Whodathunkit - Little Old Provo

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

..........................................

Also, how do you know if someone is walking home and not casing a joint?...........................................

Multiple ways. Here are two obvious ones:

Had Zimmerman never gotten out of his truck, Martin would have survived the night. 

Alternatively, had Martin actually gone home (which he had ample time to do), he also would have survived the night.

Interesting here that we now have only Zimmerman's version of what happened, and you buy it completely, never once imagining the fear that Trayvon rightly felt.  For you he had no right to defend himself against a guy who was stalking him (and yes that is the correct word to use).  In fact you make it sound like Trayvon attacked Zimmerman, rather than the other way around.

You innocently ask "how do you know if someone is walking home and not casing a joint?" and you admit that "Had Zimmerman never gotten out of his truck, Martin would have survived the night."  Of course !!  Zimmerman had no business playing policeman or security guard, and he was certainly not qualified to do either.  A minor is dead because of his effrontery, and Zimmerman doesn't feel any pang of guilt over it.

Zimmerman thrives on inappropriate behavior:  He was arrested on a charge of aggravated assault and domestic violence in 2015.  In another case, "Zimmerman called [private investigator] Warren 55 times, left 36 voicemails, texted him 67 times and sent 27 emails over a nine-day span."  He tried to auction off the pistol he used to kill Trayvon.  https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/07/us/george-zimmerman-stalking/index.html.  There are lots of self-righteous Karens and Darrens out there who assume the right to hector and control innocent people.

 

Edited July 16, 2020 by Robert F. Smith

[Rajah Manchou]

45 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Zimmerman had no business playing policeman or security guard, and he was certainly not qualified to do either.  A minor is dead because of his effrontery, and Zimmerman doesn't feel any pang of guilt over it.

The article Amulek shared about the previous break-ins says that Zimmerman's role as neighborhood watchman restricted him from carrying a gun.

"The homeowners association asked him to launch a neighborhood watch, and Zimmerman would begin to carry the Kel-Tec on his regular, dog-walking patrol - a violation of neighborhood watch guidelines but not a crime."

So although he was allowed by law to carry one, had he followed the guidelines of his neighborhood watch program, then one of his neighbors (Trayvon Martin) he was hired to protect would not have been shot.

[Amulek]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Interesting here that we now have only Zimmerman's version of what happened, and you buy it completely, never once imagining the fear that Trayvon rightly felt. 

Oh, I can imagine it, but that's all we've got to go on: imagination. Because the evidence doesn't really indicate that Trayvon was afraid of that "creepy a** cracker" in any meaningful way.

He wasn't afraid enough to actually run home. He wasn't afraid enough to call the police. No, instead, he just kept yacking along with one of his friends about whether or not the All Start game had started. 

 

Quote

For you he had no right to defend himself against a guy who was stalking him (and yes that is the correct word to use). 

Try looking up the legal definition of stalking. Hint: you can find the statute relevant in Florida here. 

Malicious intent is an element of the crime, which is why I was objecting to its use as begging the question.

There is zero evidence that Zimmerman had malicious intent. The same can't be said for Martin. 

 

Quote

In fact you make it sound like Trayvon attacked Zimmerman, rather than the other way around.

When it comes to the actual physical aggression, yes; after looking over all of the available evidence and watching the entire criminal trial, it is my considered opinion that Trayvon Martin likely started the actual fight which ultimately lead to his unfortunate demise. 

 

Quote

You innocently ask "how do you know if someone is walking home and not casing a joint?" and you admit that "Had Zimmerman never gotten out of his truck, Martin would have survived the night."  Of course !!  Zimmerman had no business playing policeman or security guard, and he was certainly not qualified to do either.  A minor is dead because of his effrontery, and Zimmerman doesn't feel any pang of guilt over it.

This may sound cold, but regardless of what you think Zimmerman ought to have done, the fact remains that he wasn't breaking any laws. Like Martin, he had every right to be where he was, doing what he was doing. 

 

Quote

Zimmerman thrives on inappropriate behavior:  He was arrested on a charge of aggravated assault and domestic violence in 2015.  In another case, "Zimmerman called [private investigator] Warren 55 times, left 36 voicemails, texted him 67 times and sent 27 emails over a nine-day span."  He tried to auction off the pistol he used to kill Trayvon.  https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/07/us/george-zimmerman-stalking/index.html.  There are lots of self-righteous Karens and Darrens out there who assume the right to hector and control innocent people.

Look, I don't think Zimmerman is a paragon of virtue or anything, and I'm not going to offer an apologia for everything he's ever done in his life. But I do think it's worth pointing out that both of these incidents occurred after his trial. 

Perhaps if you were falsely accused of being the nation's most notorious racist, you might spiral downward a bit yourself and start giving a few fewer figs about what everyone else thinks. 

 

[Amulek]

5 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

The article Amulek shared about the previous break-ins says that Zimmerman's role as neighborhood watchman restricted him from carrying a gun.

"The homeowners association asked him to launch a neighborhood watch, and Zimmerman would begin to carry the Kel-Tec on his regular, dog-walking patrol - a violation of neighborhood watch guidelines but not a crime."

So although he was allowed by law to carry one, had he followed the guidelines of his neighborhood watch program, then one of his neighbors (Trayvon Martin) he was hired to protect would not have been shot.

I could see how you might think that, given the limited amount of information you have apparently been exposed to in relation to this particular case. 

There are only two major problems with your comment here:

First, guns were not actually banned in the neighborhood watch program Zimmerman belonged to. 

And second, Zimmerman was not on Neighborhood Watch duty that night. He was simply on his way to the grocery store when he saw Martin; hence, he was acting in solely in his capacity as a private citizen (who is lawfully allowed to carry a firearm), and not as a Neighborhood Watch captain. 

The other problem is only minor: Neighborhood Watch programs are volunteer organizations, so nobody gets "hired to protect" anyone. 

 

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

I could see how you might think that, given the limited amount of information you have apparently been exposed to in relation to this particular case. 

You keep saying this, but I'm referring to the article you shared with me.

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

First, guns were not actually banned in the neighborhood watch program Zimmerman belonged to. 

Is the statement in the article you shared incorrect? This link above says the clarification allowing guns was made in November of 2013. Zimmerman shot Martin on Feb. 26, 2012. We'd want to know what the guideline was on February 26, 2012.

The organizer of the Retreat at Twin Lakes Neighborhood Watch program said about the first meeting with the Zimmerman and concerned neighbors: "In every presentation, I go through what the rules and responsibilities are,” she said Thursday. The volunteers’ role, she said, is “being the eyes and ears” for the police, “not the vigilante.” Members of a neighborhood watch “are not supposed to confront anyone,” she said. “We get paid to get into harm’s way. You don’t do that. You just call them from the safety of your home or your vehicle.” Using a gun in the neighborhood watch role would be out of the question, she said in an interview. Mr. Zimmerman was there, she recalled, and the local group appointed him their coordinator. (source)

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

And second, Zimmerman was not on Neighborhood Watch duty that night. He was simply on his way to the grocery store when he saw Martin; hence, he was acting in solely in his capacity as a private citizen (who is lawfully allowed to carry a firearm), and not as a Neighborhood Watch captain. 

