Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[TheL8Elvis]

Source

What does the following snippet mean to you?

Is this a nitpick about the fact that "vehicle" is not included here? If so, would it make you happier if the sentence was:

"On the other hand we have the NEN call, from which it's pretty clear that it's GZ who is pursuing TM; First by car and later on foot. He even continues after being told by the NEN operator that he need not follow TM".

Because then there's no nitpick, and yet the point of the sentence is exactly the same thing. George was pursuing TM.

That's the only fact that needs taking away from that portion. George was pursuing TM despite being told not to. No speculation necessary.

Why do you think the NEN operator didn't say "do not follow the guy" ?

Why do you think the NEN operator didn't say "stay in your car" ?

Why do you think the NEN operator didn't say "no, I won't have the police call you, meet them at the clubhouse"

Is the NEN operator legally allowed to tell GZ what to do ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Trayvon attempted to remove himself from the altercation. George chose to continue it. At the end of the day, George shot and killed an unarmed teenager.

Which altercation did TM attempt to remove himself from ?

al·ter·ca·tion
Noun
A noisy argument or disagreement, esp. in public.
Synonyms
quarrel - wrangle - contention - dispute - squabble

 

[johnny karate]

That's just it, it's not supposed to be up to them to prosecute him. It's also not supposed to come down to how emotionally Angela Corey feels about his beautiful parents and how much she enjoys praying with them...

it's not supposed to be about showing that someone who shoots a black person will "face justice" or about anybody getting re-elected or about avoiding riots...

It's supposed to be about what the law says, and what the evidence indicates. Period.

http://kchapmangibbons.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/ladyjustice.jpg

Oh my.

It's... not about any of the things you seem to be under the delusion that it is.

It is about the law and evidence because we live in a nation with a criminal justice system based on law and evidence.

People can't just be snatched off the street and convicted for crimes there is no evidence they committed simply to appease a mob.

There are a number of ways in which O'Mara could have made this case go away if the evidence against Zimmerman was as lacking as you fantasize. To date, he has availed himself of none of them.

But it can't be because there actually is a legitimate case to be made that Zimmerman commited murder.

Oh no, that's simply not possible.

Instead there must be a conspiracy against Zimmerman in defiance of our system of law, common sense, and rational thought.

If Zimmerman gets convicted, I can't wait to see your reaction. I'm sure it will be quite entertaining.

(Also, maybe next time photoshop a frowny face on Lady Justice. That would really drive your ham-handed point home.)

 

[Dcdrac]

Whatis abunduntaly clearis Zimmerman acted on assumption alone and that is what lead to him causing this tragedy there is no getting away from it, no excuses nothing.

He and the assumptions he made are the root cause of it all.

 

[remirol]

Why do you think the NEN operator didn't say "do not follow the guy" ?

Why do you think the NEN operator didn't say "stay in your car" ?

Why do you think the NEN operator didn't say "no, I won't have the police call you, meet them at the clubhouse"

Is the NEN operator legally allowed to tell GZ what to do ?

The first three are nothing but irrelevant speculation; the last one is simply irrelevant.

George was pursuing TM despite being told not to. That's the facts, and that is how it will be presented in court.

 

[sgtbaker]

Source

What does the following snippet mean to you?



Is this a nitpick about the fact that "vehicle" is not included here? If so, would it make you happier if the sentence was:

"On the other hand we have the NEN call, from which it's pretty clear that it's GZ who is pursuing TM; First by car and later on foot. He even continues after being told by the NEN operator that he need not follow TM".

Because then there's no nitpick, and yet the point of the sentence is exactly the same thing. George was pursuing TM.

That's the only fact that needs taking away from that portion. George was pursuing TM despite being told not to. No speculation necessary.

It is an outright lie.

He even continues after being told by the NEN operator that he need not leave his vehicle.

The NEN never said to stay in his vehicle. The NEN never told him to do anything and if the reason someone feels GZ is guilty has anything to do with GZ failing to do what the NEN told him to do, then that someone is basing their opinion on pure fantasy. For the record, no, your suggestion wouldn't satisfy me either because I would still appreciate the evidence that GZ continued to follow after the NEN said, "We don't need to you do that."

 

[phonebook]

George was pursuing TM.

George was keeping an eye on TM while on the phone with a police dispatcher for the purposes of having an officer to come out and approach this person because he didn't want to himself.

That's the only fact that needs taking away from that portion. George was pursuing TM despite being told not to. No speculation necessary.

GZ never ignored any sort of instruction by the dispatcher to not leave his vehicle. People imply that either out of naivety of the facts, or because they desire to make GZ's actions look more reckless and to make it appear he was in conflict with what the dispatcher was saying to him.

GZ claims to have ceased following TM after the dispatcher suggested it was unnecessary, and there is no evidence that proves he ignored that suggestion.

 

[sgtbaker]

Trayvon attempted to remove himself from the altercation. George chose to continue it.

Evidence?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

The first three are nothing but irrelevant speculation; the last one is simply irrelevant.

George was pursuing TM despite being told not to. That's the facts, and that is how it will be presented in court.

"We don't need you to do that" is not the same as "told not to" - so "despite being told not to" is not really a fact.

And it's very much relevant whether the NEN operator can tell GZ what to do or not.

 

[Rare Truth]

"*********** punks."

"These *******s always get away."

Q: They don't always get away, do they George?

GZ: No.

 

[Dan O.]

The NEN never told him he did not need to leave his vehicle and the only "evidence" that GZ continued to follow TM is based on your misinterpretation of events pointed out in the first paragraph.

But George did get out of his vehicle and specifically entered the area where he last saw Trayvon running away from him. The evidence even strongly suggests that George went down the walk south of the tee where he saw Trayvon run.

The dispatcher told George that he didn't need George to follow. In fact, after that point the dispatcher never requested any further information about the suspect or where he went. Look at the sudden change in the dispatcher's response. Before George gets out of his truck we get the exchange: "****, he's running", "he's running. Which way is he running?"

But after the "Are you following him, we don't need you to do that", the dispatcher doesn't again mention the suspect. It's all focused on George: "Alright, sir, What is your name?" Even when George brings it up again saying "he ran", the dispatchers response is "Alright George, what's your last name?"

The dispatcher did everything he could to get George to break off the pursuit short of ordering George to return to his truck which he can't do. It is George alone who continued the pursuit after he was told it was not necessary.

 

[sgtbaker]

But George did get out of his vehicle and specifically entered the area where he last saw Trayvon running away from him. The evidence even strongly suggests that George went down the walk south of the tee where he saw Trayvon run.

I am fine with calling it suggested by evidence. I am not fine with calling it facts. I don't think there is strong evidence that he continued to follow him, I think the evidence can be just as suggestive that the fight moved them partially down the T.

The dispatcher told George that he didn't need George to follow. In fact, after that point the dispatcher never requested any further information about the suspect or where he went. Look at the sudden change in the dispatcher's response. Before George gets out of his truck we get the exchange: "****, he's running", "he's running. Which way is he running?"

But after the "we don't need you to do that", the dispatcher doesn't again mention the suspect. It's all focused on George: "Alright, sir, What is your name?" Even when George brings it up again saying "he ran", the dispatchers response is "Alright George, what's your last name?"

The dispatcher did everything he could to get George to break off the pursuit short of ordering George to return to his truck which he can't do. It is George alone who continued the pursuit after he was told it was not necessary

With all due respect, I think that is a narrative you created. I got no impression at all, that the NEN was doing anything other than collecting information because that is his job. I don't see how; sure, the police can call you and meet you where ever you happen to be, is even remotely indicative of doing everything short of ordering GZ back to his truck.

ETA just changing a sentence. I said I don't think there was any evidence he followed him but I meant continued to follow him. We know he initially followed him.

 

[remirol]

The NEN never said to stay in his vehicle.

Irrelevant. Remove the vehicle from the equation, please. I did so in my prior post to simplify the discussion.

The NEN never told him to do anything

What do the words "We don't need you to do that" mean to you?

For the record, no, your suggestion wouldn't satisfy me either because I would still appreciate the evidence that GZ continued to follow after the NEN said, "We don't need to you do that."

The only thing I'm establishing here is that George was pursuing TM, and was explicitly told that it was not necessary to do so.

Is it your contention that George either returned to his vehicle or remained where he was and did not continue to look for TM after the instruction was given?

GZ never ignored any sort of instruction by the dispatcher to not leave his vehicle.

Again, please remove the vehicle from the equation. I did so in my prior post. You should do the same.

GZ claims to have ceased following TM after the dispatcher suggested it was unnecessary, and there is no evidence that proves he ignored that suggestion.

Yes or no, please.

a) Was George pursuing TM?
b) Was George told that it was not necessary to pursue TM?

ETA: Same as for sgtbaker -- is it your contention that George either returned to his vehicle or remained where he was and did not continue to look for TM after the instruction was given?

"We don't need you to do that" is not the same as "told not to" - so "despite being told not to" is not really a fact.

Those semantics will not hold up in court, FYI. Regardless, I have revised the phrasing above, and as we see the meaning is the same.

And it's very much relevant whether the NEN operator can tell GZ what to do or not.

Explain why this is relevant to the questions a) and b) above?

 

[phonebook]

The dispatcher did everything he could to get George to break off the pursuit short of ordering George to return to his truck which he can't do. It is George alone who continued the pursuit after he was told it was not necessary.

Short of saying anything about GZ still being in any sort of "pursuit". And when GZ asked the dispatcher "Actually, could you just have them call me, and I'll tell them where I'm at?", suggesting he wouldn't necessarily be at his truck... what was the dispatcher's resply? "Ok. Yeah, that's no problem". Doesn't quite sound like someone doing "everything he could" to get GZ to "break off the pursuit".

And actually... the information that the dispatcher was requesting was SOP stuff. He needs GZ's full name (for the call log), his telephone number, and he needs to have an address in which to send the officer to, etc.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

With all due respect, I think that is a narrative you created. I got no impression at all, that the NEN was doing anything other than collecting information because that is his job. I don't see how; sure, the police can call you and meet you where ever you happen to be, is even remotely indicative of doing everything short of ordering GZ back to his truck.

For that matter, the NEN operator could have said:
"Sir, for your safety, it might be better to wait in your car"

There is clearly much more he could have done had he really wanted GZ to return to his car.

 

[12AX7]

And if ifs and buts were candy and nuts we'd all have a merry christmas

Pound that table.

Which altercation did TM attempt to remove himself from ?

al·ter·ca·tion
Noun
A noisy argument or disagreement, esp. in public.
Synonyms
quarrel - wrangle - contention - dispute - squabble

Pound that table.

 

[phonebook]

Again, please remove the vehicle from the equation. I did so in my prior post. You should do the same.

Please remove "pursue" from the equation. I did so in my prior post, you should do the same.

Anyway, my issue was with another poster's statement: "He even continues after being told by the NEN operator that he need not leave his vehicle." That's not what happened. Call it a nitpick if you wish, I call it an attempt to be true to the facts.

Yes or no, please.

a) Was George pursuing TM?
b) Was George told that it was not necessary to pursue TM?

a) - No, GZ had followed TM, and got out of his car to see where TM had gone, and supposedly look for an address.

b) - He was asked if he was following TM; GZ replied "Yeah"; GZ then was informed that that wasn't necessary.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Irrelevant. Remove the vehicle from the equation, please. I did so in my prior post to simplify the discussion.

What do the words "We don't need you to do that" mean to you?

The only thing I'm establishing here is that George was pursuing TM, and was explicitly told that it was not necessary to do so.

Is it your contention that George either returned to his vehicle or remained where he was and did not continue to look for TM after the instruction was given?

Again, please remove the vehicle from the equation. I did so in my prior post. You should do the same.

Yes or no, please.

a) Was George pursuing TM?
b) Was George told that it was not necessary to pursue TM?

Those semantics will not hold up in court, FYI.

Yes, because the law isn't all about rules and nit-picky details

Regardless, I have revised the phrasing above, and as we see the meaning is the same.

Explain why this is relevant to the questions a) and b) above?

Because there was nothing illegal about GZ getting out of his car and following TM.

So, yes he got out to follow TM.

And when the NEN op said: "we don't need you to do that" GZ said OK, and as far as we know, stopped following.

This is going to prove GZ was not in fear of great bodily injury how exactly ?

 

[12AX7]

Evidence?

Evidence that Trayvon attempted to remove himself from the altercation and that George chose to continue it? Sure.

I'll emphasize the important parts.

1:58 Zimmerman: No, you go in straight through the entrance and then you’d make a left. Uh, yeah, you go straight in, don’t turn and make a left. ****, he’s running.

2:08 Dispatcher: He’s running? Which way is he running?

2:10 (door opens, sound of door alarm)

2:10 Zimmerman: Ah, down towards the, ah, other entrance of the neighborhood.

2:14 (door closes)

2:14 Dispatcher: OK. Which entrance is that that he’s heading towards?

2:17 Zimmerman; The back entrance. ******** punks.

2:20 (wind noise)

2:23 Dispatcher: Are you following him?

2:25 Zimmerman: Yeah.

2:26 Dispatcher: OK, we don’t need you to do that.

Spin away.

 

[tsig]

You mean other than the fact that an unarmed teenager who was doing nothing wrong and had a right to be where he was is dead?

This apparently needs repeating about once a page to remind the Z creative writing specialists that there is one large dead fact that won't go away.