Latest GeorgeZimmerman News

[johnny karate]

The photo you linked to appears to belong to a Daily Mail article that was written two years after the incident. And lacks any kind of citation that would allow us to place it properly in the timeline of events. Do you have another source for this photo?

You guys are a hoot.

Here's an article from 2012 with the photo and a caption indicating it was taken the night of the incident:

http://miami.cbslocal.com/2012/05/17/discovery-documents-released-in-state-vs-george-zimmerman/

What do you need next? Sanford, Florida located on a map for you?

Let me know. I'm here to help.

 

[Ziggurat]

Don't sidestep the question. Answer me.

Sidestep? How did our exchange start? I'm not sidestepping anything, I'm getting back to the original issue, which YOU now want to avoid. So you answer me.

 

[Mumbles]

That's how I understood it. I've heard that turn of phrase on occasion and always to mean "don't do that".

As have I. The only real key here is that the dispatcher doesn't want it to be taken as a direct legal command - basically, it's CYA.

And again, I wouldn't go chasing after some stranger who was just walking down the street in the evening in the first place

 

[Noztradamus]

No. But do you think a 911 dispatcher is being coy if she says "We don't need you to do that?" Context matters, and it was very clear there.

What if she says "That's sweet, but I really don't need you to do that!"

 

[TheGoldcountry]

What if she says "That's sweet, but I really don't need you to do that!"

Get back to me when that happens, and I'll share my opinion. In the meantime, that isn't what happened, so your non sequitur is meaningless.

 

[Belz...]

Sidestep? How did our exchange start? I'm not sidestepping anything, I'm getting back to the original issue, which YOU now want to avoid.

Is there no end to your dishonest tactics? Is there anything you won't say to avoid giving a straight answer?

You don't get to pretend that your own behaviour is instead mine. Furthermore, the "original issue" is exactly what my question is about. The only reason why you wrote the aboe is, again, because you want to avoid having to answer the question, and are now pretending that it is I who is avoiding something. Answer the question, and I will answer yours.

 

[Ziggurat]

Is there no end to your dishonest tactics? Is there anything you won't say to avoid giving a straight answer?

I'm not going to give you a straight answer to your question until you give one to mine, because mine rightly takes precedence. My question addresses the original issue, yours does not. And unless you simply forgot how this all started, then it's dishonest of you to pretend otherwise.

Furthermore, the "original issue" is exactly what my question is about.

No, it isn't. You have moved the goalpost. Remember, the original issue was my claim, not yours, and I said nothing about implications.

The 911 dispatcher never said "don't follow him". Go read the transcript.

Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah
Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.

Seems your memory, and your eyes, aren't that great.

This is where our exchange started. You claimed that I was wrong. But I'm not. You then moved the goalpost to be about implications of a statement, when my claim was about the actual statement itself (note the use of quotation marks). The dispatcher never said the quote. You have continually failed to admit that the dispatcher never said the quote.

I'm not the one being dishonest here, you are.

 

[Belz...]

I'm not going to give you a straight answer to your question until you give one to mine, because mine rightly takes precedence.

Yes, I know this is the tactic you're going for. And I rightly called it dishonest.

No, it isn't. You have moved the goalpost. Remember, the original issue was my claim, not yours, and I said nothing about implications.

You are pretending that we're talking about a specific wording, when we both know that this isn't the case.. The dispatcher told him not to follow Martin. The words weren't "don't follow him" but it means exactly that, so your continued semantics nonsense is nothing but a diversion to avoid discussing the actual issue: that the dispatcher asked him not to follow Martin.

Stop playing stupid games as if you're talking to idiots who can't tell that this is what you're doing.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

The words weren't "don't follow him" but it means exactly that, so your continued semantics nonsense is nothing but a diversion to avoid discussing the actual issue: that the dispatcher asked him not to follow Martin.

Bob: "Jim, thanks for loaning me your Jeep. I'll be sure to top it off on the way over."

Jim: "I don't need you to do that."