I see, so that night he was a simple vigilante following someone he was meant to protect, against the guidelines of the Retreat at Twin Lakes Neighborhood Watch program.

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

The other problem is only minor: Neighborhood Watch programs are volunteer organizations, so nobody gets "hired to protect" anyone. 

Good point, and because they aren't hired and paid, the guidelines are that Neighborhood Watchers don't put themselves in harms way. They stay in their cars and they call the police. They should not play vigalante and confront anyone. At least according to the organizer of the Neighborhood Watch. She goes on to say: "In Sanford, watch groups are not even supposed to make the rounds. That is the job of another kind of volunteer organization, Citizens on Patrol, whose members are selected and trained by the police and who drive the streets in a specially marked vehicle. Members of that group, are armed only with a radio.”

According to that article, the National Sheriffs’ Association, which sponsors the Neighborhood Watch program nationwide, is absolutely clear on one point: guns have no place in a watch group. A manual distributed by the association repeatedly underscores the point: “Patrol members do not carry weapons.”

The manual warns that watch members should “not attempt to apprehend a person committing a crime or to investigate a suspicious activity.” It should be emphasized to members of patrols, the materials state, that “they do not possess police power and they shall not carry weapons.” The consequences of not following the guidelines are severe, the manual states: “Each member is liable as an individual for civil and criminal charges should he exceed his authority.”

Edited July 16, 2020 by Rajah Manchou

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, Amulek said:

Oh, I can imagine it, but that's all we've got to go on: imagination. Because the evidence doesn't really indicate that Trayvon was afraid of that "creepy a** cracker" in any meaningful way.

He wasn't afraid enough to actually run home. He wasn't afraid enough to call the police. No, instead, he just kept yacking along with one of his friends about whether or not the All Start game had started. 

Try looking up the legal definition of stalking. Hint: you can find the statute relevant in Florida here. 

Malicious intent is an element of the crime, which is why I was objecting to its use as begging the question.

There is zero evidence that Zimmerman had malicious intent. The same can't be said for Martin. 

When it comes to the actual physical aggression, yes; after looking over all of the available evidence and watching the entire criminal trial, it is my considered opinion that Trayvon Martin likely started the actual fight which ultimately lead to his unfortunate demise. 

This may sound cold, but regardless of what you think Zimmerman ought to have done, the fact remains that he wasn't breaking any laws. Like Martin, he had every right to be where he was, doing what he was doing. 

Look, I don't think Zimmerman is a paragon of virtue or anything, and I'm not going to offer an apologia for everything he's ever done in his life. But I do think it's worth pointing out that both of these incidents occurred after his trial. 

Perhaps if you were falsely accused of being the nation's most notorious racist, you might spiral downward a bit yourself and start giving a few fewer figs about what everyone else thinks.

You excuse Zimmerman's actions as not illegal, which is a pretty low bar for a civilized community.  There are lots of things which are not illegal which we should not do in polite society.  We see that daily with Karens and Darrens who become officious nuisances, most of them not armed, even though they get on their cellphones and lie to the police, hoping to get someone taken into custody.

It wasn't illegal for Zimmerman to carry a gun, yet it was a direct violation of the specific rules for those (like Zimmerman) who were part of that neighborhood watch.  Zimmerman's killing of Trayvon is an excellent example of why that rule exists.  Law enforcement officers are carefully trained to exercise restraint in the use of firearms, and never to go after someone at night without backup and articulable suspicion.  Zimmerman had neither articulable suspicion nor backup, and he certainly lacked serious training.

My own personal experience with law enforcement is that, even when you have a known felon who escapes custody and runs into the dark night, and you have backup right there, it is much safer to wait until the next day to pick him up -- provided it is not a violent crime.  All officers understand and fear the risk that running after the felon into the dark may result in a shooting by mistake.  And that may lead to being sued, fired, or indicted.  Zimmerman did not understand what restraint means, or did not care, and so a needless shooting took place.  Zimmerman remains a danger to whatever community he is a part of.

[Amulek]

9 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

You keep saying this, but I'm referring to the article you shared with me.

I appreciate that you took the time to read that one article. Here, have a cookie: 🍪

However, as I have mentioned previously, not every element contained in every article is accurate. 

Honestly, the reporting which was done on the Trayvon Martin case is a veritable treasure trove of misleading and incorrect/incomplete information.

You could use it to teach a Master class on bad journalism. 

In order to get a solid feel for the case you have to spend a lot of time with the actual primary sources, evidence, etc.

And based on your comments, it's obvious to me that you have not bothered to look that deeply into the case. 

 

Quote

Is the statement in the article you shared incorrect?

Yes. That particular statement in the article is, in fact, incorrect. Or, at a minimum, it's misleading. 

It's conflating the instructions and guidelines of the national neighborhood watch program with the instructions and guidelines particular to the neighborhood watch program that was started in Zimmerman's neighborhood.

 

Quote

This link above says the clarification allowing guns was made in November of 2013. Zimmerman shot Martin on Feb. 26, 2012. We'd want to know what the guideline was on February 26, 2012.

And if you would (at a minimum) follow the link in that article, you would see that the only changes that were being proposed were "background checks for neighborhood watch captains, [and] required training and communication with the police department. There were talks to ban volunteers from carrying guns, but that proposal was scrapped [...]"

In other words, the existing guidelines didn't prohibit them, and the proposed changes to the program made no alterations to that guideline. 

If you want to try and argue that the guidelines in place on Feb. 2012 prohibited licensed carry and were then subsequently changed to allow guns - which is what would have had to have happened in order for the proposal to ban them in Nov. 2013 to be scrapped (i.e., there would be no need for a proposal to ban them if they were already banned) - then you are welcome to try an make such an argument. You're not going to find anything though because the guidelines with respect to licensed carry never changed.

 

Quote

The organizer of the Retreat at Twin Lakes Neighborhood Watch program said about the first meeting with the Zimmerman and concerned neighbors: "In every presentation, I go through what the rules and responsibilities are,” she said Thursday. The volunteers’ role, she said, is “being the eyes and ears” for the police, “not the vigilante.” Members of a neighborhood watch “are not supposed to confront anyone,” she said. “We get paid to get into harm’s way. You don’t do that. You just call them from the safety of your home or your vehicle.” Using a gun in the neighborhood watch role would be out of the question, she said in an interview. Mr. Zimmerman was there, she recalled, and the local group appointed him their coordinator. (source)

This is (yet another) great example of misleading information. 

In the first part, which you have in bold, the implication is that neighborhood watch participants are instructed to never follow anyone, but that's not correct. They are advised not to confront people, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with following someone so long as you can do so safely. Which is what Wendy Dorival (i.e., the "organizer of the Retreat at Twin Lakes Neighborhood Watch program") testified to in court [emphasis in original]: 

50:42

Don West [DW]: So you say, for example, you shouldn’t follow somebody, but you’re not saying that if you see somebody suspicious you can’t follow, at a distance, to gather information to provide to the police?
Wendy Dorival [WD]: No. I don’t…
DW: You’re not saying that?
WD: No. No. 
DW: Generally, it’s a good idea, if you see somebody suspicious: don’t engage them.
WD: Exactly.
 

