives absolute right not to retreat in an altercation. Holder gave go ahead to review the "stand your ground rule.
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby Stuart » Tue Jul 16, 2013 11:53 pm

I'm glad he is canceling that concert, but would it be too much to ask that someone cancel a concert based on an unfair law that isn't already so widely in the news?

UPF, The non-emergency dispatcher was a witness during the trial, I didn't watch his whole testimony and I don't recall if he said anything that would help explain this issue, I would be happy if someone would look up the transcript and make an argument based on it.
Stuart
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3027
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 8:32 am
Location: California

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby Stuart » Tue Jul 16, 2013 11:58 pm

Moreno, I agree in that he should no longer be able to carry a gun in public, but can you think of a situation when it would ever be anything but reckless for anyone to carry a gun in public?
Stuart
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3027
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 8:32 am
Location: California

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jul 17, 2013 12:12 am

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38466
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby Stuart » Wed Jul 17, 2013 12:33 am

In the slate article the juror is criticized for referring to Martin using the word 'colored'. Yes, that does sound very stupid, almost as stupid as an entire organization devoted to the cause of one classification of people and relentless political correctness in that regard having the word 'colored' in their name.

How can I criticize an organization if I can't even say their name without being politically incorrect?

And then the writer of the article talks about Mark Twain. I assume Mark Twain was ahead of his time, but still is the irony of quoting a guy who used the 'N' word over two hundred times in his famous novel lost on him?

Anyway, that's that writer's credibility down the drain, do I even want to read the other article you provided?

Also, Smears may take exception to this; the writer referred to the juror as a contrarian!
Stuart
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3027
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 8:32 am
Location: California

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby Moreno » Wed Jul 17, 2013 1:25 am

Stuartp523 wrote:Moreno, I agree in that he should no longer be able to carry a gun in public, but can you think of a situation when it would ever be anything but reckless for anyone to carry a gun in public?
I'd take away his right completely, not just in public. IOW I don't think he should be trusted to have a gun, period. Then to the general issue....the whole gun thing is a mess. I get along with people who are against the NRA on most things, but I tend to think it is good Americans have guns, given their own government. The focus on the right to carry in public....ah, I don't even want to get into it.
User avatar
Moreno
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10305
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby fuse » Wed Jul 17, 2013 1:58 am

You guys need to watch this video. It sums up a lot of facts. I'll say right now, go ahead ignore the drug stuff that gets brought up since I know people will cry "bias" and irrelevant information. Still it's clear this case is not as open and shut as a lot of people want to think. There was a neighborhood witness who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman pounding him into the sidewalk. And Martin's friend who had been talking to Martin on the phone has written a statement that suggests Martin actually confronted Zimmerman who had been watching/following Martin. You can look up video of these witnesses and their testimony.

User avatar
fuse
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4588
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:13 pm

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby Moreno » Wed Jul 17, 2013 4:25 am

fuse wrote:You guys need to watch this video. It sums up a lot of facts. I'll say right now, go ahead ignore the drug stuff that gets brought up since I know people will cry "bias" and irrelevant information. Still it's clear this case is not as open and shut as a lot of people want to think. There was a neighborhood witness who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman pounding him into the sidewalk. And Martin's friend who had been talking to Martin on the phone has written a statement that suggests Martin actually confronted Zimmerman who had been watching/following Martin. You can look up video of these witnesses and their testimony.

So Martin confronted someone who was following him. Personally I would probably just try to move away from such a person, but following someone, especially since this likely became quite clear that was what he was doing, is threatening. If Z gets to judge someone by their clothes, M gets to judge someone by what they are doing. And the fact that some witness saw M winning, at some point in the fight, means very little. He may have been the better fighter. I think people should be able to even get into a fight, with someone who is following them, and that this not be punished by death. If he pulled a knife, well, that\s a different can of beans.

