Burgold Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 ---------- It's possible that the things you've said, are true. But IMO, simply declaring them as facts is one heck of a stretch. Hence, reasonable doubt despite an unreasonable chain of events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky21 Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Zimmerman has to turn his weapons over to police today so if you're in the Orlando area you are a little bit safer starting today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chachie Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 And I implied what, where? I stated that SYG had nothing to do with the GZ case. I stated what did and didn't happen, court-filing wise. I made no comment about bravery. All good, sir. I should have been more clear. During the trial, SYG was being considered and the media was playing that possibility up. I only meant to analyze why the defense team didn't end up going with that option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Because syg requires the defense to prove it. Claiming self defense requires the prosecution to prove its not the case At least that's what I think I remember from that long ago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boobiemiles Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 I will never understand SYG when you cause the altercation. If Zimmerman was not standing his ground, how can he be found not guilty of a situation he initiated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted January 13, 2015 Author Share Posted January 13, 2015 Funniest thing I read online was "6 more mugshots and he'll be able to sell a calendar" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 I will never understand SYG when you cause the altercation. If Zimmerman was not standing his ground, how can he be found not guilty of a situation he initiated? your assertion of causing it differs from the legal sense of causing. nothing Z did (from the evidence we have) caused a violent confrontation. he was found not guilty by way of affirming self defense in the face of a clear attack while being in a place he had every right to be...from the evidence reason has been poisoned by the duty to flee or avoid confrontation doctrines Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
just654 Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 What? Don't be silly. A 911 operator is trained well enough to assess a situation where NO police are currently involved. They represent the police when no officer is yet on the scene. If a 911 operator tells me to stay in my car, I'm staying in my car. I'm sorry but your opinion that one was "covering their butt" means zilch, man! That's just horse doo-doo. You have zero idea what was going on in the mind of a 911 operator. I'd wager that the 911 operator was covering George Zimmerman's butt. George Zimmerman ignored good, PROFESSIONAL advice in favor of being a superstar. Sorry if I speak the truth. I am in the 911 system. The amount of traning 911 operators get is not much at all. There is a typing test, listening test. They teach you who to explain CPR. There is a part in test where you listen to a few different scenarios and what you send in this scenario. Meaning man with Gun/Knife, a fight, a sick person, etc. After you are hired there is three different sections 911 call takers(what Zimm talked to), Fire Dispatchers and Police dispatchers. Call takers pretty much take the call, decide if police or fire. Get your info and then send the call to dispatch. They might stay on the phone with you if you ask them to. Most call takers do not have any formal police or 911 traning. Police and Fire dispatchers for talk to the fire fighter/ and police, have more training. But the Gen pop doe snot talk to this side. The covering his butt, goes to the same thing if you call a doctor after hours with a stomach ache. You ask him/her if you should go to the hospital. The Docs answer will always be Yes. Why, it is CYA, if you die and he told you not to go the hospital he is liable. So by the call taker telling Zimm not to follow, he was CYA, if Zimm gets hurt, the call taker is liable. I'm sure that Operator's level of training exceeds the amount of training Zimmerman has as a neighborhood watchman/unofficial private investigator. More than likey not. Most sercurity guards that are allowed to carry have to some formal traning. Call takers have really no police traning whats so ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chachie Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Sorry if I speak the truth. I am in the 911 system. The amount of traning 911 operators get is not much at all. There is a typing test, listening test. They teach you who to explain CPR. There is a part in test where you listen to a few different scenarios and what you send in this scenario. Meaning man with Gun/Knife, a fight, a sick person, etc. After you are hired there is three different sections 911 call takers(what Zimm talked to), Fire Dispatchers and Police dispatchers. Call takers pretty much take the call, decide if police or fire. Get your info and then send the call to dispatch. They might stay on the phone with you if you ask them to. Most call takers do not have any formal police or 911 traning. Police and Fire dispatchers for talk to the fire fighter/ and police, have more training. But the Gen pop doe snot talk to this side. The covering his butt, goes to the same thing if you call a doctor after hours with a stomach ache. You ask him/her if you should go to the hospital. The Docs answer will always be Yes. Why, it is CYA, if you die and he told you not to go the hospital he is liable. So by the call taker telling Zimm not to follow, he was CYA, if Zimm gets hurt, the call taker is liable. Fair enough.That's fine if 911 operators don't get much police training. It really doesn't matter. 