Dispatcher, "He’s just walking around the area, the houses? OK." Zimmerman: "Now he’s staring at me."
Yes, absolutely a dangerous and burglar type of activity! It's raining and he's walking about.This guy looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around looking about
Do you mean 'chased' or 'followed'? (I'm not making a point, just asking. I don't recall the details of the 911 tape.)Coito ergo sum wrote:Isn't it immaterial anyway, since there is no evidence that Zimmerman chased Martin, except for a brief moment on the 911 tape, but that Zimmerman obeyed the dispatcher when she said "We don't need you to do that."? I mean -- he didn't chase Martin, during the 1 minute 42 seconds from the time the dispatcher told him not to. If Zimmerman chased him down after the 911 call, we don't have evidence of it, do we?FBM wrote: Ah. Good point(s). Dispatchers have no legal authori-tah to tell him what to do and what not to do in the first place, so he is not bound by any law to obey? Can dispatchers give even direct orders to those in uniform? Seems like they wouldn't, unless they happened to also be police officers higher-ranked than the uniform, and I don't think that type man the phones very often. Huh. I've never thought about that before.
AGAIN, just because zimm perceived martin that way, IT DOESN'T MAKE IT THE FACTUAL TRUTH.That assumes a factual scenario -- that Martin was just innocently walking along the sidewalk in the neighborhood, rather than what Zimmerman says on the 911 tape, "This guy looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around looking about." And, "Yeah, a dark hoodie like a gray hoodie. He wore jeans or sweat pants and white tennis shoes. He’s here now … he’s just staring. "
And that proves exactly WHAT? Nothing, because you don't know what was going through both of their minds.If you've looked at the google maps overview of the neighborhood, you'll see that the total distance Martin had to travel was about 300-400 feet. Let's say it was 500 feet, or about 167 yards. Cal it 1 1/2 soccer field lengths. 1 minute 42 seconds to travel one and 1/2 soccer fields (being generous as to distance). Obviously, Martin didn't go to the fiance's house.
Tero wrote:Zimmerman behavior is not even OK for a rookie cop.
Rookie cops are itching for "action."
It doesn't sound like an "interpretation" -- it sounds like Zimmerman is just reporting what Martin is doing. You're interpreting, because you're suggesting that you know what either of them is "wondering."kiki5711 wrote:Dispatcher, "He’s just walking around the area, the houses? OK." Zimmerman: "Now he’s staring at me."
looking back at zimm, wondering what is he following him for defenetly intrprit he's up to no good? Paranoid interpretation in Zimms's mind.
It is what it is. He's saying what he's saying. You may not find it suspicious, but Zimmerman says the guy seemed suspicious. He called the cops and told them, and the cops were sending a car out.kiki5711 wrote:Yes, absolutely a dangerous and burglar type of activity! It's raining and he's walking about.This guy looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around looking about
You're the one who thinks you know the motivations of either of them, since you announce what they were "wondering" and what they intended to do often enough.kiki5711 wrote:And that proves exactly WHAT? Nothing, because you don't know what was going through both of their minds.If you've looked at the google maps overview of the neighborhood, you'll see that the total distance Martin had to travel was about 300-400 feet. Let's say it was 500 feet, or about 167 yards. Cal it 1 1/2 soccer field lengths. 1 minute 42 seconds to travel one and 1/2 soccer fields (being generous as to distance). Obviously, Martin didn't go to the fiance's house.
Of course not. It's what Zimmerman was reporting at the time on the phone, and that phone call allows us to know where Zimmerman was.kiki5711 wrote:AGAIN, just because zimm perceived martin that way, IT DOESN'T MAKE IT THE FACTUAL TRUTH.That assumes a factual scenario -- that Martin was just innocently walking along the sidewalk in the neighborhood, rather than what Zimmerman says on the 911 tape, "This guy looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around looking about." And, "Yeah, a dark hoodie like a gray hoodie. He wore jeans or sweat pants and white tennis shoes. He’s here now … he’s just staring. "
AGAIN, this is your PERCEPTION of what must have happened. not factual evidence. only what you thought up as sounding reasonable to you.Martin must have come back. Right? Otherwise, how did they get back together to have the fight ensue? So, we're supposed to believe that all Martin was doing was heading back to his father's fiance's house with the skittles, but for some reason we can't be sure of Martin returned to where Zimmerman was.
he came back closer to vicinity of zimms truck since that where shooting occurred, (according to you) but at the same time he was heading back to his truck. At the same time the body and the alcertation took place some distance away from the parking lot in the back of someone's yard.All I'm doing is stating the objective facts, without reference to what either of them may have been subjectively thinking.
What does the distance prove? That in the one minute and 42 seconds from the time Zimmerman says Martin ran off, to the time Zimmerman hangs up the 911 call, Martin had time to get to the father's fiance's house, and then some, probably 3 or 4 times over. But, obviously, MARTIN DID NOT GO THERE, and he instead must have come back closer to the same vicinity as Zimmerman's truck, since that's where the shooting occurred.That's consistent with Zimmerman's story, since Zimmermantold the cops that he was headed back to his truck and Martin reappeared, saying something like "you got a problem" and Zimmerman says he said "No, I don't have a problem" and then Martin said "Well you do now!" And, then Martin attacked him, says Zimmerman. I don't have any idea if any of that is true, but one thing it is is consistent with the map and the course of events that can be gleaned from the 911 call itself and the witness testimony.
No, it is based on what we know. We KNOW where the shooting occurred. We KNOW it was fairly close to where Zimmerman's truck was parked. We KNOW that Zimmerman lost sight of Martin, based on the 911 call and Martin having run off toward the back entrance. We KNOW Zimmerman stopped chasing Martin for at least 1 minute and 42 seconds, based on the 911 time clock. We KNOW that Zimmerman did not stray far from where he was originally because we KNOW where the shooting occurred. We KNOW that Martin's father's fiance's house was "a few dozen yards away" and you can look it up online, and see the overhead picture. It's a about 4 or 5 townhome buildings away -- like a football field and a half, tops. We KNOW a person who can walk and run can traverse that distance in far less than a minute and a half. And, so we know that since the shooting took place Martin chose not to go there. He MUST have come back to the place where the shooting occurred.kiki5711 wrote:AGAIN, this is your PERCEPTION of what must have happened. not factual evidence. only what you thought up as sounding reasonable to you.Martin must have come back. Right? Otherwise, how did they get back together to have the fight ensue? So, we're supposed to believe that all Martin was doing was heading back to his father's fiance's house with the skittles, but for some reason we can't be sure of Martin returned to where Zimmerman was.
Apparently CES and Kiki are so engrossed with each other and seeing red that other comments are simply ignored. Gives me faith that both of them would be great jurors.Tero wrote:Zimmerman behavior is not even OK for a rookie cop.
Rookie cops are itching for "action."
I thought the shooting occured somewhere in the middle of the back house walkway behind someone's yard.and he instead must have come back closer to the same vicinity as Zimmerman's truck, since that's where the shooting occurred.That's consistent with Zimmerman's story,
Where do you think the shooting occurred? Is the prosecution unclear about where the shooting occurred?kiki5711 wrote:he came back closer to vicinity of zimms truck since that where shooting occurred, (according to you) but at the same time he was heading back to his truck. At the same time the body and the alcertation took place some distance away from the parking lot in the back of someone's yard.All I'm doing is stating the objective facts, without reference to what either of them may have been subjectively thinking.
What does the distance prove? That in the one minute and 42 seconds from the time Zimmerman says Martin ran off, to the time Zimmerman hangs up the 911 call, Martin had time to get to the father's fiance's house, and then some, probably 3 or 4 times over. But, obviously, MARTIN DID NOT GO THERE, and he instead must have come back closer to the same vicinity as Zimmerman's truck, since that's where the shooting occurred.That's consistent with Zimmerman's story, since Zimmermantold the cops that he was headed back to his truck and Martin reappeared, saying something like "you got a problem" and Zimmerman says he said "No, I don't have a problem" and then Martin said "Well you do now!" And, then Martin attacked him, says Zimmerman. I don't have any idea if any of that is true, but one thing it is is consistent with the map and the course of events that can be gleaned from the 911 call itself and the witness testimony.
So which is it? Did they roll the punches until they landed in the back yard? chase each other back and forth, play hide and seek?
READ YOUR OWN WRITING FIRST BEFORE YOU press the post bollock button
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 10 guests
