Unarmed teen shooting: the debate rages on...

[kiki5711]

coito: Martin ran when nobody was chasing him. That's the fact

and then you say "You can hear the friggin' car door open." (I'm guessing you're talking about zimm's car door).

Ok, if martin ran for no reason, why and how how did zimm end up on top of him, just before shooting him in the chest? if, as you say nobody was chasing him?

[Coito ergo sum]

coito: Martin ran when nobody was chasing him. That's the fact

and then you say "You can hear the friggin' car door open." (I'm guessing you're talking about zimm's car door).

You're "guessing?" Whose other car door is involved in this incident.

And, you write "nobody was chasing him... and then you say "you can hear the friggin' car door open." - YES - of course. Because Zimmerman notes that Martin starts to run off, AND THEN -- after -- later -- after -- AFTER Martin starts to run, then you hear Zimmerman open the car door and get out of it. He was watching Martin from his car, so if Martin is running off BEFORE Zimmerman exited the vehicle then it necessarily follows that he did not run for the reason that Zimmerman was chasing him. Why? Because Zimmerman can't run inside of his car.

Ok, if martin ran for no reason, why and how how did zimm end up on top of him, just before shooting him in the chest? if, as you say nobody was chasing him?

Zimmerman didn't end up on top of him. Martin ended up on top of Zimmerman, according to the witnesses.

[Tero]

1 M spots creepy guy in car
2 M runs
3 other stuff happens

[Coito ergo sum]

1 M spots creepy guy in car
2 M runs
3 other stuff happens

Interesting how you feel free to designate Zimmerman as creepy, but along with kiki you seem to have an issue with Zimmerman referring to Martin as "suspicious" or "looks like he's on drugs," etc. Interesting, that.

Yes, other stuff happens, and that stuff is, at best, unclear as to who is responsible, isn't it?

[kiki5711]

And, you write "nobody was chasing him... and then you say "you can hear the friggin' car door open."

Those were your words! Coito pay attention for once.!

He was watching Martin from his car, so if Martin is running off BEFORE Zimmerman exited the vehicle then it necessarily follows that he did not run for the reason that Zimmerman was chasing him.

Again, YOUR words.

And even if that was the case, why did he get out of his car to chase him knowing it would be a dangerous move as written in the handbood he MUST HAVE READ. Or maybe he never bothered?
Why did he get out of his car, regardless him knowing he shouldn't do that? , because he knew he had his gun ready and prepared and he did so use it.

Zimmerman didn't end up on top of him. Martin ended up on top of Zimmerman, according to the witnesses.

That will be challenged in court. What I read was that the two ladies, when they came out to ask what's going on, (this was going on right in their back yard) they saw zimm on top of martin. then zimm told them to call 911. Why didn't he call 911 himself?

[Tero]

Without 1, nothing would have happened. 2 etc followed 1. Z had two weapons: car, gun. M had none. I would have walked briskly home after I spotted Z.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The question is, what misstatements is he referring to.

[...]

Some of this isn't about "waiting for the evidence to be in."

On my part, it is. Disregarding Neighborhood Watch training and the dispatcher's advice, Zimmerman left his car and followed Martin. Martin's girlfriend reported, in an interview with the DA's office, that Zimmerman initiated the exchange which led to Martin's death; Zimmerman alleges that Martin approached him in a threatening manner. Zimmerman has injuries that corroborate part of his story.

No one here is an eyewitness, and while some facts can be adduced, the claims, from both sides, contain quite a bit of nonsense.

I'm content with a system that appoints a few people to examine the evidence and arrive at a conclusion of "guilty" or "not guilty", and while these sorts of discussions can be interesting, they almost always generate more heat than light ... and that is certainly the case here.

[Coito ergo sum]

He was watching Martin from his car, so if Martin is running off BEFORE Zimmerman exited the vehicle then it necessarily follows that he did not run for the reason that Zimmerman was chasing him.

Again, YOUR words.