1. Like Burgold said, it's more training than GZ has. 2. You still should do what you're told when a police representative tells you to stay in your car. 911 operator training is irrelevant. Zimmerman disobeyed his directive and went WAY beyond the responsibilities of a neighborhood watch. (BTW- Thanks for your participation in the 911 system. Srsly.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 You're not arguing that citizens should regularly disregard 911 instructions, are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 when you presume to defend or attack it tends to work that way....but ya can let someone clearly kill your defenseless self and let society punish them. kinda hard to claim M was defending himself w/o a mark on him and eyewitness to him astride and beating a prone Z. it seems some of you use different scales for each The problem is, how did Martin end up on top of Zimmerman. I contend that Zimmerman lied his ass off. He confronted Martin who told him to **** off. Z then grabbed M who realizing he was being held, went on the offensive. Z then shot him. Its a sequence of events that is far more likely than the horse **** story Z told. Personally I'm just waiting for Zimmerman to pull his crap on someone else who is armed. He's the kind of person Stand Your Ground is supposed to defend AGAINST. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
just654 Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 You're not arguing that citizens should regularly disregard 911 instructions, are you? Fair enough.That's fine if 911 operators don't get much police training. It really doesn't matter. 1. Like Burgold said, it's more training than GZ has. 2. You still should do what you're told when a police representative tells you to stay in your car. 911 operator training is irrelevant. Zimmerman disobeyed his directive and went WAY beyond the responsibilities of a neighborhood watch. (BTW- Thanks for your participation in the 911 system. Srsly.) Thanks I am a Volunteer Fire Fighter. Yes I will agree with you on the training GZ has. I am going on that he has been throught shoot, dont shoot and range time. Which is normal for sercurity guards. I am not sure of his job contract. But I know many people that work sercurity in PG County, not Cops, that have the abilty to put people in hand cuffs, until police arrive. You're not arguing that citizens should regularly disregard 911 instructions, are you? Not totally, I am more less talking about the amount of traning you have. Lets use me as example. My house catches on fire. Me being a Vol. Fire Fighter. I am going to call 911 to say my house is on fire. The 911 call talker is going to tell me to get out of the house. Well I will not be doing this. My training has taught me how to fight fires. I will try to fight the fire until the Fire department shows up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 The problem is, how did Martin end up on top of Zimmerman. I contend that Zimmerman lied his ass off. He confronted Martin who told him to **** off. Z then grabbed M who realizing he was being held, went on the offensive. Z then shot him. Its a sequence of events that is far more likely than the horse **** story Z told. Personally I'm just waiting for Zimmerman to pull his crap on someone else who is armed. He's the kind of person Stand Your Ground is supposed to defend AGAINST. use of force rules would limit M to the force needed to counter that hold, escalating beyond that(such as beating a prone,bleeding,pleading person ) goes well beyond that wouldn't you say? add simply reverse your actors and see if your opinion changes.(M grabbing Z) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chachie Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Thanks I am a Volunteer Fire Fighter. Yes I will agree with you on the training GZ has. I am going on that he has been throught shoot, dont shoot and range time. Which is normal for sercurity guards. I am not sure of his job contract. But I know many people that work sercurity in PG County, not Cops, that have the abilty to put people in hand cuffs, until police arrive. Not totally, I am more less talking about the amount of traning you have. Lets use me as example. My house catches on fire. Me being a Vol. Fire Fighter. I am going to call 911 to say my house is on fire. The 911 call talker is going to tell me to get out of the house. Well I will not be doing this. My training has taught me how to fight fires. I will try to fight the fire until the Fire department shows up. Do security guards have the authority to put people in cuffs when they aren't at work? (One could even claim "citizen's arrest" I suppose, but still wondering.) You (or even I) might be inclined to ignore the advice of an operator while your (my) house is on fire. After all, we KNOW FOR SURE what's going on there and we have a personal interest in our family and our belongings, no matter how ill-advised it would be to enter the house. However, when we are on our neighborhood watch and we see someone walking, we