As said, I think it is very hard to prove it was murder or even manslaughter, but what Z did that night was wrong, whatever the interaction between the two people. He should have stayed away and he should not have a gun.
User avatar
Moreno
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10305
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby fuse » Wed Jul 17, 2013 5:47 am

Okay, Moreno. Is it okay if Martin beat Zimmerman to death? Is it not okay for Zimmerman to use his gun if he were underneath a Trayvon Martin beating the shit him and telling him "you're gonna die tonight, motherfucker"?

'Cause that's what Zimmerman claims and what no one has been able to show otherwise.
User avatar
fuse
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4588
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:13 pm

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby Moreno » Wed Jul 17, 2013 5:54 am

fuse wrote:Okay, Moreno. Is it okay if Martin beat Zimmerman to death? Is it not okay for Zimmerman to use his gun if he were underneath a Trayvon Martin beating the shit him and telling him "you're gonna die tonight, motherfucker"?
I really don't know how many times I said I would not convict him, given what we could know. My Point is, Zimmerman, not a cop, started following someone at night, someone he suspected of potentially committing a crime. he got Close enough following this guy for a confrontation to be possible, and he had a gun. He fucked up. He was an amateur and also in the negative sense of that term. It is possible he was justified in the final situation of the shooting - again, utterly implicit in what I have said all along. However what he did was reckless and showed poor judgment, at the very least, and a person like that, who shows that kind of poor judgment, should not have a gun. Notice that was the punishment I felt we could mete out.

'Cause that's what Zimmerman claims and what no one has been able to show otherwise.

Witness testimony is mostly consistent with that story.

It is consistant with a number of stories, including murder on Zimmerman's part. If he started the fight, he is a murderer. We can't know this, hence my cautious sentencing. But he is dangerous.
User avatar
Moreno
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10305
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby fuse » Wed Jul 17, 2013 6:06 am

Moreno wrote: he got Close enough following this guy for a confrontation to be possible, and he had a gun. He fucked up.

How do following a suspicious person in your neighborhood and legally carrying a gun necessitate that he fucked up?
Should there be a law against watching suspicious people while carrying a gun?

When I point out that no one has been able to show Zimmerman's story false I don't meant hat that makes it true either. You should be able to get that if you read any of my other posts. I never presumed anything about your thoughts on convictions. But you do say "what Z did that night was wrong," which is based on what? Because you would have done something different? Remember that Zimmerman didn't have the hindsight you have now. And given what you don't know for sure, I question you're conviction in that judgement.
User avatar
fuse
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4588
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:13 pm

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby fuse » Wed Jul 17, 2013 6:20 am

Let's go back to this.

Moreno wrote:I think people should be able to even get into a fight, with someone who is following them, and that this not be punished by death.

What do you mean "should be able to..." ? We're all able to do that...doesn't mean we should. And at 17 yrs. old, reckless fights with strangers is probably a bad choice. Sure, a limited exchange of blows and then a clean break doesn't warrant bullets. But that's not Zimmerman's story. So if you're going to pass judgement on Zimmerman, and you don't know what exactly went down, you might try considering what exactly Zimmerman said happened. He testified he thought he was going to be killed, not just beaten in a fight.
User avatar
fuse
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4588
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:13 pm

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby Mr Reasonable » Wed Jul 17, 2013 6:34 am

Fuse, yes....there should be a law against closely following people with a gun and delaying them and attempting to detain them and what not.

In most places, that shit is against the law. It's called harassment, or menacing, or unlawful imprisonment, or whatever depending on who's laws you're reading. Unfortunately these are not the kind of charges that are easy to file and prove and they're not very effective at actually stopping the charged, so they go unenforced as a matter of routine in a lot of places.
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 26757
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby fuse » Wed Jul 17, 2013 6:58 am

delaying them and attempting to detain them and what not.