So, while it's true that they don't specifically advise people to follow anyone (which is obvious for safety and liability reasons), they don't actually tell people that they can't follow people either, which is what the article implies. They tell volunteers not to confront or engage suspicious persons, but there's nothing against following them. 

The last sentence that you have highlighted is much more clearly misleading.

While not providing a direct quote, the paper reports that Wendy Dorival said '(u)sing a gun in the neighborhood watch role would be out of the question.' I suspect the reason they didn't provide a direct quote is because the reporter is (intentionally or otherwise) conflating the two programs: Neighborhood Watch and Citizens on Patrol, both of which could be construed as 'neighborhood watch' programs. However, only the Citizens on Patrol program bans firearms.

Instead of trusting the New York Times to accurately characterize what Ms. Dorival had to say about guns when she was setting up the Neighborhood Watch program in Zimmerman's neighborhood, why don't we just take a look at what she actually said in court about that particular meeting [emphasis added]:

51:52

DW: Likewise, there’s no discussion is there about firearms, specifically?
WD: No, there are some meetings that do bring that subject up.
DW: But you don’t talk to the residents about whether or not they are allowed to legally carry a firearm?
WD: No, that’s not my place to tell them that.
DW: Are you generally familiar with the laws surrounding firearms?
WD: I know the Constitutional rights and if I start talking about gun laws and everything else I usually start getting into debates, so I don’t try to get into that.
DW: Okay. That’s not something…you never say, for example, if anybody has a gun that they carry legally, you’re not allowed to. 
WD: No, I don’t say that.
DW: You never get into that at all?
WD: No, I’ve had people question, I have this, what if I do that? kind of thing. 

I don't know about you, but in my mind there is a marked difference between: '(u)sing a gun in the neighborhood watch role would be out of the question' and what she actually said in court.

Of course, now that I look at it closer, I suppose it could also be the case that the reporter was trying to misconstrue "using a gun" with "carrying a gun." Obviously the police department doesn't provide training on firearm use for neighborhood watch volunteers, but if that's how the reporter was trying to slant the story it's still just as misleading in my view.

 

Quote

I see, so that night he was a simple vigilante following someone he was meant to protect, against the guidelines of the Retreat at Twin Lakes Neighborhood Watch program.

I see that your mind is pretty much made up about this story, so perhaps I should stop wasting my time continuing to engage you in further discussion. 

 

Quote

Good point, and because they aren't hired and paid, the guidelines are that Neighborhood Watchers don't put themselves in harms way. They stay in their cars and they call the police. They should not play vigalante and confront anyone.

Again, all of the available evidence points to Martin being the one who confronted Zimmerman - not the other way around. 

 

Quote

According to that article, the National Sheriffs’ Association, which sponsors the Neighborhood Watch program nationwide, is absolutely [...]

Irrelevant. Because the Neighborhood Watch program in Zimmerman's neighborhood was not affiliated with the National Sheriffs' Association. 

So whatever rules or guidelines they provide to their participants have absolutely zero bearing on the Neighborhood Watch program that Zimmerman was a part of.

You were aware of that, right? Or were you just posting two paragraphs worth of irrelevant information for some other reason?

And let's be frank about this, even if Zimmerman's Neighborhood Watch program was affiliated with the national organization whose guidelines recommend otherwise, there's nothing about a non-binding, non-enforceable guideline from a volunteer organization which trumps the Second Amendment. 

At the end of the day, you can't escape the simple fact that Zimmerman was doing absolutely nothing illegal. 

 

Edited July 16, 2020 by Amulek
Formatting

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You excuse Zimmerman's actions as not illegal, which is a pretty low bar for a civilized community. 

It's also a pretty salient point - legally speaking, at least.

And it's one that frequently gets overlooked or ignored (or, in your case, minimized) in discussions about the Zimmerman case. 

 

Quote

There are lots of things which are not illegal which we should not do in polite society. 

Sure. But if you are going to try and put someone away for life in prison for murder, you sure as heck better be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they actually broke the law - not just impinged on the delicacies of polite society. 

 

Quote

We see that daily with Karens and Darrens who become officious nuisances, most of them not armed, even though they get on their cellphones and lie to the police, hoping to get someone taken into custody.

Well, fortunately, that sort of characterization is completely irrelevant in the Zimmerman case.

He didn't lie to the police, and he called the non-emergency number for the police in exactly the sort of situation where such action would be expected of a member of the neighborhood watch.

Seriously, go back and watch the cross examination of Wendy Dorival that is linked in my previous post. There is a point where the attorney starts asking her about hypothetical situations which pretty much exactly describe what Martin was doing when Zimmerman observed him, and Ms. Dorival says that those are exactly the kind of things which would warrant a call.

 

Quote

It wasn't illegal for Zimmerman to carry a gun, yet it was a direct violation of the specific rules for those (like Zimmerman) who were part of that neighborhood watch. 

No it wasn't. See prior post for details. 

 

Quote

Law enforcement officers are carefully trained to exercise restraint in the use of firearms, [...]

There's no evidence that Zimmerman wasn't exercising restraint in his use of a firearm. 

And if a cop were pinned to the ground, being punched and having his head shoved into the ground repeatedly, you can guaran-dang-tee that he would have been justified in using lethal force. 

 

Quote

[...] and never to go after someone at night without backup and articulable suspicion.  Zimmerman had neither articulable suspicion nor backup, and he certainly lacked serious training.

Zimmerman isn't a cop. He doesn't need articulable suspicion to walk around his own neighborhood. He lives there, and he has every legal right to be there. 

And if he sees someone suspicious trying to hide / run away, he is free to follow them and report their whereabouts to the police - regardless of whether or not we think that decision wise or prudent; it is perfectly legal. 

 

Quote

Zimmerman did not understand what restraint means, or did not care, and so a needless shooting took place.

No, the person who did not understand restraint was the one who continued beating on their fellow citizen as he lay there screaming for help. 

 

Edited July 16, 2020 by Amulek
Formatting

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

I appreciate that you took the time to read that one article. Here, have a cookie: 🍪

However, as I have mentioned previously, not every element contained in every article is accurate. 

Honestly, the reporting which was done on the Trayvon Martin case is a veritable treasure trove of misleading and incorrect/incomplete information.

You could use it to teach a Master class on bad journalism. 

In order to get a solid feel for the case you have to spend a lot of time with the actual primary sources, evidence, etc.

And based on your comments, it's obvious to me that you have not bothered to look that deeply into the case. 

 

Yes. That particular statement in the article is, in fact, incorrect. Or, at a minimum, it's misleading. 

It's conflating the instructions and guidelines of the national neighborhood watch program with the instructions and guidelines particular to the neighborhood watch program that was started in Zimmerman's neighborhood.

 

And if you would (at a minimum) follow the link in that article, you would see that the only changes that were being proposed were "background checks for neighborhood watch captains, [and] required training and communication with the police department. There were talks to ban volunteers from carrying guns, but that proposal was scrapped [...]"

In other words, the existing guidelines didn't prohibit them, and the proposed changes to the program made no alterations to that guideline. 