can't assume they are in the act of committing a crime. When 911 says "Stay in your vehicle," we should stay the F in our vehicle. GZ may have been a security guard from 9-5, but neighborhood watches aren't certified to do diddly except CALL THE POLICE. Even attempting a citizen's arrest is ridiculous if you're not seeing a crime being committed, which GZ was not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Even attempting a citizen's arrest is ridiculous if you're not seeing a crime being committed, which GZ was not. This is where I stand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 use of force rules would limit M to the force needed to counter that hold, escalating beyond that(such as beating a prone,bleeding,pleading person ) goes well beyond that wouldn't you say? add simply reverse your actors and see if your opinion changes.(M grabbing Z) What a load of horse ****. If you assault someone... say by GRABBING THEM. They have every right to kick your ass. You DO NOT have the right to kill them because the assault YOU INITIATED did not go your way. Your argument would create a simple loophole for legal murder, start a fight with someone, let them fight back, then shoot them claiming fear for your life. The fact is from Trevon Martin's POV, if some strange dude came up on him and grabbed him, HE is the one who should be in fear for his life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercuryrising Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Pointing out that your rant contains a number of things that might be true, but there's certainly no evidence proving it. The ones that jump out at me are: and tried to intimidate/bully kid/"thug" I will point out that nobody here has any idea what Z's intentions were, when he got out of the car. We can propose theories. I could speculate, for example, that Z having a gun made him feel more invincible. like he was capable of winning any confrontation. But, that's all it is, is a theory. Tried to kick kid's ass and got his handed to him. And I will point out that, while there's no evidence at all that Zimmerman didn't turn the confrontation physical, (and I think there's evidence that kind of suggests that he did. Like the fact that we do know that, when the encounter first started, Trayvon was the one trying to avoid a confrontation, and Zimm was the one escalating it. Just my opinion, but if I were placing bets on who initiated the first physical contact, I'd say the odds are better than 50-50 that it was Zimm), there's certainly no evidence that proves that Zimm, say, threw the first punch. ---------- It's possible that the things you've said, are true. But IMO, simply declaring them as facts is one heck of a stretch. The fact that you call out my post and not all the ones making suppositions supporting Zimm speaks volumes. MY version is a lot more supported by the "facts" than theirs are, but yes if you want to apply the "You weren't there" litmus test, then we should all STFU on just about everything we talk about on this board, and shut down the internet as a whole while we are at it. He voiced anger to the dispatcher that he was sick of imagined or real crimes, and had already decided Martin was a culprit. Based on what exactly is pretty obvious, but cannot be scientifically proven because we cannot read minds. Even though Martin was staying with his father in the community and was only returning from a store, the fact that he was black and wearing a hoodie (something this 51 yo white guy does when its cold quite frequently, but luckily for me no one has ever tailed me in their car and then got out to confront/fight me over some imagined implication. Just luck I am sure.) was enough to set him off. He was told not to get out of his car and confront Martin, and he refused and did just that. You think he got out of the car full of anger and his own self importance as a self- imagined/anointed authority figure, to give the kid a hug or witness to him about Jesus Chris as his lord and savior? What about all the subsequent arrests/ charges? At what point do we call a spade a spade with him, and have you agree? But yes, technically you are right, I wasn't there. Neither were the people who opine how everything was Martin's fault and he got what was coming to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 What a load of horse ****. If you assault someone... say by GRABBING THEM. They have every right to kick your ass. Try it sometime and see what a court says Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 The fact that you call out my post and not all the ones making suppositions supporting Zimm speaks volumes. The fact that you think I haven't pointed out people asserting unproven claims supporting Zimm is probably the funniest thing I've read in a month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 The fact that you call out my post and not all the ones making suppositions supporting Zimm speaks volumes. But yes, technically you are right, I wasn't there. Neither were the people who opine how everything was Martin's fault and he got what was coming to him. Hmm, yeah you probably haven't read the other thread on this or you have been hanging out with our ol' buddy full of rage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 use of force rules would limit M to the force needed to counter that hold, escalating beyond that(such as beating a prone,bleeding,pleading person ) goes well beyond that wouldn't you say? add simply reverse your actors and see if your opinion changes.