Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[TheL8Elvis]

You were asked to provide evidence for your claim "Trayvon attempted to remove himself from the altercation." and your response is:

Pound that table.

Pound that table.

I see.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Are you aware of any young white males that were arrested by the police in conjunction with any the burglaries? Or do you filter those out because you feel they are somehow not relevant.

Are you aware of any?

Do you have evidence they were filtered out, or are you "Just Asking Questions"

 

[KatieG]

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.



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.

Obviously he did follow TM since they met up at some point.

 

[Unabogie]

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.

We know George followed him in his truck.
We know Trayvon ran away from him.
We know George said "****, he's running" and immediately jumped out of his car and followed him.
We know the dispatcher told him not to follow.
We know they ended up together anyway.

From that point, we have George's silly excuse that he was looking for a street sign. This is not credible because:
a) There are only two main streets there, and one of them was the one he lived on, while the other one was the main street you drive into to get anywhere in the complex.
b) The body and debris field is 50 feet south of where he claims he was, and the only way he got there was most certainly not sliding on his back.


We know the kid was unarmed.
We know his injuries are minor and did not even require a bandaid.
We know he was armed.

Anyone who doesn't think those facts deserve a hearing in court is so blinkered it's beyond belief.

 

[sgtbaker]

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

You decided it was irrelevant so you removed it from the equation, so I explained my issue. One implies that the was ignoring orders by getting out of the truck. That is not the case. Actually listening to the conversation, the dispatcher asked him which way he was running just before he got out of the truck.

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

It means exactly how it sounds; it's not necessary. Would you agree that saying, "Do not do that," and "I don't need you to do that," are two different expressions?

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.

No, he was not explicitly told not to, he was told it was unnecessary. My issue is not whether or not he initially followed him (we know for a fact he did, at first). My issue is not what the NEN dispatcher meant. My issue is the contention that it is a fact that GZ continued to pursue TM after he was told it was not necessary.

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?

It is my contention that we have no idea what George did when he got off the phone. He could have followed TM and he could have stayed at the other end of the sidewalk fiddling with a flashlight for a few and then headed back to the truck.

 

[tsig]

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.

There is no getting around that, and that's the huge problem George and his fan club have to contend with. You guys can compose whatever "attack" theories you want, but it doesn't change anything.

Trayvon was unarmed. He was where he had a right to be. He was doing nothing wrong. He attempted to flee from Geroge, George chose to follow. Whatever happens after that is on George. George was asked if he was following, and told "we don't need you to do that". George was well aware of his responsibilities as a NW member; specifically not to engage with suspicious persons, but to call law enforcement.

You and the other George fans can spin this as much as you want.




All we have is George's multiple stories filled with ionconsistencies, physical impossibilities and self-serving dialogue. See, the unarmed teenager that was doing nothing wrong and had a right to be where he was (and attempted to remove himself from George and the altercation) is dead.

If Z was to confess that he'd killed Martin with malice aforethought his defenders wouldn't skip a beat but go right into the "he was coerced" routine.

At this point shadowboxing is all they have.

 

[sgtbaker]

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

I'll emphasize the important parts.




Spin away.

We established that part of the conversation. Is there any evidence in there about GZ continuing to follow after that?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Obviously he did follow TM since they met up at some point.

Is your claim that it is impossible to meet up with someone at some point unless you follow them to that point?

 

[12AX7]

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.

And, they immediately fall back to the "until he attacked poor George" story. Remember, George is the victim here.

I really can't remember the last time I saw so much handwaving away of details like the George Fan Club does. Maybe the O.J. trial; he had some rabid fans as well.

 

[remirol]

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

I will not. The word is correctly used:

Zimmerman: Okay. These ******** they always get away. When you come to the clubhouse you come straight in and make a left. Actually you would go past the clubhouse.
Dispatcher: So it's on the lefthand side from the clubhouse?
Zimmerman: No you go in straight through the entrance and then you make a left...uh you go straight in, don't turn, and make a left. **** he's running.Dispatcher: He's running? Which way is he running?
Zimmerman: Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood. \
Dispatcher: Which entrance is that that he's heading towards?
Zimmerman: The back entrance...*********** [unintelligible]
Dispatcher: Are you following him? Zimmerman: Yeah

Zimmerman was clearly pursuing TM.

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.

Precise wording is good. And that's why I removed 'vehicle' from the equation to point out that the point made by the other poster's statement does not change.

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.