There's no evidence that he detained or attempted to detain Martin to my knowledge. If he did then he should pay a fine or lose his gun license (I'm sure he has lost this anyway already) or whatever. That would be proven separate from the issue of manslaughter/murder.
User avatar
fuse
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4588
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:13 pm

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby Mr Reasonable » Wed Jul 17, 2013 7:07 am

I'm saying that your objection right there is equally applicable to the claim that Martin attacked Zimmerman. ZImmerman's injuries were superficial, and anyone should be able to understand that who gets hurt the most isn't necessarily tied to who hit who first. Even then, Zimmerman was in pursuit of Martin, for what we now know to be no reason other than Zimmerman's own state of mind. Martin wasn't committing a crime. He wasn't doing anything wrong. We know Martin didn't make Zimmerman get out of his car. It's pretty easy to see how Zimmerman was pursuing Martin in such a way that it became a hostile scene. Even if Martin hit him first....he's hitting an armed man who's much older than him who is probably threatening him and saying the kinds of things that assholes say to kids when they try and illegally detain them. I've probably had 20 old men in my life just act as though they're allowed to block me on the sidewalk and make me listen to them while they shook fingers in my face, and the fact is I've got a right to tell them to fuck off without getting shot. If I don't want to be followed and you keep following me then no matter what the technical language of the law, I'm being harassed.

You don't think it was odd that a 29 year old man was in fear for his life in a fight with a 17 year old? A guy who had MMA classes and who was armed with a handgun? This guy was in a fight with someone 2/3 his age and he ended up afraid for his life.

Fucking amazing.
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 26757
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby Mr Reasonable » Wed Jul 17, 2013 7:17 am

I mean the guy wants to be a cop. He rides around in his car like a cop. He uses cop lingo when he repeatedly calls 911 on all the people that he profiles like a cop, then he carries a gun like a cop, and he's patrolling his beat like a cop, and he gets out to get closer to a suspect like a cop, but then.....you don't think he'd try and detain him there for a minute? Like the way that a cop might? Nah....he'd never do that.

Nothing to suggest that at all.

Wait...didn't he say to the operator, "these guys always get away"?

Nah...he'd never try and illegally detain a kid walking home. Never.
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 26757
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby fuse » Wed Jul 17, 2013 7:23 am

Smears wrote:You don't think it was odd that a 29 year old man was in fear for his life in a fight with a 17 year old? A guy who had MMA classes and who was armed with a handgun? This guy was in a fight with someone 2/3 his age and he ended up afraid for his life.

Fucking amazing.

Martin was probably in better shape. He played football and was an experienced fighter from what he detailed in his phone text records. Witnesses saw Martin on top of Zimmerman at one point.

That's not the point. Proving Martin started the fight isn't the point. It was the prosecution's job to prove Zimmerman guilty and they couldn't do it. The difference between you and me is that I am interested in further investigation whereas you think you know everything to pass judgement on people.
User avatar
fuse
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4588
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:13 pm

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby fuse » Wed Jul 17, 2013 7:26 am

Smears wrote:Nah...he'd never try and illegally detain a kid walking home. Never.

I think there's a good chance he might have been trying to track Martin's movements until police could arrive. Even so, guessing that he detained Martin and proving it are entirely different matters.
User avatar
fuse
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4588
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:13 pm

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby Mr Reasonable » Wed Jul 17, 2013 7:28 am

How do I think I know everything to pass judgement on people?

I'm passing judgment on Zimmerman because I know these things.

1) He was patrolling around like an idiot with a gun profiling the neighborhood kids.
2) In spite of being almost 30 years old, he lacked the judgment to prevent himself from having to kill a kid.
3) Is wasn't an inaction on his part, but instead a series of active judgment calls that he made which led to the entire context of the situation. (patrolling, profiling, pursuing, getting out of his car to confront a stranger whom he himself considered dangerous)


At best, Zimmerman is a pathetic fool, who has the worst judgment in the world, and out of some kind of pure idiocy managed to kill someone's child and because no one saw exactly what happened, and he claimed to be trying to do good he doesn't have to do time but there's now a dead child and his own life is ruined.

At worst, he's a murderer who got off on insufficient evidence.

About proving it...there are such things as cases which are decided on circumstantial evidence. Like ones where all the witnesses are dead. If you don't think Zimmerman's pattern of behavior might necessarily lead to detaining or at least delaying that kid, then I think you've got some real inner bias there man.