And even if that was the case, why did he get out of his car to chase him knowing it would be a dangerous move as written in the handbood he MUST HAVE READ. Or maybe he never bothered?
Why did he get out of his car, regardless him knowing he shouldn't do that? , because he knew he had his gun ready and prepared and he did so use it.

You'll need to point out where in the handbook it said that he wasn't to get out of his car.

Zimmerman didn't end up on top of him. Martin ended up on top of Zimmerman, according to the witnesses.

That will be challenged in court. What I read was that the two ladies, when they came out to ask what's going on, (this was going on right in their back yard) they saw zimm on top of martin. then zimm told them to call 911. Why didn't he call 911 himself?

Link?

He did call 911 himself. He was on the phone with them for several minutes.

If indeed he told someone to call 911 while he was struggling with Martin, I would suspect he didn't do it himself because he was in the midst of that struggle. Why would you think?

[Coito ergo sum]

The question is, what misstatements is he referring to.

[...]

Some of this isn't about "waiting for the evidence to be in."

On my part, it is. Disregarding Neighborhood Watch training and the dispatcher's advice, Zimmerman left his car and followed Martin.

There is no evidence for any of that. One, there was no neighborhood watch training that was disregarded by virtue of Z leaving his vehicle, or following Martin. None. If you have something to that effect, link to it or provide a source.

There is no evidence supporting your assertion. Period.

Clearly, one will always say "more evidence may come in," but right now, there is no evidence what you just alleged he "disregarded."

Martin's girlfriend reported, in an interview with the DA's office, that Zimmerman initiated the exchange which led to Martin's death; Zimmerman alleges that Martin approached him in a threatening manner. Zimmerman has injuries that corroborate part of his story.

That takes the girlfriend's report too far. She doesn't know. She only knows that Martin said "why are you chasing me?" And, Zimmerman said "why are you in the neightborhood." She can't possibly know, based on what she said she heard, who "initiated" the confrontation.

No one here is an eyewitness, and while some facts can be adduced, the claims, from both sides, contain quite a bit of nonsense.

By side, what do you mean? There is the "Zimmerman is a murderer" side, and the "there is reasonable doubt as to whether Zimmerman is a murderer, or at least it isn't at all clear that he is a murderer," side. It seems you are on the latter side.

There isn't a single "Zimmerman is innocent" advocate here, except maybe one person and that's only a maybe.

I'm content with a system that appoints a few people to examine the evidence and arrive at a conclusion of "guilty" or "not guilty", and while these sorts of discussions can be interesting, they almost always generate more heat than light ... and that is certainly the case here.

Yes, but you're making a false equivalence. Me, FBM, etc., are not claiming Zimmerman is innocent. We're claiming the evidence is unclear or there is reasonable doubt. So, what's nonsensical or "more heat than light" about that? You appear to agree with that. The other side, the kiki, maiforpeace, etc. side, are stating very unequivocally that he is a murderer, and not only that, but a psycho, paranoid, gun-nut, among other things.

[kiki5711]

He did call 911 himself. He was on the phone with them for several minutes.

I was talking about after he SHOT martin. Not his convers. before!!!!!

written by thump: On my part, it is. Disregarding Neighborhood Watch training and the dispatcher's advice, Zimmerman left his car and followed Martin.

written by coito: There is no evidence for any of that. One, there was no neighborhood watch training that was disregarded by virtue of Z leaving his vehicle, or following Martin. None. If you have something to that effect, link to it or provide a source.

It's YOU that provided the training manual! Look at your own evidence...... that now you claim there is none.

There isn't a single "Zimmerman is innocent" advocate here, except maybe one person and that's only a maybe.

SO WHAT??? you haven't said one word, giving martin any credence whatsoever either.

If indeed he told someone to call 911 while he was struggling with Martin, I would suspect he didn't do it himself because he was in the midst of that struggle. Why would you think?

He told them to call 911 after it was all over. They saw zimm on top of martin and asked what was going on. He just said (in a very nonchalant voice) "call 911".