So A no, and B yes. I clearly added my ETA too late, above; can you respond to that as well?

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

Relevance? (paraphrase)

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 ?

This is non-responsive to the original question. Do you concede that the legality of the NEN operator's instruction is not meaningful to the question of whether George _was_ instructed that it was unnecessary to follow Trayvon?

 

[12AX7]

You were asked to provide evidence for your claim "Trayvon attempted to remove himself from the altercation." and your response is:



I see.

Evidently you don't see.

See post #8759.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Evidently you don't see.

See post #8759.

I don't see any evidence of an altercation in that post. I was thinking perhaps you don't know what the word altercation means, so I posted the definition.

But I sill don't see any evidence in your post about an altercation, much less TM removing himself from one.

 

[12AX7]

We established that part of the conversation. Is there any evidence in there about GZ continuing to follow after that?

You mean other than this (bolding mine)?

We know George followed him in his truck.
We know Trayvon ran away from him.
We know George said "****, he's running" and immediately jumped out of his car and followed him.
We know the dispatcher told him not to follow.
We know they ended up together anyway.

From that point, we have George's silly excuse that he was looking for a street sign. This is not credible because:
a) There are only two main streets there, and one of them was the one he lived on, while the other one was the main street you drive into to get anywhere in the complex.
b) The body and debris field is 50 feet south of where he claims he was, and the only way he got there was most certainly not sliding on his back.


We know the kid was unarmed.
We know his injuries are minor and did not even require a bandaid.
We know he was armed.

Anyone who doesn't think those facts deserve a hearing in court is so blinkered it's beyond belief.

 

[Dan O.]

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

WRONG! The dispatcher has no idea whether the car is safer or not. What if there was a boogieman waiting to assault George at his truck. For liability reasons, the dispatcher cannot tell George to return to his truck. He cannot tell George to stay where he is. He cannot tell George to go home. George's safety is George's responsibility and so are his actions.

I know of at least one instance where a dispatcher told the caller what to do that resulted in the caller getting killed because the perp had returned to the scene of the an earlier altercation with guns. I believe this was national news shortly before George's incident so dispatchers would be fully aware that their advice can have consequences.

 

[Cylinder]

5D13-1233 GEORGE ZIMMERMAN vs. STATE OF FLORIDA 5th DCA Online Docket

 

[12AX7]

I don't see any evidence of an altercation in that post. I was thinking perhaps you don't know what the word altercation means, so I posted the definition.

But I sill don't see any evidence in your post about an altercation, much less TM removing himself from one.

We'll just add this to the massive list of other things about this case you don't see.

I want Geroge to be convicted because I feel he wrongly shot and killed an unarmed teenager who was doing nothing wrong and had a right to be where he was.

But the more I read the nonsense you and the other George Fanboys post, I can't help but I add schadenfreude to that initial reason. Juvenile of me? Perhaps. But I can't wait to read the wailing and gnashing of teeth when George is convicted.

 

[tsig]

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.

That's true, he could have used his Jedi mind control to make him go back to the car.

 

[remirol]

It means exactly how it sounds; it's not necessary. Would you agree that saying, "Do not do that," and "I don't need you to do that," are two different expressions?

Honestly, to me those are the same expression and the first one is just more forceful -- an order instead of an instruction. But I have been around emergency services since my childhood, and I'm also familiar with people trying to over-professionalize their words and not understanding how to do it properly.

Let's go down this road briefly: Would you agree that the NEN dispatcher was attempting to discourage George from any further pursuit?

My issue is not whether or not he initially followed him (we know for a fact he did, at first). My issue is not what the NEN dispatcher meant. My issue is the contention that it is a fact that GZ continued to pursue TM after he was told it was not necessary.

It is my contention that we have no idea what George did when he got off the phone.

(^^ prefer to stop here, TBH, as the rest is speculation from both sides.)

If it's not obvious by now, BTW, I'm starting to _try_ to nail down a timeline that contains nothing more than "what both sides agree on actually happened", because the amount of "inserting own narrative" into things that's going on in this thread drives me nuts to read. What George did after being instructed I'm not touching just yet; I need to check everything else that matches up to that spot on the timeline. I think we are a lot closer to the same page than it appears though.

 

[tsig]

Obviously he did follow TM since they met up at some point.

Obviously because Martin, who has no skin in game at this point, suddenly decides to up the ante to deadly force.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

You mean other than this (bolding mine)?

Except he said he was looking for an address on RVC because he knew the street name.