Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 28, 2024, 12:18:35 pm
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
News: Brian Fein is now blogging weekly!  Make sure to check the homepage for his latest editorial.
+  The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums
|-+  TDMMC Forums
| |-+  Off-Topic Board
| | |-+  Trayvon Martin case
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 37 38 [39] 40 41 ... 46 Print
Poll
Question: Do you think Zimmerman is
Guilty   -5 (25%)
Not Guilty   -2 (10%)
Self Defense   -1 (5%)
You don't know enough to decide   -12 (60%)
Total Voters: 17

Author Topic: Trayvon Martin case  (Read 148881 times)
Spider-Dan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 15571


Bay Area Niner-Hater


« Reply #570 on: June 25, 2012, 03:41:05 pm »

You are again putting words into Zimmerman's mouth (I think). I would need to go back and look at things again as there is quite a bit of time between when this started, but Zimmerman's story while wlking police through the event is nowhere near what you are claiming here.
It has been Zimmerman's position from the beginning that he was not pursuing Martin at the time of the confrontation, and that he was returning to his vehicle/trying to find the exact address/etc.  If you have seen any statement from him stating that he was still pursuing Martin, I would love to see it (as it would blow a gaping hole in his defense).

Quote
You really are stretching things on our end also. Looking back in this thread several of you have stated Zimmerman was "ordered" to not follow Martin. That is an outright misrepresentation.
I think every single person in this thread agrees that the dispatcher did not have the legal standing to issue an order with force of law behind it.

Quote
We are not saying he was given clearance. I'm not sure where you get that from? We are saying he was never told not ordered to stop pursuit. He was simply told it was not necessary. That is completely different.
In that context, the statement "We don't need you to do that" (in direct response to a confirmation that he was, indeed, following) is advising him to stop.  (And verbally "advising" him to stop is no different than "telling" him to stop; neither implies nor requires force of law.)  If you want to interpret the sentence literally (such that the operator is simply remarking that pursuit is not needed, with no intent to affect Zimmerman's actions), then you can also literally interpret the dispatcher's statement ("OK") as clearance to pursue Martin.  Both positions are equally ridiculous and would be immediately rejected by any native English-speaking jury.

The dispatcher's intent is clear: to end the pursuit of Martin by Zimmerman.  Do you dispute this point, or not?
« Last Edit: June 25, 2012, 03:44:53 pm by Spider-Dan » Logged

Phishfan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 15558



« Reply #571 on: June 25, 2012, 03:56:48 pm »

Starting a sentence with OK is not clearance. It is acknowledgement and is easily discenable (OK you are following him, we don't need you to do that).

Now on to the actual statement by the operator. I will agree that the meaning behind the statement was that it was not necessary to follow Martin. Now, since you agree that it was not an order I counter that Zimmerman does not need to defend the action in any way (even if he was following Martin) as there is nothing wrong with the act in itself. I followed a girl with a cute butt down an isle I didn't even need to be on in the store the other day. Unless you want to go all biblical, there was nothing wrong with following her.

That said, why do you feel he would need to defend the positon?

As I pointed out in my post that was edited while you were crafting a response, Zimmerman's story during the walkthrough was that he was walking in the same direction Martin had in an effort to find an address. That is not pursuit if you really need a defense. Having not found the address, he was then returning to his car where he was approached by Martin (from behind).
Logged
Spider-Dan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 15571


Bay Area Niner-Hater


« Reply #572 on: June 25, 2012, 03:56:54 pm »

Just to reiterate the silliness of the point you guys are making:  had the dispatcher literally said, "OK sir, you can stop pursuing him now," you could just as easily be here arguing that the dispatcher only said that he can stop, not that he should or has to; the dispatcher was merely reminding him of one of many possible actions, and not actually advising him as to a desired course of action.

It's absurd.  We all speak English here, and we all know what a person means when you tell him, "Hey, I'm going to tell Lisa that she's no longer in charge of the project" and he replies, "I don't need you to do that."  It's not ambiguous.

