Post by ~M~Post by ~M~Actually, he is innocent. You know that old cliché, innocent until proven
guilty?
He is not innocent,
Oh, yes, he is innocent.
He's not innocent of killing Martin.
Post by ~M~He hasn't even been charged with anything.
I never said he was guilty of a crime, obviously he could not be,
Post by ~M~Post by ~M~he is guilty of ignoring the direct explicit advice of a police
dispatcher, and subsequently shooting an unarmed man.
Have you already retreated from his "ignoring direct orders from police?"
Now it's ignoring advice?
"We don't need you to do that" isn't even advice.
It's information. Information which you do not even have any evidence he
ignored.
Wow, what a dishonest slime you are. "We don't need you to do that" is a
clear instruction to stop doing something, said in a kind of colloquial
phrasing. "We don't need you to do that". It means, "Don't do that" or "Stop
doing that", or "That is not your job" etc.. Anybody with a brain gets that.
Post by ~M~Post by ~M~I didn't say he was guilty of a crime, a court will decide that.
This is what you said.
"He is already guilty, we just are not sure yet of exactly what. We know
that contrary to direct orders from police"
Right, so?
Post by ~M~He wasn't given an order by the police, that is clear,
He was given a direct order to stop following Martin "We don't need you to
do that"
your lying about what
Post by ~M~the dispatcher said notwithstanding.
My error in recalling the exact quote has ZERO effect on the meaning, "OK,
we don't need you to do that", "Stop, we don't need you to do that" mean
EXACTLY the same thing. You harping on that meaningless point shows how
desperate you are.
Post by ~M~Maybe the police where you are from use passive statements like that to
tell people what to do, but they sure don't do that here.
Yes they do, they did there. That police employee clearly intended for him
to stop following Martin. He clearly knew that was something he should not
be doing.
Post by ~M~Post by ~M~Post by ~M~Post by DutchPost by ~M~Post by Dutchwe just are not sure yet of exactly what. We know that contrary to
direct orders from police
Cite?
I heard it with my own ears.
No you didn't.
Yes I did, so did you.
I was perfectly happy to let you go back and listen again, maybe read the
transcript of the call, and realize you were wrong. Now, it's clear you
are just going to refuse the facts and stick to your assertion. "We don't
need you to do that" cannot be construed as an order. Words mean things.
Yes, "We don't need you to do that" means stop doing it.
Post by ~M~Post by ~M~Post by ~M~Post by DutchPolice: "Are you following him?"
Zimmerman: "Yes"
Police: "Stop, we don't need you to be doing that."
Dispatcher: "Are you following him?"
Zimmerman:"Yeah"
Dispatcher:"OK, we don't need you to do that"
Zimmerman:"OK"
You misheard OK as Stop? If your hearing is that bad, you should read a
transcript.
http://phoebe53.wordpress.com/2012/03/26/zimmerman-911-call-transcript-trayvon-martin/
http://www.npr.org/2012/03/19/148902744/911-tapes-raise-questions-in-fla-teens-shooting-death
Post by DutchYou heard it too, why are you engaging in disinformation?
The word "Stop" is immaterial here, it is implied in :"OK, we don't need
you to do that"
I normally snip things from two or three posts previous to cut down on the
clutter. But clearly here, you know that the word "Stop" is in fact very
material here. You need the word "Stop" to have been said in order for
there to have been a command issued. Without it, you have no command. That
is why you lied and said the dispatcher said it.
"We don't need you to do that" is clearly a directive to stop, Call it an
order, a suggestion, advice, whatever you like, but it's meaning is not in
doubt.
Post by ~M~Post by ~M~Post by ~M~Who is engaging in disinformation here?
You are.
I'm not the one lying about what the dispatcher said. You are. I'm not the
one that says the dispatcher ordered Zimmerman to stop.
"We don't need you to do that" is an order to stop. It's how you would say
it in that situation, you would not say "Stop doing that" or "Stop!" over
the phone, that would sound odd, although it would mean the same.
Post by ~M~You are. I'm not the one who says he continued to pursue Martin, despite
the fact that Zimmerman says he stopped,
He stopped yet he met up with Martin, yet Martin was concerned that he was
being followed according to his phone conversation.
Post by ~M~and went on to discuss where to meet the police, as can clearly be heard
on the 911 call. You are. I'm not engaging in disinformation, I'm waiting
for information. You have made up your mind and are engaging in
disinformation to justify your belief.
Post by ~M~Post by ~M~Post by DutchAre you in favor of offing stray niggers?
I'm not in favor of lynching someone based on lies and ignorance.
Or shooting them either?