If you want to try and argue that the guidelines in place on Feb. 2012 prohibited licensed carry and were then subsequently changed to allow guns - which is what would have had to have happened in order for the proposal to ban them in Nov. 2013 to be scrapped (i.e., there would be no need for a proposal to ban them if they were already banned) - then you are welcome to try an make such an argument. You're not going to find anything though because the guidelines with respect to licensed carry never changed.

 

This is (yet another) great example of misleading information. 

In the first part, which you have in bold, the implication is that neighborhood watch participants are instructed to never follow anyone, but that's not correct. They are advised not to confront people, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with following someone so long as you can do so safely. Which is what Wendy Dorival (i.e., the "organizer of the Retreat at Twin Lakes Neighborhood Watch program") testified to in court [emphasis in original]: 

50:42

Don West [DW]: So you say, for example, you shouldn’t follow somebody, but you’re not saying that if you see somebody suspicious you can’t follow, at a distance, to gather information to provide to the police?
Wendy Dorival [WD]: No. I don’t…
DW: You’re not saying that?
WD: No. No. 
DW: Generally, it’s a good idea, if you see somebody suspicious: don’t engage them.
WD: Exactly.
 

So, while it's true that they don't specifically advise people to follow anyone (which is obvious for safety and liability reasons), they don't actually tell people that they can't follow people either, which is what the article implies. They tell volunteers not to confront or engage suspicious persons, but there's nothing against following them. 

The last sentence that you have highlighted is much more clearly misleading.

While not providing a direct quote, the paper reports that Wendy Dorival said '(u)sing a gun in the neighborhood watch role would be out of the question.' I suspect the reason they didn't provide a direct quote is because the reporter is (intentionally or otherwise) conflating the two programs: Neighborhood Watch and Citizens on Patrol, both of which could be construed as 'neighborhood watch' programs. However, only the Citizens on Patrol program bans firearms.

Instead of trusting the New York Times to accurately characterize what Ms. Dorival had to say about guns when she was setting up the Neighborhood Watch program in Zimmerman's neighborhood, why don't we just take a look at what she actually said in court about that particular meeting [emphasis added]:

51:52

DW: Likewise, there’s no discussion is there about firearms, specifically?
WD: No, there are some meetings that do bring that subject up.
DW: But you don’t talk to the residents about whether or not they are allowed to legally carry a firearm?
WD: No, that’s not my place to tell them that.
DW: Are you generally familiar with the laws surrounding firearms?
WD: I know the Constitutional rights and if I start talking about gun laws and everything else I usually start getting into debates, so I don’t try to get into that.
DW: Okay. That’s not something…you never say, for example, if anybody has a gun that they carry legally, you’re not allowed to. 
WD: No, I don’t say that.
DW: You never get into that at all?
WD: No, I’ve had people question, I have this, what if I do that? kind of thing. 

I don't know about you, but in my mind there is a marked difference between: '(u)sing a gun in the neighborhood watch role would be out of the question' and what she actually said in court.

Of course, now that I look at it closer, I suppose it could also be the case that the reporter was trying to misconstrue "using a gun" with "carrying a gun." Obviously the police department doesn't provide training on firearm use for neighborhood watch volunteers, but if that's how the reporter was trying to slant the story it's still just as misleading in my view.

 

I see that your mind is pretty much made up about this story, so perhaps I should stop wasting my time continuing to engage you in further discussion. 

 

Again, all of the available evidence points to Martin being the one who confronted Zimmerman - not the other way around. 

 

Irrelevant. Because the Neighborhood Watch program in Zimmerman's neighborhood was not affiliated with the National Sheriffs' Association. 

So whatever rules or guidelines they provide to their participants have absolutely zero bearing on the Neighborhood Watch program that Zimmerman was a part of.

You were aware of that, right? Or were you just posting two paragraphs worth of irrelevant information for some other reason?

And let's be frank about this, even if Zimmerman's Neighborhood Watch program was affiliated with the national organization whose guidelines recommend otherwise, there's nothing about a non-binding, non-enforceable guideline from a volunteer organization which trumps the Second Amendment. 

At the end of the day, you can't escape the simple fact that Zimmerman was doing absolutely nothing illegal. 

 

Your conclusion is amply substantiated by the fact the Obama Justice Department, which was then presided over by liberal activist Attorney General Eric Holder, exonerated Zimmerman after an extensive investigation, concluding he had done nothing wrong. It’s an understatement to say Holder and company were highly motivated to validate the fake news media narrative that Zimmerman was a “white hispanic” racist who aggressively pursued, confronted and then Killed Trayvon Martin when he had no legitimate right to do so, yet the Justice Department investigators ultimately had no choice but to clear Zimmerman of any wrong-doing. In spite of this, there are many who are still peddling the discredited accusations as if Zimmerman was not found not guilty by a jury and then vindicated by the Justice Department.

Edited July 16, 2020 by teddyaware

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

.............................

Sure. But if you are going to try and put someone away for life in prison for murder, you sure as heck better be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they actually broke the law - not just impinged on the delicacies of polite society. 

Polite society isn't delicate and hoity toity.  It is a society in which people practice self-restraint and do not become officious and controlling, as we have seen many Karens and Darrens do.  Sure they have a legal right to behave poorly, but is it really advisable, and is that the sort of society we want to be a part of?  I consider it uncivilized behavior, even if legal.

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

Well, fortunately, that sort of characterization is completely irrelevant in the Zimmerman case.

He didn't lie to the police, and he called the non-emergency number for the police in exactly the sort of situation where such action would be expected of a member of the neighborhood watch.

Seriously, go back and watch the cross examination of Wendy Dorival that is linked in my previous post. There is a point where the attorney starts asking her about hypothetical situations which pretty much exactly describe what Martin was doing when Zimmerman observed him, and Ms. Dorival says that those are exactly the kind of things which would warrant a call.

No it wasn't. See prior post for details. 

So the report that Zimmerman's neighborhood watch organization did not tell their watchman not to carry guns was false?

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

There's no evidence that Zimmerman wasn't exercising restraint in his use of a firearm. 

And if a cop were pinned to the ground, being punched and having his head shoved into the ground repeatedly, you can guaran-dang-tee that he would have been justified in using lethal force. 

Only an idiot and an irresponsible cop would approach a suspect alone.  Restraint in use of a firearm means not getting into a situation where it will be required.  How does one do that?  By not stalking and causing fear in the victim being followed.  You consistently overlook that fact, and you take Zimmerman's sole account (now that Trayvon is conveniently dead) as gospel.

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

Zimmerman isn't a cop. He doesn't need articulable suspicion to walk around his own neighborhood. He lives there, and he has every legal right to be there. 

And if he sees someone suspicious trying to hide / run away, he is free to follow them and report their whereabouts to the police - regardless of whether or not we think that decision wise or prudent; it is perfectly legal. 

No, the person who did not understand restraint was the one who continued beating on their fellow citizen as he lay there screaming for help.

I already conceded that Zimmerman had the right to behave foolishly and to be perceived as a threat.  One of the reasons why a cop needs articulable suspicion is precisely because he should not just make lousy assumptions and then act on them without concern for the consequences.  Once Zimmerman's bad judgment got him in over his head it is too late to practice self-restraint.  In your world that is O.K.?  Clearly Zimmerman should never have been part of any neighborhood watch at any time.  Everyone would have been much safer.

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Polite society isn't delicate and hoity toity.  It is a society in which people practice self-restraint and do not become officious and controlling, as we have seen many Karens and Darrens do.  Sure they have a legal right to behave poorly, but is it really advisable, and is that the sort of society we want to be a part of?  I consider it uncivilized behavior, even if legal.

Fair enough. 

 

Quote

So the report that Zimmerman's neighborhood watch organization did not tell their watchman not to carry guns was false?

Correct.

The woman who is described in the report you are referring to is named Wendy Dorival. At the time, she was serving as the volunteer coordinator for the police department, and it was her job to work with communities and help establish their neighborhood watch programs. 

Here are the exact words from her testimony in court on this subject, along with a time-stamped link to her testimony, just in case you distrust my transcription [note: emphasis added]:

51:52

Don West [DW]: Likewise, there’s no discussion is there about firearms, specifically?
Wendy Dorival [WD]: No, there are some meetings that do bring that subject up.
DW: But you don’t talk to the residents about whether or not they are allowed to legally carry a firearm?
WD: No, that’s not my place to tell them that.
DW: Are you generally familiar with the laws surrounding firearms?
WD: I know the Constitutional rights and if I start talking about gun laws and everything else I usually start getting into debates, so I don’t try to get into that.
DW: Okay. That’s not something…you never say, for example, if anybody has a gun that they carry legally, you’re not allowed to. 
WD: No, I don’t say that.
DW: You never get into that at all?
WD: No, I’ve had people question, I have this, what if I do that? kind of thing. 
DW: Okay. [...]

 

Quote

Only an idiot and an irresponsible cop would approach a suspect alone.

Single officer stops certainly carry the potential for more risk, yet they happen all the time.

 

Quote

Restraint in use of a firearm means not getting into a situation where it will be required.

I disagree. And, quite frankly, that seems like a rather untenable position. 

You almost never know with certainty when you will need to use a firearm in self defense.

As the saying goes, "You Don't Get to Pick the Day You Need Your Gun. Someone else will pick that day, and they will only tell you at the last minute."

 

Quote

How does one do that?  By not stalking and causing fear in the victim being followed.  You consistently overlook that fact, and you take Zimmerman's sole account (now that Trayvon is conveniently dead) as gospel.

And you consistently pretend that I have not given this subject extensive research and serious thought. Which, quite frankly, is becoming tiresome - bordering on offensive. 

I'm sorry, but you - along with everyone else who has taken up the anti-Zimmerman flag - have yet to bring to light a single thing that I was not already familiar with. 

You are welcome to disagree with my opinions on the case, but don't try to pretend that I'm just uncritically buying Zimmerman's story - especially when you have yet to demonstrate that you have anywhere near the familiarity that I have with the subject matter.   

 

Quote

One of the reasons why a cop needs articulable suspicion is precisely because he should not just make lousy assumptions and then act on them without concern for the consequences. 

I'm not sure I entirely agree with that characterization. Police need articulable suspicion because citizens have civil rights, and law enforcement officers (rightly) need to meet a threshold before they are allowed to intrude on those rights (e.g., by detaining, searching, or arresting the citizenry). 

And, if we're being honest, that restraint is part of the reason why cops work with people to create things like neighborhood watch programs in the first place. Stopping 'suspicious persons' is the bread and butter of police work - only they need reasonable suspicion to actually stop and detain people. So, if they see a guy just walking down the street, they (as a general rule) need to develop a specific, articulable suspicion that he is doing some particular bad act before they can stop him - as they should. 

However, if nosy neighbor Gertrude sees that same guy walking down the street, she can put in a call to the police and report that she sees a 'suspicious' person in her neighborhood. Now the police have a citizen's report which they can then use to justify the stop. 

 

Quote

Clearly Zimmerman should never have been part of any neighborhood watch at any time.  Everyone would have been much safer.

There are places out there where nobody gets involved with what's happening in their community in terms of preventing crime - like, ever (e.g., Compton, Watts, etc.). 

You are welcome to move your family to such a neighborhood and then see how you really feel about living in a community whose citizens have disengaged from the crime-prevention process.

 

Edited July 17, 2020 by Amulek

[Rajah Manchou]

Quote

In the first part, which you have in bold, the implication is that neighborhood watch participants are instructed to never follow anyone, but that's not correct.

But it is correct. In the trial Wendy Dorival said: 

Dorival: If someone is acting suspicious you call non-emergency dispatch. 
Prosecutor: Do you tell them to do anything else at that point?
Dorival: No, they are the eyes and ears.
Prosecutor: In that instruction is that also part of the written materials [provided in the meetings]?
Dorival: Yes.
Prosecutor: What do you tell volunteers about following someone they believe might be involved in criminal behavior?
Dorival: We tell them they don't do that, that's the job of law enforcement.
Prosecutor: And what do you tell Neighborhood Watch participants about confronting someone that might be involved in criminal behavior?
Dorival: Not to confront, to let the Police Department do the job.

Dorival goes on to share the PowerPoint she showed at the meeting. Those slides say "NOT the vigilante police". She goes on to emphasize that the volunteer should not take any risks in confronting suspicious characters.

Quote

They are advised not to confront people, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with following someone so long as you can do so safely. 

First of all, according to the guidelines there is something wrong with following someone (see above). But that aside, safely is the keyword here. How do you know you've failed in safely following someone? You end up in a fistfight with that person and someone ends up dead.    

In your opinion, why did Zimmerman walk 80-100 yards from his car (nearly the length of a football field) towards Martin behind the townhouse where the confrontation happened? 

Quote

Irrelevant. Because the Neighborhood Watch program in Zimmerman's neighborhood was not affiliated with the National Sheriffs' Association. 

The National Neighborhood Watch program was set up by the National Sheriffs' Association. They offer guidelines, not rules or laws. There's no registration or affiliation requirement. Although Zimmerman isn't legally bound to any of the National Neighborhood Watch guidelines, he did break them:

Chris Tutko, director of Neighborhood Watch for the National Sheriffs’ Association, said Zimmerman broke some cardinal rules "If you see something suspicious, you report it, you step aside and you let law enforcement do their job". "This guy went way beyond the call of duty. At the least, he’s overzealous." ... "There’s no reason to carry a gun," Tutko said. (source)

Quote

At the end of the day, you can't escape the simple fact that Zimmerman was doing absolutely nothing illegal. 

It is legal to walk around with a gun following people you think are suspicious, but the risk is if the person you are following has done nothing wrong, then you are a stalker, at least in the eyes of the person you are following. And this is the point. A 17 year old boy is dead because Zimmerman made a series of perfectly legal bad choices that led to the death of a teenager. Not only did Zimmerman not feel any remorse for his bad decisions, he went on to stir the pot by auctioning the gun and tweeting pictures of Trayvon's lifeless body with the caption "Zman is a one man army". Doing stuff like that is not illegal, but it indicates that there is a serious problem with the justice system. 

Emboldened by the ruling that he'd done nothing illegal, Zimmerman has gone on to do so much that is wrong. He's become a very unreasonable, and loud, part of the problem. Many feel justice wasn't served in this case, and numerous other cases, where black people who have done nothing illegal end up dead.  

Edited July 17, 2020 by Rajah Manchou

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, Amulek said:

................................Single officer stops certainly carry the potential for more risk, yet they happen all the time.............................

Actually, a single officer traffic stop (which is quite common) is very controlled and well lit:  The officer has already run the plate.  He already has a pretty good idea what he is dealing with.  He can call for backup before getting out of his patrol vehicle.  In fact, many depts now have a policy of two-man units just for extra safety.  Stops on the street with a walking suspect are frequently made at gunpoint, the suspect with his hands displayed (manos arriba).  Far different than the darkness of the unprofessional Zimmerman-Martin encounter.

8 hours ago, Amulek said:

And you consistently pretend that I have not given this subject extensive research and serious thought. Which, quite frankly, is becoming tiresome - bordering on offensive. 

I'm sorry, but you - along with everyone else who has taken up the anti-Zimmerman flag - have yet to bring to light a single thing that I was not already familiar with. 

You are welcome to disagree with my opinions on the case, but don't try to pretend that I'm just uncritically buying Zimmerman's story - especially when you have yet to demonstrate that you have anywhere near the familiarity that I have with the subject matter. 

You, like many in our society, apparently believe that someone like Zimmerman is not being careless and provocative in following someone at night.  Any lawyer can tell a jury anything:  After all, it is not the lawyer's job to seek truth, but rather to create an impression favoring one side or the other.   Every lawyer learns that skill in moot court.  He can advocate any position.  The jury can reach any verdict.  Our justice system creates finality, not truth, so as to avoid the ancient blood feud.  We are "civilized," you see.

8 hours ago, Amulek said:

I'm not sure I entirely agree with that characterization. Police need articulable suspicion because citizens have civil rights, and law enforcement officers (rightly) need to meet a threshold before they are allowed to intrude on those rights (e.g., by detaining, searching, or arresting the citizenry). 

And, if we're being honest, that restraint is part of the reason why cops work with people to create things like neighborhood watch programs in the first place. Stopping 'suspicious persons' is the bread and butter of police work - only they need reasonable suspicion to actually stop and detain people. So, if they see a guy just walking down the street, they (as a general rule) need to develop a specific, articulable suspicion that he is doing some particular bad act before they can stop him - as they should. 

However, if nosy neighbor Gertrude sees that same guy walking down the street, she can put in a call to the police and report that she sees a 'suspicious' person in her neighborhood. Now the police have a citizen's report which they can then use to justify the stop. 

A law enforcement officer may talk to anyone anytime on patrol, however, he must have articulable suspicion to detain them even for a short time.  He can then pat them down for officer safety.  If he can find nothing substantive, he must let them go.  He must have probable cause to make an arrest.  Suspicion is not probable cause.  Any Karen or Darren can certainly call the police and report any sort of "suspicion."  They may even follow people around and do surveillance on them.  My repeated question is about the wisdom of everyone just assuming that such actions are O.K.

Without articulable suspicion, a citizen may simply ignore a cop and continue walking.  In actual practice, some cops will "testilie" later about why they made a stop.  The NYPD stop and frisk policy was always unconstitutional, but Mayor Bloomberg never saw a Bill of Rights he didn't hold in contempt.

8 hours ago, Amulek said:

There are places out there where nobody gets involved with what's happening in their community in terms of preventing crime - like, ever (e.g., Compton, Watts, etc.). 

You are welcome to move your family to such a neighborhood and then see how you really feel about living in a community whose citizens have disengaged from the crime-prevention process.

I spent a number of years working in Compton, and have seen the immediate aftermath of several shootings.  Several of my professional colleagues grew up in Compton without ever getting arrested.  In fact, some of my colleagues continued living in Compton while also working for emergency services (Fire and Police).  Moreover, two of the best female tennis players in the world come directly out of Compton.  Can you guess their names?

[Amulek]

14 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

But it is correct. In the trial Wendy Dorival said: [...] We tell them they don't do that, that's the job of law enforcement. [...]

Which is obviously what they are gong to say - for both safety and liability reasons.

They don't encourage people to follow; they don't need people to follow (just like the dispatcher said that night); but they don't go so far as to say that you can't follow.

That's the point I was making. 

 

Quote

Dorival goes on to share the PowerPoint she showed at the meeting. Those slides say "NOT the vigilante police".

Correct. Which, on cross-examination, she clarified to mean confronting or engaging people - not following.

Following a suspicious person and reporting his whereabouts to the police does not make one a vigilante. 

 

Quote

She goes on to emphasize that the volunteer should not take any risks in confronting suspicious characters.

Correct. Which is why it is worth noting (again), that all of the evidence - both from the prosecution and the defense - agrees that it was Martin who confronted Zimmerman; not the other way around.

 

Quote

In your opinion, why did Zimmerman walk 80-100 yards from his car (nearly the length of a football field) towards Martin behind the townhouse where the confrontation happened? 

Ostensibly, he was looking for an address he could use to relay his position to the police when they arrived. There was no cross-street sign on the road where his vehicle was located, so he walked through to get an address number off a building from the next street over - one he was more familiar with. I think that's a plausible explanation, though I believe he was also on the look out for Martin as he was walking to and from the other street.

 

Quote

The National Neighborhood Watch program was set up by the National Sheriffs' Association. They offer guidelines, not rules or laws. There's no registration or affiliation requirement.

Well, they sure went out of their way to let everyone know that this particular neighborhood watch program was not associated with them:

"NSA has no information that indicates that the community where the incident occurred has ever registered with USAonWatch® - Neighborhood Watch program." 

 

Quote

Although Zimmerman isn't legally bound to any of the National Neighborhood Watch guidelines, he did break them:

Who cares if he broke the non-binding, non-enforceable guidelines of an organization he wasn't a member of?

He probably breaks the Word of Wisdom as well, but that doesn't mean anything either.

The neighborhood watch program which was started in Zimmerman's neighborhood was done in conjunction with the support of local law enforcement. And as detailed previously, the volunteer organizer who helped set that program up said that they don't say anything about guns, so he wasn't violating the guidelines of the program that he was actually participating in. End of story.

 

Quote

It is legal to walk around with a gun following people you think are suspicious, but the risk is if the person you are following has done nothing wrong, then you are a stalker, at least in the eyes of the person you are following.

And if you are afraid someone is stalking you, that gives you the right to do what, exactly, in terms of force? 

 

Quote

And this is the point. A 17 year old boy is dead because Zimmerman made a series of perfectly legal bad choices that led to the death of a teenager.

Which is why the story is tragic. But we don't generally imprison people for life merely for making "perfectly legal [albeit] bad choices." 

 

Quote

Not only did Zimmerman not feel any remorse for his bad decisions, he went on to stir the pot by auctioning the gun and tweeting pictures of Trayvon's lifeless body with the caption "Zman is a one man army".

As I said before, I don't plan on getting into the weeds about everything else Zimmerman has done in his life, but I can kind of understand the direction his life has taken following the trial.

The media made Zimmerman out to be the most notorious racist of the last decade. Most people probably still envision Trayvon Martin as being the 12-year old in the picture that was circulated in pretty much every news story under the sun. 

And the only groups of people who seem to believe he was innocent are:

1. His immediate family and a few of his closest friends
2. True crime junkies or others (like me) who became heavily invested in the case and watched the entire trial
3. Out-and-out racists

Everyone else pretty much hates him.

Heck, I'm not a fan myself - though I believe he was, in fact, not guilty of any sort of serious crime. 

And if everyone is going to hate you anyway, regardless of the truth and regardless of what you do, then why should you bother giving a flying fig about anyone else or what they think?

At that point, why not just do whatever the heck you want?

 

Quote

Many feel justice wasn't served in this case, and numerous other cases, where black people who have done nothing illegal end up dead.  

I can appreciate that. 

But based on the evidence, putting George Zimmerman away for murder is what would have been a blatant miscarriage of justice. 

Seriously, it wasn't even remotely a close call - not for murder in the second degree at least (or even for manslaughter). 

And it should scare freedom loving people everywhere that he was even put on trial to begin with. 

It is probably the closest thing to a 'witch trial' that most of us will ever see in our entire lives. 

 

Edited July 17, 2020 by Amulek

[Rajah Manchou]

6 hours ago, Amulek said:

Which is obviously what they are gong to say - for both safety and liability reasons.

Because it is common sense that following people is not a good idea.

6 hours ago, Amulek said:

Correct. Which, on cross-examination, she clarified to mean confronting or engaging people - not following.

That is not the correct interpretation of her words. She said they instruct their volunteers to not follow people and to not confront people. The instructions are to (1) call the police, (2) remain in the car, and (3) wait for the trained police to handle all situations. That lawyer did a great job of putting words in her mouth. What cross-examination asked is "but you’re not saying that if you see somebody suspicious you can’t follow." and of course Dorival said "no I don't" because they can't order volunteers to do something. They give guidelines, not orders. It would be pointless to instruct volunteers to not follow people "but you can if you want". Just like dispatch wouldn't say "we don't need you to follow him, but you can if you want".

6 hours ago, Amulek said:

Following a suspicious person and reporting his whereabouts to the police does not make one a vigilante. 

Remember this conversation started because commenters in this thread were arguing that the second man with a gun on University Avenue was guilty of a crime solely because he had a gun and he pursued the SUV that, from his perspective, could have been a threat to the lives of others. I challenged that assumption, because that man had technically done nothing illegal that we could see, and we spiralled off into this conversation. 

6 hours ago, Amulek said:

Ostensibly, he was looking for an address he could use to relay his position to the police when they arrived.

You don't walk behind a house to get an address. He was pursuing Martin.

6 hours ago, Amulek said:

But we don't generally imprison people for life merely for making "perfectly legal [albeit] bad choices."  ... And it should scare freedom loving people everywhere that he was even put on trial to begin with. It is probably the closest thing to a 'witch trial' that most of us will ever see in our entire lives. 

So it seems you can understand why BLM is protesting in streets across the Nation. You can call it a witch trial, but at least Zimmerman got a trial. There are dozens of recent cases where black people have been killed without any trial at all. That has scared freedom loving people everywhere.

Edited July 18, 2020 by Rajah Manchou

[teddyaware]

9 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Because it is common sense that following people is not a good idea.

That is not the correct interpretation of her words. She said they instruct their volunteers to not follow people and to not confront people. The instructions are to (1) call the police, (2) remain in the car, and (3) wait for the trained police to handle all situations. That lawyer did a great job of putting words in her mouth. What cross-examination asked is "but you’re not saying that if you see somebody suspicious you can’t follow." and of course Dorival said "no I don't" because they can't order volunteers to do something. They give guidelines, not orders. It would be pointless to instruct volunteers to not follow people "but you can if you want". Just like dispatch wouldn't say "we don't need you to follow him, but you can if you want".

Remember this conversation started because commenters in this thread were arguing that the second man with a gun on University Avenue was guilty of a crime solely because he had a gun and he pursued the SUV that, from his perspective, could have been a threat to the lives of others. I challenged that assumption, because that man had technically done nothing illegal that we could see, and we spiralled off into this conversation. 

You don't walk behind a house to get an address. He was pursuing Martin.

So it seems you can understand why BLM is protesting in streets across the Nation. You can call it a witch trial, but at least Zimmerman got a trial. There are dozens of recent cases where black people have been killed without any trial at all. That has scared freedom loving people everywhere.

Since you’re intensely interested in the Trayvon Martin case, you’re sure to find the following documentary produced by documentarian Joel Gilbert to be most intriguing. As a consequence of the compelling evidence presented in this film, painstakingly uncovered through Gilbert’s indefatigable research, George Zimmerman is now in the process of suing the Martin family for millions of dollars. If Gilbert’s findings are correct, the Martins knew key evidence presented at the trial was fraudulent, yet they remained silent. If Zimmerman prevails at trial, lawyer Benjamin Crump will be exposed as a liar. 

 

Edited July 18, 2020 by teddyaware

[Rajah Manchou]

20 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

Since you’re intensely interested in the Trayvon Martin case, you’re sure to find the following documentary produced by documentarian Joel Gilbert to be most intriguing. As a consequence of the compelling evidence presented in this film, painstakingly uncovered through Gilbert’s indefatigable research, George Zimmerman is now in the process of suing the Martin family for millions of dollars. If Gilbert’s findings are correct, the Martins knew key evidence presented at the trial was fraudulent, yet they remained silent. If Zimmerman prevails at trial, lawyer Benjamin Crump will be exposed as a perjurer. 

I watched the first 7 minutes. It's political. It's biased. Turned it off when the reenactment showed a hooded faceless figure staring blankIy at the camera, as if that was Martin. 

Zimmerman suing the family for $100 million? Yet another horrible decision in a string of horrible decisions. 

Edited July 18, 2020 by Rajah Manchou

[Amulek]

23 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Because it is common sense that following people is not a good idea.

It's not a risk free endeavor, that's for sure, but that doesn't mean it's inherently bad.

One of the things that makes communities strong is that they are comprised of people who know each other and look out for each other.

And when we see a potential harm threatening those we care about - rather than just putting our heads down and looking away - we have an impulse to intervene, even if that puts ourselves at risk.

On the whole, I think that is probably a net positive. 

 

Quote

They give guidelines, not orders. It would be pointless to instruct volunteers to not follow people "but you can if you want". Just like dispatch wouldn't say "we don't need you to follow him, but you can if you want".

Well, this is sort of the unwritten order of things. The police won't encourage you to follow a suspicious person, because they don't want to be on the hook for the liability should something go wrong and you get injured or killed.

However, if you decide to take that risk upon yourself, it isn't like they are going to toss out the information you provide. 

 

Quote

You don't walk behind a house to get an address. He was pursuing Martin.

He didn't walk behind a house. He walked along the sidewalk which connects Twin Trees Ln and Retreat View Cir, which you can see here: map.

I agree that he was on the lookout for Martin still, but since he had already lost Martin well before then I don't think you can really call it 'pursuing' him at that point.

 

Quote

So it seems you can understand why BLM is protesting in streets across the Nation.

While I don't believe it discredits what has become the larger Black Lives Matter movement, I can't help but regret that two of the touchstone cases which sparked it were heavily steeped in misinformation and/or outright lies.

Zimmerman wasn't a racist, and the DOJ found that race didn't have anything to do with the shooting. And then in Ferguson, Michael Brown's "Hands up, don't shoot" turned out to be a complete fabrication (again, according to the DOJ). 

 

Quote

You can call it a witch trial, but at least Zimmerman got a trial.

That there was a trial at all is the problem. This was an open-and-shut case to begin with.

I find it deeply troubling that prosecutors gave in to political pressure and marshaled the power and resources of the state in an attempt to prosecute someone when there was nowhere near enough evidence to convict him of the crime he was being charged with.

 

[teddyaware]

22 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I watched the first 7 minutes. It's political. It's biased. Turned it off when the reenactment showed a hooded faceless figure staring blankIy at the camera, as if that was Martin. 

Zimmerman suing the family for $100 million? Yet another horrible decision in a string of horrible decisions. 

So an accurate and realistic depiction of what the hoodie wearing Martin would have looked like at night before Zimmerman was able to get a good look at his face offends you? Why? Should the scene have been unrealistically depicted with Martin’s face illuminated by a floodlight? Why have you presumptuously decided Zimmerman is wrong to sue the Martins when you’ve only seen seven minutes of the two hour documentary that the suit is based upon?  I challenge you to watch the whole video, which you will see is fair and evenhanded, and then you’ll be better equipped to explain why you believe  Zimmerman shouldn’t be suing the Martins for perpetrating fraud against him. 

Edited July 19, 2020 by teddyaware

[Rajah Manchou]

5 hours ago, Amulek said:

That there was a trial at all is the problem. This was an open-and-shut case to begin with.

In my view there's no such thing as an open-and-shut case when a minor - who is not allowed to legally carry a gun - is shot and killed by a person who is allowed to carry a gun. Even if the claim is that it was done in self defence, there should be some serious questioning and introspection on why and how it happened. I think most people could agree that if a 17 year old son, brother or friend was walking home one night and ended up shot dead by a neighbor, we'd be asking a lot of questions. Isn't that the normal thing to do when a teenager gets shot? 

3 hours ago, teddyaware said:

So an accurate and realistic depiction of what the hoodie wearing Martin would have looked like at night before Zimmerman was able to get a good look at his face offends you? 

Nah, just not interested to watch a youtube video that starts off with 6 minutes of blah blah blah about democrats, republicans, Trump and Obama. I'm not interested in the politics here. The silent motionless hooded figure staring menacingly at George was not offensive to me, but rather overly-dramatized.

3 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Should the scene have been unrealistically depicted with Martin’s face illuminated by a floodlight?

I was almost exactly the same size as Martin when I was 17 years old: just under 6'2 and 155 pounds. I was probably a few pounds heavier than Martin, and still extremely scrawny. Any reeanctment that portrays the older and heavier, and armed with a gun, Zimmerman as some small doughy guy who was overpowered by a much larger Martin is misleading. That's all.

FWIW I also wouldn't watch a documentary that paints Zimmerman as some sort of maniacal hunter. I haven't watched any of the Trayvon/Zimmerman "documentaries".

3 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Why have you presumptuously decided Zimmerman is wrong to sue the Martins when you’ve only seen seven minutes of the two hour documentary that the suit is based upon. I challenge you to watch the whole video, which you will see is fair and evenhanded, and then you’ll be better equipped to explain why you believe  Zimmerman shouldn’t be suing the Martins for perpetrating fraud against him. 

Even-handed? Haha, what?

I accepted your challenge and suffered through far too many dumb ebonics and hair weave jokes. The filmmaker actually spends a good chunk of the film hunting down a voodoo priestess so he can get some insight and "clues". The witchdoctor, who knew nothing of the case or the characters involved, said that the unidentified "Diamond Eugene" had a bad heart, so there they are: fair and even-handed facts.

To be fair and even handed the filmmaker would have to spend an equal amount of energy digging into the holes in Zimmerman's case, pouring through pages of Zimmerman's text messages to his wife around the time she pleaded guilty to perjury on his behalf. Yes, perjury. Would also need to ask his wife about the fight they were having the night Trayvon was killed, and why she decided to leave him and stay with her parents the night before. To be fair and even-handed the filmmaker would need to fly to to all the schools that Zimmerman attended, buying yearbooks, stalking friends, walking around in Zimmerman's former neighborhoods asking questions. Would need to dig into the charges that George resisted arrest and assaulted a police officer in 2005. Would need to interview his former fiancee who sought a restraining order against George, and alleged domestic violence that same year. Would need to interview George's father-in-law about why George threatened him and punched him in the nose and should ask his former wife why she claimed in a 911 call that George was going to shoot them all. Might also want to ask Zimmerman about that time (those times?) he was accused of threatening a girlfriend with a shotgun.

But it's easier to just avoid watching garbage like this documentary. These independent crime journalist youtube-style documentaries are usually very misleading and do very little to stop the misinformation and conspiracies.

Edited July 19, 2020 by Rajah Manchou

[The Nehor]

On 7/16/2020 at 1:53 AM, Amulek said:

He wasn't afraid enough to actually run home. He wasn't afraid enough to call the police.

Perhaps he believed calling the police would increase his chance of dying? Perhaps that assessment was accurate.

[Calm]

46 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Perhaps he believed calling the police would increase his chance of dying? Perhaps that assessment was accurate.

Or even just he would be the one arrested.

[Kenngo1969]

On 7/16/2020 at 2:33 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

... Only an idiot and an irresponsible cop would approach a suspect alone. ...

@Robert F. Smith Spoken, er, written, apparently, like someone who has lived the majority of his life in heavily urban areas.  Many areas are policed by agencies comprised of only a handful (or less!) of officers.  My brother works for one of them: Grand total number of sworn officers in his agency?  2.  If someone is a law enforcement officer in Utah who polices an area outside the Wasatch Front, he could be waiting quite awhile for backup, even when officers are responding Code 3.

Edited July 20, 2020 by Kenngo1969

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

@Robert F. Smith Spoken, er, written, apparently, like someone who has lived the majority of his life in heavily urban areas. 

Actually I grew up in remote rural areas.  We had only one constable in my small town in the high Sierras, and no jail.  His wife made a great fruitcake for us every Xmas.

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Many areas are policed by agencies comprised of only a handful (or less!) of officers.  My brother works for one of them: Grand total number of sworn officers in his agency?  2.  If someone is a law enforcement officer in Utah who polices an area outside the Wasatch Front, he could be waiting quite awhile for backup, even when officers are responding Code 3.

That's true, but the crime rate in those outlying areas is remarkably low.  In L.A., one must constantly be on guard and looking over the shoulder.  In Provo, not so much.

In Montana, an officer or deputy on patrol must handle everything himself.  He has a rifle in his trunk just in case.

[Calm]

57 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

a great fruitcake

Your credibility just took a dive for me. There has never been a great fruitcake!