You're trying to argue for literal interpretation when the actual intent is clear.
Logged

Phishfan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 15558



« Reply #573 on: June 25, 2012, 04:01:00 pm »

You really are thinking this over too much. It really does not matter in the scheme of things. Zimmerman had no responsibility regardless of what was said literally or by intent (as you acknowledge there is no authority to make him stop pursuit of Martin).

He should not have to defend a position of something he is allowed to do.
Logged
Spider-Dan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 15571


Bay Area Niner-Hater


« Reply #574 on: June 25, 2012, 04:05:38 pm »

Starting a sentence with OK is not clearance.
It is if you want to interpret statements literally, which seems to be your point.

Quote
Now on to the actual statement by the operator. I will agree that the meaning behind the statement was that it was not necessary to follow Martin.
And Zimmerman agrees as well, which is why in every statement he has made, he has maintained that he DID cease pursuit when so advised.

You have three separate questions that you need to resolve:

1) Was Zimmerman legally required to cease following Martin?  Everyone agrees that the answer here is "no."
2) Was it clear that the dispatcher wanted Zimmerman to cease following Martin?  You just agreed that the answer to this question is yes.
3) Did Zimmerman cease pursuit of Martin?  According to Zimmerman, yes.
Logged

Phishfan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 15558



« Reply #575 on: June 25, 2012, 04:16:15 pm »

Why is it that people have to go through so many posts with you to still get nowhere? Through all of this, I still say EKnight is misrepresnting what happened with how he worded his sentence and still feel that Zimmerman does not have to defend this particular action (which you are not addressing but has been a point of contention by some previously) because whether there was following or not has no bearing on self defense.
Logged
Spider-Dan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 15571


Bay Area Niner-Hater


« Reply #576 on: June 25, 2012, 04:41:45 pm »

You're pointlessly nitpicking that the dispatcher technically didn't ORDER Zimmerman to cease pursuit.  But Zimmerman himself claims that he stopped!  So why would you even bring that up?  Everyone agrees that the dispatcher's intent was clear.  Zimmerman himself claims that he ended the pursuit.  Why are you wasting our time by arguing that he didn't have to stop?  He is claiming that he DID stop!

If HE SAYS that he did stop, and the prosecution can show that he didn't stop, this significantly damages his case, because it shows that he fully understood that he shouldn't be pursuing Martin but chose to do it anyway.

Now, could he have presented the defense that he was under no legal obligation to cease pursuit, and so he kept following him? Sure.  BUT HE ISN'T USING THAT DEFENSE.  So what is your point?
« Last Edit: June 25, 2012, 04:49:54 pm by Spider-Dan » Logged

Phishfan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 15558



« Reply #577 on: June 25, 2012, 05:19:51 pm »

My point is drop is Spider. Who pulled your chain anyway? I was responding to someone else and have had to run in circles with you over it. I stated my fucking position a million times now. You are twisting shit around just to continue with this discussion and it is fucking annoying. You ask why would I bring it up, I didn't. I was responding to someone (not you by the way) who did. That was my point
Logged
bsmooth
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 4633


I love YaBB 1G - SP1!


« Reply #578 on: June 25, 2012, 05:28:59 pm »

I found it amusing that a guy who is the "captain" of the neighborhood watch, in a gated community that has only three streets claims he got out of his vehicle to tell the dispatcher the name of the street. If he was fairly new to the community I could understand, but not after living there for three years.
Logged
badger6
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 1218



« Reply #579 on: June 25, 2012, 05:35:25 pm »

You're pointlessly nitpicking that the dispatcher technically didn't ORDER Zimmerman to cease pursuit.  But Zimmerman himself claims that he stopped!  So why would you even bring that up?  Everyone agrees that the dispatcher's intent was clear.  Zimmerman himself claims that he ended the pursuit.  Why are you wasting our time by arguing that he didn't have to stop?  He is claiming that he DID stop!

If HE SAYS that he did stop, and the prosecution can show that he didn't stop, this significantly damages his case, because it shows that he fully understood that he shouldn't be pursuing Martin but chose to do it anyway.