I'm also not the one who, after being embarrassed in this thread, has to
resort to calling people racist because they think it's better to find out
what happened before lynching a man. You are.
I have not been embarrassed except in your fertile imagination, and I
haven't suggesting lynching anyone. I want the truth, not Zimmerman's
prepared statement.
Post by ~M~Post by ~M~Post by ~M~What has Zimmerman said? What have his lawyers said? What have the
police said?
Not much, as far as I can tell. Maybe you heard something I haven't.
Share, please!
His lawyers have been doing the talk show circuit. They say he has a
broken nose and grass stains on his shirt.
Is this supposed to incriminate Zimmerman?
Him hiding behind lawyers is suspicious, as opposed to appearing with a
lawyer present.
Post by ~M~Post by ~M~They have not said that Martin followed him, attacked him or anything
like that.
I didn't ask you what they haven't said. I asked you what they have said.
Are you going to tell me that they didn't tell us what the price of tea is
in China next?
I don't care what you asked me, what they aren't saying is telling.
Post by ~M~Post by ~M~Post by ~M~Post by DutchHe was stopped "on suspicion" of some violation that apparently existed
only in Zimmerman's mind.
I guess you know what I'm going to ask for now, don't you?
Cite?
You have some other plausible explanation? Zimmerman was following Martin,
and then subsequently ended up in a deadly confrontation with him. His
said Martin looked suspicious, he obviously wanted to prevent him from
doing whatever he planning to do in Zimmerman's mind.
OK, so I guess no citation is forthcoming from you. It's hard to cite your
own imagination, isn't it? Do you have anything at all that you can
provide (other than your inability to imagine any other scenario) that
Zimmerman stopped Martin at all? You are critical of what was going on
"only in Zimmerman's mind," when you have not demonstrated any ability at
all to use reason in this matter.
He was following him, he expressed anger at the idea that he might get away,
it sounds on the tape like fast walking, probably in the direction he saw
Martin go. When you're upset that someone might get away, do you turn and
walk the other way?
Post by ~M~Here is a plausible explanation for you.
Zimmerman calls the police. Martin runs off. Zimmerman loses sight of him.
Zimmerman finishes his call to the police. Zimmerman turns around and
heads back to his car to meet the police. Martin comes back and confronts
Zimmerman. Martin knocks Zimmerman to the ground and starts beating him.
Zimmerman is in fear for his life. Zimmerman shoots Martin.
That's possible, although not particularly likely. Does Martin have any
record of violence? I believe Zimmerman does.
Post by ~M~That is Zimmerman's account, corroborated by other witnesses.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/police-leak-details-of-george-zimmermans-account-of-trayvon-martin-shooting/1222087
I heard a witness that says otherwise.
Post by ~M~I, having not been there (good thing, or you would have me on the end of a
rope along with Zimmerman), can't say for sure if that is how it went
down. I have to rely on the system to work it out. If Zimmerman went after
Martin and started a fight with him, I'm all for throwing the book at him.
I have never said that I wanted Zimmerman hanged without a trial. Where did
you get that? I said that it looks bad for him, you think it doesn't.
Post by ~M~Post by ~M~Post by ~M~Post by DutchNothing except all the information that has come forward.
Such as?
Cite?
You've seen it all, you just refuse to see it.
I am no longer surprised that you aren't about to offer any evidence of
your assertions.
The evidence is public information.
Post by ~M~Post by ~M~Post by ~M~You seem full of assumption, empty of information.
There is plenty of information.
And all of it is making you look foolish.
No, it's not.
Post by ~M~Post by ~M~Post by ~M~Post by DutchPost by ~M~Fortunately for Zimmerman, the law doesn't work on your opinion.
Fortunately for the people of that area and of your country it works on
more than the kind of disinformation you are engaging in.
I am not engaging in any disinformation. You are. You are making up
facts out of thin air. Not only is there no proof that what you say
happened actually happened, but you actually changed what the dispatcher
said. You said the dispatcher said stop. That is not true. You are
either mistaken or a liar.
More disinformation, I was wrong about one word, it changes nothing.
You clearly inserted the word in your own attempt to distort the
situation. The word changes everything. That's why you inserted it. That
was ingenuous. Thinking no one else was going to actually listen and call
you out on it - now that was just stupid.
It's not plausible, the word changes nothing.
Post by ~M~Post by ~M~Post by ~M~Not only that, Zimmerman did stop.
Now you're making shit up,
No I'm not, listen to the call. Zimmerman's not chasing anyone after he
agrees to stop. He's working out where to meet the police.
Post by ~M~Zimmerman said "OK", that doesn't mean he stopped,
This much is true. But the subsequent conversation he had with the
dispatcher suggests he did stop.
No it doesn't, it sounds like he kept walking towards where he saw Martin,
because he didn't want him to escape, "These assholes always get away"
Post by ~M~Post by ~M~and the end result clearly does not support the likelihood that he did.
The end result does not support either idea. The way you have decided what
happened suggests you are unwilling to consider the evidence.
That's untrue, I am perfectly willing to hear evidence, unfortunately he
killed the main witness against him.
Post by ~M~Post by ~M~Post by ~M~Listen to the call. He said Martin took off running.
And you assume that is true, why?
It's more likely than Zimmerman quickly making it up so he could shoot the
kid. If he was trying to cover himself, don't you think a better lie would
be to say he's coming at me?
I believe Martin was leaving the area, Zimmerman said he was.
Post by ~M~Post by ~M~Post by ~M~Zimmerman, during the entire call, is clearly not running in pursuit. It
sounds to me like he is standing or walking, arranging where to meet the
police.
If Martin took off running and Zimmerman was standing there waiting for
police then how did they end up in a physical confrontation?
http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/police-leak-details-of-george-zimmermans-account-of-trayvon-martin-shooting/1222087
Same link I already provided earlier in this post. If you ignored what was
in it the first time, I guess you're going to do it again.
Post by ~M~His story doesn't add up.
If Zimmerman went after Martin and instigated the confrontation, I sure
hope the prosecution has a better argument than that, because it's a
stupid argument.
Why? The police already said that his story didn't hang together, but they
didn't have enough to hold him.
Post by ~M~Post by ~M~Post by ~M~Not satisfied with that, you accuse me of being "in favor of offing
stray niggers" because I think that we ought to stick with the facts and
won't participate in a lynching.
Yes, the facts. Zimmerman followed Martin and ended up killing him.
You falsified what the dispatcher said to back your assertion that martin
ignored police orders.
False, you're desperate.
Post by ~M~You have decided that it is easier to just call someone you do not know
anything about a racist than it is to fact the idea that you just may be
wrong about this situation.
I'm not wrong because I haven't drawn any conclusions. I said what the
evidence makes it sounds like happened.
Post by ~M~Post by ~M~Post by ~M~What is your motive here? How bad do you want to get this Zimmerman that
you are willing to make things up and label people who are sticking with
the truth as racists?
I didn't make anything up, I used one word incorrectly and that word had
zero impact on the meaning of the dispatcher's directive to Zimmerman.
You can't mistake OK for Stop. You changed the word, because you need it
be a directive. You did it on purpose.
It was a directive. "We don't need you to do that" is a clear directive.
There's nothing passive about it. I would have no trouble at all
understanding that he wanted me to stop. In fact neither did Zimmerman.
Post by ~M~Post by ~M~"OK, we don't need you to do that" and "Stop, we don't need you to do
that" transmit the exact same information, "stop" is implied.
If they were the same, you wouldn't have needed to substitute one for the
other. It's not even necessary, because you don't even have convincing
evidence that Zimmerman continued to pursue Martin. OK is not a command.
Yes it is a godammned command. "OK, We don't need you to do that" is an
instruction to stop doing that.
Post by ~M~Stop is. If you don't know that, there is really no way you are going to
be able to reason this out.
There is evidence in the audio transcript, listen after he is told, "We
don't need you to do that". There are sounds that sound like him walking
quickly and breathing harder. He says he was going back to his truck, but he
had just said he was angry that another asshole was going to get away. It
seems more likely that he was trying to prevent Martin from getting away.
Allegedly Zimmerman has anger issues. Of course this is speculation, but it
all goes to finding out what most likely happened.
Post by ~M~Post by ~M~Why are you making excuses for Zimmerman?
I'm not. It's looking more and more like I don't need to.
Only if you believe everything he says. I saw a witness on TV, a woman who
disputes his version of the confrontation. She said the boy was screaming
for help. The voice on the tape sounds like a boy, his parents say it is
him. Then BANG, no more cries.
Post by ~M~Post by ~M~What is your sympathy for him based on?
If his story is true, then he is being put through Hell by liars like you.
The state of Florida has assigned a special prosecutor. What more do you
want?
He needs to answer for what he did, not hide and let lawyers talk for him,
IF he's innocent of wrongdoing.
Post by ~M~Post by ~M~My reason for being sympathetic with Martin is obvious.
It is to me, but I am sure you can't be honest about that, either.
It's because he was killed by an armed man who profiled him then stalked him
and killed him, those are indisputable facts. Yes, he may have been
assaulted first, that may never be known for sure. Too bad. Even if
Zimmerman is cleared of any crime he is responsible for Martin's death, his
actions led up to it.