Bob: "Understood. See you in about an hour."


Bob fills up the Jeep on his way over in appreciation for the loan, and returns it to Jim with a full tank.

Question: Does Jim have the right to be angry? If he yelled at Bob for disobeying him would it be appropriate?

 

[Ziggurat]

You are pretending that we're talking about a specific wording, when we both know that this isn't the case.

Are you now claiming psychic powers to be able to tell me what I'm talking about?

The dispatcher told him not to follow Martin.

No, she did not. She may have wanted him not to, but she never told him not to.

Stop playing stupid games as if you're talking to idiots who can't tell that this is what you're doing.

You're trying to tell me what I think, and I'm the one playing games? Yeah, no.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed to comply with rule 12

 

[Belz...]

Are you now claiming psychic powers to be able to tell me what I'm talking about?

Reading your posts on the internet requires no psychic power.

No, she did not. She may have wanted him not to, but she never told him not to.

Thanks for proving what I've been saying all along: you're playing word games, as if humans cannot communicate information other than by saying the exact words they mean. Since I know you're not an idiot (again, no psychic power required), this can only mean that you are, in fact, engaging in this conversation dishonestly.

 

[Myron Proudfoot]

I've heard "You don't need to do that" used both ways..

as a response to a proposed favor where the speaker liked to idea but did not want to person to feel obliged (the tank of gas or picking wildflowers examples)

and as a polite way to say "do not do that." "I'll do the laundry for you honey! Oh, I don't need you do do that!" (translated "Oh God no, you always do it wrong and ruin something!")

The dispatcher's use seemed to fit the latter, perhaps because they didn't want an enthused amateur doing a cop's job.

 

[Ziggurat]

Reading your posts on the internet requires no psychic power.

You're right, it doesn't. And yet, you still manage to screw it up.

Thanks for proving what I've been saying all along: you're playing word games, as if humans cannot communicate information other than by saying the exact words they mean.

I never said they couldn't communicate other information. But you didn't simply claim that other information was conveyed by implication. What you claimed was wrong. And moving the goalpost now won't change that. The real kicker is that you didn't just move your goalpost, you tried to move mine too.

 

[Belz...]

You're right, it doesn't. And yet, you still manage to screw it up.

If you are indeed talking about a specific wording rather than the meaning of the phrase, then you are instead pretending to not understand human interaction, which is, I dare say, even worse.

But you didn't simply claim that other information was conveyed by implication. What you claimed was wrong.

It was not. The difference is that I'm not pretending that the exact wording is the deal breaker, here. So since it's obvious that the exact wording that Mumbles brought up wasn't used, can we move on to what the phrase actually meant? Or are you so entrenched in your "side" of the debate that you cannot allow for any conclusion, on any sub-issue, that would work against Zimmerman?

For the record, I've said many times that I would've acquitted him myself, despite my suspicions, due to the lack of definitive evidence. That doesn't mean that I need to be entirely on one side of the convesration or another. It's clear that the dispatcher was asking Zimmerman to stop following Martin, and it takes quite a bit of semantic gymnastic by you to avoid having to admit this.

Talk about moving the goalposts.

 

[Ziggurat]

If you are indeed talking about a specific wording rather than the meaning of the phrase, then you are instead pretending to not understand human interaction, which is, I dare say, even worse.

I'm talking about both, but the specific phrasing is obviously relevant, since it's in quotes. Why is that hard for you to understand?

So since it's obvious that the exact wording that Mumbles brought up wasn't used

The funny thing is, according to Mumbles the exact wording WAS used, just not in that phone call, but a different one.

can we move on to what the phrase actually meant?

We've already done that too.

It's clear that the dispatcher was asking Zimmerman to stop following Martin, and it takes quite a bit of semantic gymnastic by you to avoid having to admit this.

No. It takes semantic gymnastics to claim that something which wasn't a request constitutes a request. You have perverted the meaning of "request". Whether her conveyed a desire or not, it wasn't a request. You're the one trying to play word games, not me.

 

[Belz...]

I'm talking about both, but the specific phrasing is obviously relevant, since it's in quotes. Why is that hard for you to understand?

It's not. I was under the impression that, since that part was obvious, we had moved on to the meaning of the phrase, but I guess you just want to beat a dead horse for some reason.

We've already done that too.

Well, if you want to agree to disagree that's fine, but I think we're far from having "done that too" since to the best of my knowledge you continue to refuse to accept what you're being told. See:

No. It takes semantic gymnastics to claim that something which wasn't a request constitutes a request.

By that logic, when someone says: "Hey, don't help me or anything." it means "don't help me" rather than the obvious "help me, dammit" that's implied. Again, it seems that you are refusing to accept what we're telling you about this because it would look bad on Zimmerman. Never mind that it doesn't have to change anything else you think about this case.

 

[Ziggurat]

It's not. I was under the impression that, since that part was obvious, we had moved on to the meaning of the phrase, but I guess you just want to beat a dead horse for some reason.

But it's not obvious to a lot of people. A lot of people are honestly badly informed about this issue. And you haven't helped.

Well, if you want to agree to disagree that's fine, but I think we're far from having "done that too" since to the best of my knowledge you continue to refuse to accept what you're being told.

Why should I simply accept what you tell me when I don't agree with it? You aren't an authority here. And again, regardless of any implicit desire conveyed, no actual request, command, or instruction was given.

By that logic, when someone says: "Hey, don't help me or anything." it means "don't help me" rather than the obvious "help me, dammit" that's implied.

Is it your contention that the dispatcher was being sarcastic? If not, your example isn't really relevant.

 

[Belz...]

But it's not obvious to a lot of people. A lot of people are honestly badly informed about this issue. And you haven't helped.

Helped? I'm discussing the issue with you. I'm not teaching a class. You're a dodging champion here, Zig. But since you can clearly see that I'm not playing along, how about you stop?

Why should I simply accept what you tell me when I don't agree with it?

Because it's actually true.

Is it your contention that the dispatcher was being sarcastic?

You do understand the point of examples, right?

The point was that what we say sometimes means something else, and that people are usually sufficiently-versed in human interactions to understand this. Some, however, pretend to read everything literally because admitting that it's not always the case puts their faith at risk, it seems.

 

[Ziggurat]

The point was that what we say sometimes means something else

But you didn't simply claim that something was meant, you claimed that something was said. And it wasn't. The difference matters, because when you mean something other than what you say, it's much easier for the listener to not understand your meaning.

Some, however, pretend to read everything literally because admitting that it's not always the case puts their faith at risk, it seems.

Again with the mind reading. What faith do you imagine I have?

 

[Jules Galen]

I am White. But when I was 17, if some Fat-Arse like Zimmerman was stalking me - and embarrasing me to other people, then I'd be all too happy to whoop 'em if I didn't consider the fact that he might have a gun.

But...I am white and I learned early (13-years old) that cowards like Zimmerman carried guns. I mean, I remember the idiot down the steer came into the woods at night to harrass a bunch of us kids because he didn't like our campfire (we had a lot of woods near by - plenty rural). He showed up with 2 white attack German Sheppards and a .357 on his belt hoster.

Afterwards, we told the adults what happened and the father of one of the other boys knocked on every neighbors door near this Arse and had them come out at 12:00PM (Midnight) at night and witness what was about to happen. Lights were turned on, cars were started and headlights illuminated the steet and the arses' home. The father went to the guys house and screamed for him to come out and face him down and receive his whupping - in front of about 40 Adults and 60 kids. What a scene!

The cops were called. The cops came and were told what happened. The cops laughed and said the guy with the dogs and a gun was a wussy. It was a great ending.

2-years Later. those Dogs were poisoned after they bit a 10-year-old and the guy got the message and moved out of the neighborhood.

It was all good.

Nevertheless, I wish we could have beaten that guy up,