Now, could he have presented the defense that he was under no legal obligation to cease pursuit, and so he kept following him? Sure.  BUT HE ISN'T USING THAT DEFENSE.  So what is your point?

And since Zimmerman is claiming that he did stop pursuit and the lead investigator at the bail hearing stated under oath that there was no evidence to disprove Zimmerman's contention he was walking back to his vehicle when confronted by Martin. He also stated that he does not know whether Martin or Zimmerman threw the first punch or who got physical first. It's no surprise that this didn't go to the grand jury. The grand jury provides a check on prosecutors who indict based on political or public pressure. It is no surprise that Corey avoided the grand jury.
Logged
badger6
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 1218



« Reply #580 on: June 25, 2012, 05:46:30 pm »

My point is drop is Spider. Who pulled your chain anyway? I was responding to someone else and have had to run in circles with you over it. I stated my fucking position a million times now. You are twisting shit around just to continue with this discussion and it is fucking annoying. You ask why would I bring it up, I didn't. I was responding to someone (not you by the way) who did. That was my point

He does it to everyone Phish, don't let him annoy you. I let him get to me a couple of times a while back with his twisting shit around to fit his agenda, but he's so predictable these days I just gotta laugh at him now. Double standard is the name of the game with him...............
Logged
Phishfan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 15558



« Reply #581 on: June 25, 2012, 05:52:37 pm »

I found it amusing that a guy who is the "captain" of the neighborhood watch, in a gated community that has only three streets claims he got out of his vehicle to tell the dispatcher the name of the street. If he was fairly new to the community I could understand, but not after living there for three years.


I had not looked up a map of the community before. That is a bit strange.
Logged
Spider-Dan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 15571


Bay Area Niner-Hater


« Reply #582 on: June 25, 2012, 06:31:32 pm »

You ask why would I bring it up, I didn't. I was responding to someone (not you by the way) who did.
Your exact quote:

"Also, it is an exaggeration to say he was told to stop following Martin."

The last page of posts have been you trying to twist and stretch the literal interpretation of words to fit this absurd claim.  It's not an exaggeration to say that he was told to stop following Martin, because a) you yourself agreed that the dispatcher's intent was clear and b) Zimmerman claims that he DID stop following Martin right after the dispatcher made that statement.

If you think you're going to be able to make ridiculous statements just because they aren't specifically addressed to me, well, sorry to disappoint.  "I wasn't talking to you" is not a reasoned defense of your position.

If you don't want to address any further criticism of your statements, you don't have to worry... that Reply button won't click itself.  You can happily scroll by my posts (or anyone else's, for that matter) and the world will keep on spinning.
Logged

badger6
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 1218



« Reply #583 on: June 25, 2012, 06:35:45 pm »

The police operator’s advice that “we don’t need you to do that” was merely suggestive, not an order to stop. Indeed, the operator had no authority to give Zimmerman such an order.
Logged
Spider-Dan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 15571


Bay Area Niner-Hater


« Reply #584 on: June 25, 2012, 06:38:37 pm »

And since Zimmerman is claiming that he did stop pursuit and the lead investigator at the bail hearing stated under oath that there was no evidence to disprove Zimmerman's contention he was walking back to his vehicle when confronted by Martin. He also stated that he does not know whether Martin or Zimmerman threw the first punch or who got physical first.
Then I guess if the prosecution plans on basing their entire case on the singular testimony of the lead investigator, they are probably in trouble.

Quote
It's no surprise that this didn't go to the grand jury. The grand jury provides a check on prosecutors who indict based on political or public pressure. It is no surprise that Corey avoided the grand jury.
But the real question is: is it a surprise that this didn't go to the grand jury?

The police operator’s advice that “we don’t need you to do that” was merely suggestive, not an order to stop. Indeed, the operator had no authority to give Zimmerman such an order.
This is the kind of nonsense reply I'm talking about.

Zimmerman himself claims that he DID stop.

What possible point are you trying to make here?
Logged

Pages: 1 ... 37 38 [39] 40 41 ... 46 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

The Dolphins Make Me Cry - Copyright© 2008 - Designed and Marketed by Dave Gray


Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines