Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[This is The End]

I snipped out all the parts you are wrong about. I see no point in discussing your bizarre claim that going in the direction you last saw a suspect, without actually having him in sight, is "getting physical".

You seem to have a unique interpretation of the word. You aren't Humpty Dumpty, and this isn't Wonderland.

That's very impolite for one. Completely lying by saying "getting physical" when in reality it is "getting physically involved with an activity" for two. (Do you really think people wouldn't notice that you did that?) And still probably wrong, for three.

Also, you aren't going to get away with saying you were just talking about a word and not the context of the sentence and how that word was used.

You are clearly impolite, and you flat out mis-represent the truth to try and be correct. But notice how I say "probably" wrong. Unlike you I am open to discussing this and not just telling people they are wrong with zero input.

I present my interpretation of the NW guide and you respond with that quote?? Unbelievable.

I can only assume reasons why you would do that and not address my specific breakdown....

I mean seriously, to start this off you tell someone they don't know what something means with zero explaination.

I then respond to you very politely that you may be wrong with a complete breakdown of the sentence in question.

You respond to me with a one liner just like you originally said to the first person.

I then respond to you to please address my actual arguments and that I am still not convinced you are correct.

You then respond with the quote above.

Please don't think that people don't see all that for what it is.

Just for the record:

In big bold-up fonts the above words there INSIST people are not to " get physically involved with any activity you report or apprehend any suspicious persons."

They do that in not only one area of the NW Guidelines, but twice.

I'm not so sure about that WildCat. I think you might be the one that does not know what it means in that context.



In that sentence you are getting physically involved with an activity, not with a human or humans.

Following or approaching the activity would be physically involved.

For instance, a basketball game is an activity. If you started playing the game you would be "physically involved" in it, even though you are yet to make contact with another player or the ball.

Or, more close to the topic, if you called in a robbery hostage situation. Trying to personally talk down, negotiate, or even approaching the hostages, would be "getting physically involved" even though you never make contact with any humans.

I seriously doubt it means otherwise or else they would not have to follow it up with "or apprehen[d] any suspicious persons". Which has a separate direct object.

Why else would "physically involved" specifically refer to "activity" and "apprehend" specifically refer to "person".

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/NWProgramHandbook.pdf

 

[TheL8Elvis]

That's very impolite for one. Completely lying by saying "getting physical" when in reality it is "getting physically involved with an activity, for two. Do you really think people wouln't notice that you did that? And still wrong, for three.
[...]
http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/NWProgramHandbook.pdf

I noticed, but didn't care, just FYI.

Two points.

One: Does watching a basketball game mean you are physically involved in the game ?
Two: How does it legally matter if he followed NW rules or not ?

 

[This is The End]

One: Does watching a basketball game mean you are physically involved in the game ?

That would be the analogy where Z stayed in the truck.

Two: How does it legally matter if he followed NW rules or not ?

That has nothing to do with the discussion. The dis-agreement is about what a sentence in the NW guide means. It doesn't matter if it applies to the night or not.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

That would be the analogy where Z stayed in the truck.

I disagree that following at a distance is physically involved, but since it has no bearing on anything....

That has nothing to do with the discussion. The dis-agreement is about what a sentence in the NW guide means. It doesn't matter if it applies to the night or not.

Sorry ... carry on then.

 

[sgtbaker]

Not comparable at all.

I understand minor ones, not gaping ones like he punched me right off and I went right down -- to we scuffled for a bit, and I pushed him away -- to landing some 60 feet from where he said it happened.

Not buying it.

Bullet trajectory - way off
Timeline - way off.

Not buying it.

He also said TM pounded his head like 30 times. Heaping pile of BS.

I don't know how you scuffle, but the disorganized street fights I've witnessed, rarely invoved feet remaining planted in the same spot that they were in when the fight started. Something tells me he probably didn't have a pedometer to gauge exactly how far they moved.

But honestly, you think not being exactly sure how far you stumbled after getting punched in the face is a glaring inconsistancy but telling the 911 operator that the last time you saw your son was over an hour after he was killed is minor? Also, comparing his versions of events of the evening his son was killed, has varied, quite a lot from what we can gather from the 911 call, the morning his son went missing. It happens because memory is imperfect.

 

[WildCat]

No, her interpretation is not unique in any sense. Your ad hominems aside...

When you physically remove yourself from your vehicle, and you physically begin to follow a suspect on foot, then you are physically involving yourself with a suspect (and in Zimmerman's case, one he thought was armed, on drugs and a criminal.)

It's not that hard, really.

And you are wrong.

By that definition physically pickling up a phone and physically dialling 911 is also "getting physical"?

Do you see how wrong you are now?

 

[This is The End]

I disagree that following at a distance is physically involved, but since it has no bearing on anything....

First of all, thank you for understanding that this is a discussion about the interpretation of a key line in the NW guide. Not about whether or not that guide and its contents has any bearing on the case, the law, Z's mindset, or anything. Keep that in mind (it also makes it not matter if Z thought the dispatcher told him to follow M).

OK to respond to your quote.

The activity M was doing was walking. Or more specifically meandering around his neighborhood talking on the phone.

Z getting out of his truck and walking behind M at the same pace is the exact same activity M was doing.

I'm not convinced that does not count as getting physically involved with the activity that was reported to the police.

 

[crimresearch]

Bullet trajectory - way off

You forgot to compensate for *Earth's* atmosphere and gravitational pull...


...at contact range.

 

[This is The End]

And you are wrong.

By that definition physically pickling up a phone and physically dialling 911 is also "getting physical"?

Do you see how wrong you are now?

WildCat I covered all that in my post. Either you A) Aren't reading my post at all B) Refusing to discuss it or C) Afraid to admit you mis-read the NW guide.

None of which look good on you.

In light of all that, it makes it look very bad that you still are saying that people are "wrong".

I will even highlight for you where I specifically addressed that:

In that sentence you are getting physically involved with an activity, not with a human or humans.

Following or approaching the activity would be physically involved.

For instance, a basketball game is an activity. If you started playing the game you would be "physically involved" in it, even though you are yet to make contact with another player or the ball.

Or, more close to the topic, if you called in a robbery hostage situation. Trying to personally talk down, negotiate, or even approaching the hostages, would be "getting physically involved" even though you never make contact with any humans.
I seriously doubt it means otherwise or else they would not have to follow it up with "or apprehen[d] any suspicious persons". Which has a separate direct object.

Why else would "physically involved" specifically refer to "activity" and "apprehend" specifically refer to "person".

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/NWProgramHandbook.pdf

"What you will not do is get physically involved with any activity you report or apprehension of any suspicious persons."

Surely there is a reason you don't want to discuss the actual meaning of that entire sentence....

 

[WildCat]

That's very impolite for one. Completely lying by saying "getting physical" when in reality it is "getting physically involved with an activity" for two. (Do you really think people wouldn't notice that you did that?) And still probably wrong, for three.

Also, you aren't going to get away with saying you were just talking about a word and not the context of the sentence and how that word was used.

You are clearly impolite, and you flat out mis-represent the truth to try and be correct. But notice how I say "probably" wrong. Unlike you I am open to discussing this and not just telling people they are wrong with zero input.

I present my interpretation of the NW guide and you respond with that quote?? Unbelievable.

I can only assume reasons why you would do that and not address my specific breakdown....

I mean seriously, to start this off you tell someone they don't know what something means with zero explaination.

I then respond to you very politely that you may be wrong with a complete breakdown of the sentence in question.

You respond to me with a one liner just like you originally said to the first person.

I then respond to you to please address my actual arguments and that I am still not convinced you are correct.

You then respond with the quote above.

Please don't think that people don't see all that for what it is.

Just for the record:







http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/NWProgramHandbook.pdf

Yes, I know. You don't understand the meaning of the phrase "getting physical". You don't need to keep hammering the point home.

 

[Cylinder]

...the meaning of the phrase "getting physical".

That was an embarrassing time in my life...

 

[This is The End]

Yes, I know. You don't understand the meaning of the phrase "getting physical". You don't need to keep hammering the point home.

Seriously?? Wow. Just wow. Another one liner and no discussion of the facts at all.

Please note from my post:

Also, you aren't going to get away with saying you were just talking about a word and not the context of the sentence and how that word was used.

Then read your quote just now. Notice anything? You are not going to get away with saying you were just talking about a two word phrase and not discuss the actual context of the sentence. Which I think I did a fairly good job of.

You are literally telling someone that they "don't understand the meaning of a phrase" when they are trying to discuss the phrase in detail and you are refusing to back up your claim one iota. It reflects extremely poorly on you IMO.

I would also like to point out to everyone that you again mis-represent the phrase in question ("get physically involved") with "get physical". You are clearly doing it because the latter would be much more favorable to you. That is aside from the fact that the direct object is "activity" and specifically separated from "apprehension of any suspicious persons". They didn't just do that for no reason!


http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/NWProgramHandbook.pdf

"What you will not do is get physically involved with any activity you report or apprehension of any suspicious persons."

I'm going to stop now, everyone can see for themselves what you are doing.

 

[johnny karate]

Yes, I know. You don't understand the meaning of the phrase "getting physical". You don't need to keep hammering the point home.

Since you're the only one using the phrase "getting physical", I'm not sure how its meaning is relevant to the discussion.

I'm going to stop now, everyone can see for themselves what you are doing.

Yeah, it's glaringly obvious.

 

[WildCat]

I'm going to stop now, everyone can see for themselves what you are doing.

Yes, pointing out that you don't know what the term "get physically involved" (is that better?) means.

It doesn't mean what you think it means. If it did, one couldn't physically dial a phone to call 911, let alone physically speak words into the phone.

Humpty Dumpty in Wonderland.

 

[johnny karate]

Yes, pointing out that you don't know what the term "get physically involved" (is that better?) means.

Actually, the phrase was "get physically involved with any activity you report".

But even just "get physically involved" is quite a bit different to "getting physical".

So at least you got one step closer to honesty.

 

[WildCat]

Actually, the phrase was "get physically involved with any activity you report".

But even just "get physically involved" is quite a bit different to "getting physical".

So at least you got one step closer to honesty.

Yes, you also do not understand what the term means.

Maybe English is not your first language?

 

[johnny karate]

Yes, you also do not understand what the term means.

What term? The one you keep lying about?

Even if I didn't understand what "getting physical" meant, why would that matter? Your dishonest misrepresentations have no bearing on the discussion.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Yes, you also do not understand what the term means.

Maybe English is not your first language?

You mean you don't see the huge difference when it's stated as "getting physically involved with any activity you report" ? As I was out walking today I saw two really good looking women at different times that I was lucky enough to find myself walking behind for a short period and took the opportunity to appreciate the view. The good news is based on these guys definition I can now tell everyone I ran into two really hot women today and became physically involved with both of them.

 

[johnny karate]

You mean you don't see the huge difference when it's stated as "getting physically involved with any activity you report" ? As I was out walking today I saw two really good looking women at different times that I was lucky enough to find myself walking behind for a short period and took the opportunity to appreciated the view. The good news is based on these guys definition I can now tell everyone I ran into two really hot women today and became physically involved with both of them.

Do you seriously not know the difference between a person and an activity, or are you just joining in on the dishonesty?

 

[This is The End]

Yes, pointing out that you don't know what the term "get physically involved" (is that better?) means.

It doesn't mean what you think it means. If it did, one couldn't physically dial a phone to call 911, let alone physically speak words into the phone.

Humpty Dumpty in Wonderland.

Again, I pointed out why that analogy is wrong more than once. Please address it.

Also I don't think saying "Humpty Dumpty in Wonderland" is addressing the argument either.