[maiforpeace]

The question is, what misstatements is he referring to.

[...]

Some of this isn't about "waiting for the evidence to be in."

On my part, it is. Disregarding Neighborhood Watch training and the dispatcher's advice, Zimmerman left his car and followed Martin.

There is no evidence for any of that. One, there was no neighborhood watch training that was disregarded by virtue of Z leaving his vehicle, or following Martin. None. If you have something to that effect, link to it or provide a source.

There is no evidence supporting your assertion. Period.

Clearly, one will always say "more evidence may come in," but right now, there is no evidence what you just alleged he "disregarded."

Martin's girlfriend reported, in an interview with the DA's office, that Zimmerman initiated the exchange which led to Martin's death; Zimmerman alleges that Martin approached him in a threatening manner. Zimmerman has injuries that corroborate part of his story.

That takes the girlfriend's report too far. She doesn't know. She only knows that Martin said "why are you chasing me?" And, Zimmerman said "why are you in the neightborhood." She can't possibly know, based on what she said she heard, who "initiated" the confrontation.

No one here is an eyewitness, and while some facts can be adduced, the claims, from both sides, contain quite a bit of nonsense.

By side, what do you mean? There is the "Zimmerman is a murderer" side, and the "there is reasonable doubt as to whether Zimmerman is a murderer, or at least it isn't at all clear that he is a murderer," side. It seems you are on the latter side.

There isn't a single "Zimmerman is innocent" advocate here, except maybe one person and that's only a maybe.

I'm content with a system that appoints a few people to examine the evidence and arrive at a conclusion of "guilty" or "not guilty", and while these sorts of discussions can be interesting, they almost always generate more heat than light ... and that is certainly the case here.

Yes, but you're making a false equivalence. Me, FBM, etc., are not claiming Zimmerman is innocent. We're claiming the evidence is unclear or there is reasonable doubt. So, what's nonsensical or "more heat than light" about that? You appear to agree with that. The other side, the kiki, maiforpeace, etc. side, are stating very unequivocally that he is a murderer, and not only that, but a psycho, paranoid, gun-nut, among other things.

Where did I say, inequivocally that he's a murderer?

Believe it or not, this dumbass does know the difference between murder and manslaughter.

[kiki5711]

I also never said he was a murderer. I said he was a bit on paranoid side, seeing things and interpreting them in a way, that may be just in his own mind/delusion, out of anger, or whatever issues he might have.

And it is a FACT that he is on mood altering medication, that if mixed with alcohol can have very negative side effect. I am not saying he drank, but obviously he had some emotional issues, which is a dangerous time to carry a gun around.

[Thumpalumpacus]

There is no evidence for any of that. One, there was no neighborhood watch training that was disregarded by virtue of Z leaving his vehicle, or following Martin. None. If you have something to that effect, link to it or provide a source.

From the pamphlet handed out by the Department of Justice:



Also:

When the Retreat at Twin Lakes community told Sanford police it wanted to start a neighborhood watch, city volunteer program coordinator Wendy Dorival spoke to them in September 2011.

Her PowerPoint presentation, and a neighborhood watch manual the city makes available, both make clear: Don't confront.

"The philosophy is, 'No weapons. Don't confront. Call the police,' " Dorival said Wednesday.

**********

Excerpts from Neighborhood Watch manuals:

"What you will not do is get physically involved with any activity you report or apprehension of any suspicious persons. This is the job of the law enforcement agency." -- City of Sanford (where Trayvon Martin slaying occurred)

"Neighborhood Watch is an observe and report type of program. Neighborhood Watch members are encouraged not to stop and question people, but to observe and report their observations to the Sheriff's Office and a trained officer will respond and investigate the incident." -- Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office

"It should be emphasized to members that they do not possess police powers and they shall not carry weapons or pursue vehicles. They should also be cautioned to alert police or deputies when encountering strange activity. Members should never confront suspicious persons who could be armed and dangerous." -- National Sheriff's Association

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/crime ... 52704.html

Although it's unclear that the organization there was even chartered formally as a Neighborhood Watch program, from that same article.

There is no evidence supporting your assertion. Period.

Clearly, one will always say "more evidence may come in," but right now, there is no evidence what you just alleged he "disregarded."

There is, as shown above. You were simply unaware of it. But the DoJ saw fit to give that point emphasis by placing it in a blocked off section of its own page.

That takes the girlfriend's report too far. She doesn't know. She only knows that Martin said "why are you chasing me?" And, Zimmerman said "why are you in the neightborhood." She can't possibly know, based on what she said she heard, who "initiated" the confrontation.

Here is a portion of her interview with the local prosecutor:

PROSECUTOR: I am sorry, Trayvon said he was not running because—-he’s not going to run he said because you could tell he was tired? How could you tell he was tired?
GIRLFRIEND: He was breathing hard.
PROSECUTOR: Real hard?
GIRLFRIEND: Real hard. And then he told me this guy was getting close! He told me the guy was getting real close to him. And the next I hear is, ‘Why are you following me for?’
PROSECUTOR: OK. Let me make sure I understand this so, Trayvon tells you the guy is getting closer to him and then you hear Trayvon saying something.
GIRLFRIEND: Yeah.
PROSECUTOR: And what do you hear Trayvon saying?
GIRLFRIEND: ‘Why are you following me for?’
PROSECUTOR: ‘Why are you following me for?’
GIRLFRIEND: Yeah.
PROSECUTOR: And then what happened?
GIRLFRIEND: I heard this man, like an old man say, ‘What are you doing around here?’
PROSECUTOR: OK, so you definitely could tell another voice that was not Trayvon and you heard this other voice say what?
GIRLFRIEND: ‘What are you doing around here?’

http://www.michaelbutler.com/blog/civic ... th-police/

Clearly, she's reporting that she could hear Zimmerman, and that Zimmerman was following Martin. Martin turned around, asked why he was being followed ... but according to Martin's girlfriend, Zimmerman was following Martin.

By side, what do you mean? There is the "Zimmerman is a murderer" side, and the "there is reasonable doubt as to whether Zimmerman is a murderer, or at least it isn't at all clear that he is a murderer," side. It seems you are on the latter side.

The way I've seen the discussion break down, one side thinks Zimmerman was a murderer, and one side doesn't.

I personally think that at the very least he was guilty of terrible judgement in pursuing a confrontation despite his training and the advice of the dispatcher. Whether his negligent judgement rises to the level of criminal negligence is for the jury to decide, because they will access facts in the case that we onlookers won't have.

Yes, but you're making a false equivalence. Me, FBM, etc., are not claiming Zimmerman is innocent. We're claiming the evidence is unclear or there is reasonable doubt. So, what's nonsensical or "more heat than light" about that? You appear to agree with that. The other side, the kiki, maiforpeace, etc. side, are stating very unequivocally that he is a murderer, and not only that, but a psycho, paranoid, gun-nut, among other things.

The misstatement you made above, for instance, which was didactic and not admissive of any uncertainty, while it was clearly wrong, gives me cause to question your other claims, just as I question those who disagree with you.

I'm not saying that your mistakes are on a par with those you listed from Mai, Kiki, and others, but the fact is you listed them already and they needed no further airing in my post. You've made good points on some of the fallacies being pandered, for whatever my opinion is worth here.

But clearly you missed doing something as basic as googling the handout the DoJ gives the Neighborhood Watch before you made a bald claim about its contents. What other statements made here, on both sides, are this baseless?

That was the point of my post, and I hope you don't take it personally, because it's not meant that way at all.

[maiforpeace]

[Tero]

So the Ratz gun lobby thinks it is perfectly within the law for armed individuals to patrol their neighborhood and confront anyone they feel like?

And these are the laws you want where your kids play and people enjoy the outdoors?