Unarmed teen shooting: the debate rages on...

[kiki5711]

Seth: All the evidence points to his acting lawfully and reasonably under the circumstances. You just object because he had the gall to actually keep tabs on strangers apparantly bent on mischief in his community and do something about it (calling the police).

Actually the evidence DOES NOT point to that. THere's no evidence that martin was acting suspicious and was up to no good EXCEPT in zimmerman's mind.

[kiki5711]

As far as I know, there's no proof who attacked first and how.

Martin would have had to have been pretty tough to beat up Zimmerman after being shot in the heart.

that's a good point. I'm curious when exactly did zimm take out his gun and shoot.

where did he keep his gun? back pocket? a holster on a belt? inside his jacket? and if they were wrestling on the ground how did he manage to get the gun with martin apparently all over him? did martin ever notice the gun? was it visible?

[Coito ergo sum]

>>All Martin had to do to avoid getting shot is to keep his temper, go to the place he was authorized to be, and CALL THE POLICE and report the incident. Instead, he attacked Zimmerman and got himself killed by his victim. He didn't, now he's dead.<<

The above is from Seth.

This is really a funny way of looking at it. There is no real evidence of the sequence of events. We do have evidence of Z profiling M. Yet there was no evidence of his being a burglar. Z had no training on dealing with a burglar. Typically burglars are dealt with in a nonviolent manner. With some surveillance. There is absolutely no reason to risk the life of a cop or a guard. It is just property.

Martin was guilty of mainly stupidity. But Zimmerman more so.

There is no real evidence of "profiling," either. That's a supposition on your part. What we have is a hispanic man who says he saw someone acting suspiciously, and that the allegedly suspicious person was black. By itself, that is not "profiling." If we had evidence that the alleged suspicious person was being thought suspicious BECAUSE of his race, then we could say it was profiling. So, you can't say we "do have evidence of Z profiling M." You can say we have evidence of Z thinking M was suspicious and knowing M to be black. If that's "evidence of profiling" then every time a person sees a black person who is thought to be behaving suspiciously, it would be profiling.

There was no evidence of Martin being a burglar, yes. However, behaving suspiciously need not raise to the level of seeing someone attempting to jimmy a window, or approaching a house with a Balaclava and crow bar in order to be considered suspicious. It's enough to see someone behaving oddly, and "looking around at the houses" at a time when one would not expect folks to be shopping for real estate. You see a man, alone, in the dark, in the rain, just sort of walking around looking at the houses for no evident reasonable purpose, in a neighborhood with many break ins recently - that may be suspicious enough to call the police for a drive-by. We obviously can't know if Zimmerman was being honest with the dispatcher, but IF -- IF we assume those facts, then the call to the 911 dispatcher is not unreasonable. Nobody has to accept those facts, but frankly, it doesn't make sense to me that they are made up - for several reasons: (1) if they were made up, then I would expect Zimmerman to do a better job at describing truly unequivocally damning behavior, like, "I saw the guy go up and try to look in a window..." - after all, if he's lying, why not make it more urgent? Such a lie would not be any more verifiable than the statement he actually told, and (2) if he was lying, he would have had some intent to set this person up from the get go, and the more nefarious he could describe Martin's behavior, the better for him. As it happens, he recounts some activities in a calm and dispassionate manner which can be characterized as innocent with only a very subtle shift in demeanor (whereas, if he said something like "the guy looked through the window..." it's difficult to just sort of massage that into something reasonable; he either did it and it's bad, or he didn't - the whole walking around thing could easily be dismissed as a guy just acting a little weird, but with no actual nefarious intent).

"It's just property" is not the way the person being burgled feels about it. Often, they are violated in their very being, psychologically. Someone was in a person's home, rummaging through their things, maybe gaining access to vital personal information, treaspassing where their kids sleep, breaking or stealing emotionally significant heirlooms. Sometimes people need counseling after burglaries, and have a hard time sleeping suffering adjustment disorders and even long term anxiety, etc. from it. Also, if a burglar burgles a home where people are home, it can seriously frighten the residents, may spark violent encounters, might and do escalate into larger more serious crimes, etc. A burglar is a very serious felony. It is not to be equated with lifting a candy bar from the corner store when nobody is looking.

You refer to how burglars were dealt with. Is there reasonable doubt as to whether Zimmerman dealt with Martin violently, except in defense of Martin's attack? You don't need to conclude that Martin did, in fact, attack Zimmerman. The question is, is it reasonably possible that Zimmerman got out of his truck, to follow Martin for a few seconds until the dispatcher said "we don't need you to do that," then proceeded over to the exit from the sanctuary for a minute and a half talking to the dispatcher about where to meet him, and then Martin came back and said "why are you chasing me?" and Zimmerman said, "what are you doing in this neighborhood" (or words to that effect) and then Martin tossed his phone aside and took a poke at Zimmerman, getting the best of Zimmerman, getting on top of him and punching him mixed martial arts style, and then Zimmerman, getting pounded, became afraid of serious bodily harm or death and pulled his gun and fired? Not even worrying about whether this is the most plausible scenario -- is it even possible?

[Coito ergo sum]

Seth: All the evidence points to his acting lawfully and reasonably under the circumstances. You just object because he had the gall to actually keep tabs on strangers apparantly bent on mischief in his community and do something about it (calling the police).

Actually the evidence DOES NOT point to that. THere's no evidence that martin was acting suspicious and was up to no good EXCEPT in zimmerman's mind.

Please identify the point in the chronology where you think there is evidence that Zimmerman acted unlawfully, prior to pulling his gun which we already know you assume to be unlawful.

[Coito ergo sum]

>>All Martin had to do to avoid getting shot is to keep his temper, go to the place he was authorized to be, and CALL THE POLICE and report the incident. Instead, he attacked Zimmerman and got himself killed by his victim. He didn't, now he's dead.<<

The above is from Seth.

This is really a funny way of looking at it. There is no real evidence of the sequence of events. We do have evidence of Z profiling M. Yet there was no evidence of his being a burglar. Z had no training on dealing with a burglar. Typically burglars are dealt with in a nonviolent manner. With some surveillance. There is absolutely no reason to risk the life of a cop or a guard. It is just property.

Martin was guilty of mainly stupidity. But Zimmerman more so.

Exactly, I have no idea where Seth gets his version of events, when they're not even clear in any report as of yet.

I'm not sure what part of Seth's version of events you're taking issue with, but I had to laugh at this, because you've not worried about accuracy since the beginning. You're the one who asserted he had no injuries, that he was told to stay in his vehicle, and that he said what the doctored NBC version of the transcript said he said, etc. Where have you gotten your versions of events? LOL

[Coito ergo sum]

Topic review: Unarmed teen shooting: the debate rages on...

Re: Unarmed teen shooting: the debate rages on...

Post by kiki5711 » Tue May 22, 2012 2:49 am

To summon the police of course! Are you being deliberately obtuse or is your judgment really that clouded by racism?

You're the one that said the dispatcher has no legal right to demand to the person calling to do anything. Then why calling him/her in the first place when the person is going to do whatever he wants anyway.

You call 911 to get the police to come out there to help. You don't call 911 for the purpose of having a dispatcher walk you through responding to the incident. That's why they call it a "dispatcher," they "dispatch" police to the scene. They aren't law enforcement help desks, giving you guidance from the manual.

[Tero]

>>It's just property" is not the way the person being burgled feels about it. Often, they are violated in their very being, psychologically. Someone was in a person's home, rummaging through their things, maybe gaining access to vital personal information, treaspassing where their kids sleep, breaking or stealing emotionally significant heirlooms<<

It's just stuff. Stuff is never equal to the life of any person.

[kiki5711]

Topic review: Unarmed teen shooting: the debate rages on...

Re: Unarmed teen shooting: the debate rages on...

Post by kiki5711 » Tue May 22, 2012 2:49 am

To summon the police of course! Are you being deliberately obtuse or is your judgment really that clouded by racism?

You're the one that said the dispatcher has no legal right to demand to the person calling to do anything. Then why calling him/her in the first place when the person is going to do whatever he wants anyway.

You call 911 to get the police to come out there to help. You don't call 911 for the purpose of having a dispatcher walk you through responding to the incident. That's why they call it a "dispatcher," they "dispatch" police to the scene. They aren't law enforcement help desks, giving you guidance from the manual.

WELL THEN I guess the dispatcher was OUT OF LINE telling zimm to not follow martin. if the purpose was to call 911 just to alert the police why in DID Zimm stay on the phone with them TELLING them every single step that was taking place (from his perception) which I believe was psycho induced with paranoia all in zimms mind.

zimm should have just called 911/give them the location and stay put in his car. of course, mr. superman zimm, thought he could be a hero.

[kiki5711]

I'm not sure what part of Seth's version of events you're taking issue with, but I had to laugh at this, because you've not worried about accuracy since the beginning. You're the one who asserted he had no injuries, that he was told to stay in his vehicle, and that he said what the doctored NBC version of the transcript said he said, etc. Where have you gotten your versions of events? LOL

WRONG! As more information was presented, my outlook on things changed. You and seth are the ones that are unbendable in your versions of what transpired and the more you write about it, each time you ADD some more tid bit of nonsense and twist things around.

[kiki5711]

here is no real evidence of "profiling," either. That's a supposition on your part.

ANd it's also YOUR SUPPOSITION that it wasn't. You are not right, just because you think you are.

[kiki5711]

You don't need to conclude that Martin did, in fact, attack Zimmerman

You're reporting falls information again. It's not been proven how exactly the interaction evolved. What you say is NOT a fact.

[kiki5711]

. It's enough to see someone behaving oddly,

the only one that perceived martin behaving oddly was zimmerman. So, zimmerman says it's true, it must be. We can't get any info from the dead guy, can we.

[Coito ergo sum]

>>It's just property" is not the way the person being burgled feels about it. Often, they are violated in their very being, psychologically. Someone was in a person's home, rummaging through their things, maybe gaining access to vital personal information, treaspassing where their kids sleep, breaking or stealing emotionally significant heirlooms<<

It's just stuff. Stuff is never equal to the life of any person.

Oh, I disagree with the use of the word "never." A family's life savings upon which children depend for their lives and futures would be worth defending against with force against a scumbag burglar. Sometimes "stuff" is of vital importance, upon which lives depend.

Moreover, one need not, and should not, assume that the intention of a burglar is merely property crime. Someone is breaking into a woman's home, for example, may be looking for "just stuff," stuff perhaps she worked for decades to acquire, stuff of monumental importance to her personally, stuff upon which her retirement and livelihood depend -- but the burglar may also be after her body and even her life. A home invader is not a mere property criminal.

And, I can tell you, if someone was breaking into my home, "where my wife sleeps, and where my children come and play with their toys" (M. Corleone), I won't wait to ask questions. They come through the door or window, and I'll hit them with a baseball bat, or if I have a gun I'll shoot them. I'd probably need counseling afterward, but I reject the notion that I have any obligation to ferret out the intentions of a home invader.

[Coito ergo sum]

Topic review: Unarmed teen shooting: the debate rages on...

Re: Unarmed teen shooting: the debate rages on...

Post by kiki5711 » Tue May 22, 2012 2:49 am

To summon the police of course! Are you being deliberately obtuse or is your judgment really that clouded by racism?

You're the one that said the dispatcher has no legal right to demand to the person calling to do anything. Then why calling him/her in the first place when the person is going to do whatever he wants anyway.

You call 911 to get the police to come out there to help. You don't call 911 for the purpose of having a dispatcher walk you through responding to the incident. That's why they call it a "dispatcher," they "dispatch" police to the scene. They aren't law enforcement help desks, giving you guidance from the manual.

WELL THEN I guess the dispatcher was OUT OF LINE telling zimm to not follow martin. if the purpose was to call 911 just to alert the police why in DID Zimm stay on the phone with them TELLING them every single step that was taking place (from his perception) which I believe was psycho induced with paranoia all in zimms mind.

zimm should have just called 911/give them the location and stay put in his car. of course, mr. superman zimm, thought he could be a hero.

What sort of twisted universe does your brain exist in that you could come to the conclusion from my post that "well then I guess the dispatcher was out of line..." How in the world does that logically follow from the fact that the purpose of calling 911 is to get the police to come out?

But, I'll explain it to you, and I'll type slowly so you'll be sure to understand: He's telling them what's going on so that the dispatcher can provide that information to the police who are responding to the scene. The more they know about what is going on, the better they can respond.

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm not sure what part of Seth's version of events you're taking issue with, but I had to laugh at this, because you've not worried about accuracy since the beginning. You're the one who asserted he had no injuries, that he was told to stay in his vehicle, and that he said what the doctored NBC version of the transcript said he said, etc. Where have you gotten your versions of events? LOL

WRONG! As more information was presented, my outlook on things changed. You and seth are the ones that are unbendable in your versions of what transpired and the more you write about it, each time you ADD some more tid bit of nonsense and twist things around.

You just never bothered to verify the facts in news articles.

Please be specific as to what you consider to be "bits of nonsense." I'm open to being educated, but making the general allegation is one thing. Specifically identifying what you dispute is quite another. Please, by all means, educate me.