(M grabbing Z) NO I would not. Not if someone was still hanging on to me and/or still fighting back. The idea that Martin grabbed Zimmerman is moronic. The kid had one thing on his mind until Z showed up. Eating Skittles and watching his game. I've confronted people before and not once has someone simply turned and attacked me. I would venture you have had the same experience. They may get nasty and talk back, or run. But NO WAY a lone kid just blindly attacks a stranger. If it were a couple of kids maybe. Kids in groups get brave. But NO WAY does a single kid just walking home blindly attack someone for talking to them. You have to be stupid to believe that. Frankly I'm already sick of you after two posts. You have NO CLUE what happened and are simply defending Z based on what he said. Go ahead. Keep trusting the word of someone who continues to show that they cannot be trusted. Just as you trust politicians who pocket millions from oil companies when they tell you there is no such thing as global warming. Pure ******* genius. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 fighting back with no sign of it from evidence or witnesses?....hanging on was a possibility. How much damage can I get away with while sitting on your chest claiming you are holding me? No need for Z's words when the evidence and witnesses tell the tale. stay mad Amigo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 NO I would not. Not if someone was still hanging on to me and/or still fighting back. The idea that Martin grabbed Zimmerman is moronic. The kid had one thing on his mind until Z showed up. Eating Skittles and watching his game. I've confronted people before and not once has someone simply turned and attacked me. I would venture you have had the same experience. They may get nasty and talk back, or run. But NO WAY a lone kid just blindly attacks a stranger. If it were a couple of kids maybe. Kids in groups get brave. But NO WAY does a single kid just walking home blindly attack someone for talking to them. You have to be stupid to believe that. Frankly I'm already sick of you after two posts. You have NO CLUE what happened and are simply defending Z based on what he said. Go ahead. Keep trusting the word of someone who continues to show that they cannot be trusted. Just as you trust politicians who pocket millions from oil companies when they tell you there is no such thing as global warming. Pure ******* genius. So how do you "know" what happened? If you weren't there, you are assuming as much as anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 So how do you "know" what happened? If you weren't there, you are assuming as much as anyone. I dont "know" what happened. I do know that Zimmerman has issues and a documented history of assault. I know that he ignored the 911 operator and followed Martin. I know he was convinced Martin was up to no good and was frustrated at the thought of him "getting away". I know human nature and I know that I don't trust Zimmerman's account. Page 2: George Zimmerman Witness Can't Say Who Threw First Punch - ABC News "I say, 'Trayvon,' and then he said, 'Why are you following me for?'" Jeantel testified. "And then I heard a hard-breathing man come say, 'What you doing around here?' ... And then I was calling, 'Trayvon, Trayvon.' And then I started to hear a little bit of Trayvon saying, 'Get off, get off.'" Four witnesses in Trayvon Martin murder case change their stories - Los Angeles Times • Witness 13: He is important because he talked with Zimmerman and watched the way he behaved immediately after the shooting, before police arrived. After this neighbor heard gunfire, he went outside and spotted Zimmerman standing there with "blood on the back of his head," he told Sanford police the night of the shooting. Zimmerman told him that Martin "was beating up on me, so I had to shoot him," the witness told Serino. Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer, then asked the witness to call his wife, Shellie, and tell her what had happened. In two subsequent interviews about a month later — one with a state investigator and one with De la Rionda — the witness described Zimmerman's demeanor in greater detail, adding that he spoke as if the shooting were no big deal. Zimmerman's tone, the witness said, was "not like, 'I can't believe I just shot someone!' — it was more like, 'Just tell my wife I shot somebody' … like it was nothing." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boobiemiles Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 your assertion of causing it differs from the legal sense of causing. nothing Z did (from the evidence we have) caused a violent confrontation. he was found not guilty by way of affirming self defense in the face of a clear attack while being in a place he had every right to be...from the evidence reason has been poisoned by the duty to flee or avoid confrontation doctrines What about Treyvon's civil rights? In order for this to be reasonable, George has the right to accost an individual at his own discretion. Once the situation escalates his previous actions are oblivious to the outcome. So it's Treyvon fault that George decided to approach him? None of it makes sense. How can you start an altercation, cause some ones death, and be completely exonerated? Evidence or not, none of this would have happened if George just left Treyvon alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.