A big problem here is that because of the way this case went, you can now have something to think about when you're walking home at night. Maybe a guy in your neighborhood thinks you look suspicious and he starts fucking with you. Maybe then you see what I'm talking about. I hope he doesn't shoot you in the dark man.
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 26757
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby fuse » Wed Jul 17, 2013 7:50 am

1) He was patrolling around like an idiot with a gun profiling the neighborhood kids.

idiot doesn't add anything significant here. you say kid(s) plural when you only know about one incident with one kid.

2) In spite of being almost 30 years old, he lacked the judgment to prevent himself from having to kill a kid.

you don't know how it went down. maybe he was blindsided by Martin's attack. he killed Martin, that's a given, but he cannot be held totally accountable for the escalation of things if Martin attacked him and was going to beat him to death.

3) Is wasn't an inaction on his part, but instead a series of active judgment calls that he made which led to the entire context of the situation. (patrolling, profiling, pursuing, getting out of his car to confront a stranger whom he himself considered dangerous)

he was a neighborhood watch volunteer. he was supposed to watch out for the safety of the neighborhood, one which had recently suffered various burglaries. he had a reason to look out for suspicious activity. you know jack shit about Zimmerman's profiling. i don't know whether Zimmerman considered Martin dangerous or not. he didn't say anything like that to the dispatcher that I'm aware of. so all you really have is "following." you don't know how or even if he was actually going to confront Martin. the cops were supposed to be on the way to the area.

If you don't think Zimmerman's pattern of behavior might necessarily lead to detaining or at least delaying that kid, then I think you've got some real inner bias there man.

"might necessarily" wtf?

A big problem here is that because of the way this case went, you can now have something to think about when you're walking home at night. Maybe a guy in your neighborhood thinks you look suspicious and he starts fucking with you. Maybe then you see what I'm talking about. I hope he doesn't shoot you in the dark man.

I would like to know what really happened. There is a possibility that Zimmerman's story is accurate, and that Martin threatened to kill him and was attempting to do so. A big problem I see is that so many people don't care and are satisfied with their preconceptions.
User avatar
fuse
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4588
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:13 pm

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby Mr Reasonable » Wed Jul 17, 2013 8:01 am

Dude are you fucking with me now? I said kids plural because of his multiple calls to 911. He's one of those weird dudes who does that kind of shit. Have you never met or been around these types? It's a type. The wannabe vigilante. Neighborhood watch volunteers don't carry guns and patrol alone. Give me a break.

You don't know how it went down. I don't know how you can be blindsided by someone that you're following and that you've been following through the neighborhood. Did Martin disappear instantaneously, and then reappear like a character from mortal kombat behind Zimmerman and use a ninja move on him? Is that your gross speculative story that you spin immediately after saying that I can't know?

My story is based on what has been shown to be an accurate profile of Zimmerman...through a pattern of behavior that he exhibited.

Zimmerman's profiling of Martin was incorrect, and I think that he should be liable for that negligence. If he has a duty to protect the neighborhood, shooting the neighbor's kid is a terrible way of trying to fulfill it.

I still don't see how you can start the self defense in the middle of a fight that Zimmerman pursued. My mind is blown on that one. He physically pursued the kid. He got out of the car with a gun and went after him. What else do you want man???


Might necessarily. That's a bad edit. Thanks buddy.
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 26757
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby Mr Reasonable » Wed Jul 17, 2013 8:04 am

If anything the preconception is the one that people who fit Martin's profile are criminals. I agree. We should challenge that kind of thinking.
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 26757
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Zimmerman Trial

Postby uglypeoplefucking » Wed Jul 17, 2013 12:06 pm

Zimmerman was looking for a fight that night - it's evident in his statements and actions. He deserved to get his ass kicked and go home bruised up and crying like the pussy/bully that he is. That is my judgement. That he fatally shot somebody in the process means he belongs in jail. If the law can't put him there, then that is a fault in the law.
i am brilliant, you are stupid. Therefore, you are wrong.
uglypeoplefucking
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4147
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 2:47 pm
Location: throughout

PreviousNext

Return to Challenges



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users