Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 28, 2024, 10:11:22 am
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 ... 38 39 [40] 41 42 ... 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 148874 times)
badger6
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 1218



« Reply #585 on: June 25, 2012, 06:49:15 pm »

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.
But the real question is: is it a surprise that this didn't go to the grand jury?
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?

You're silly kid, go argue with a rock or something, ha ha....
Logged
Phishfan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 15558



« Reply #586 on: June 25, 2012, 06:52:18 pm »

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.


A) While I understand what the operator was saying, it was not a directive to stop following Martin which was implied from the poster.
B) who gives a shit? That is not really part of my discussion other than to say even if he was following him it does not matter (this is a perfect example of how you keep your spin to keep a conversation going) because he does not have to defend that position. I'm actually surprised you are even discussing anything Zimmerman said other than taking the position he does not have credibility.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2012, 07:16:56 pm by Phishfan » Logged
Spider-Dan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 15571


Bay Area Niner-Hater


« Reply #587 on: June 25, 2012, 07:20:06 pm »

I take it by your continued defense of your position that you still think your statement was perfectly reasonable.  Since you insist:

A) While I understand what the operator was saying, it was not a directive to stop following Martin which was implied from the poster.
Wrong.  The operator made a request with (as you admitted) clear intent: he told Zimmerman to stop chasing Martin.  Was Zimmerman under any legal obligation to comply with that request?  No.  But that doesn't mean it didn't happen, and according to Zimmerman, he did comply.  That blows a gaping hole in any claims of ambiguity as to the dispatcher's intent.

Quote
B) who gives a shit? That is not really part of my discussion other than to say even if he was following him it does not matter (this is a perfect example of how you keep your spin to keep a conversation going) because he does not have to defend that position.
...except that Zimmerman's position is that he did stop when so advised (<--- this part is important).

Now, in an alternate reality, could Zimmerman have went with the defense that he didn't stop pursuing Martin because he didn't have to?  Sure.  But in THIS reality, Zimmerman chose to go with the defense that he DID stop chasing Martin.  So no, you can't say, "Yes, I stopped chasing him" and then, if that is shown to be not credible, immediately pivot to, "Oh, well I kept following him because I had every right to!"  It immediately exposes you as an intentional liar.

So in summary: you can use the "I wasn't chasing him" defense, OR you can use the "I had every right to chase him" defense, but you can't use BOTH.  And since Zimmerman has already clearly shown that he's using the former, your attempts to tread down the "there was nothing wrong with chasing Martin!" path are a waste of time.  They are not even remotely relevant.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2012, 07:22:21 pm by Spider-Dan » Logged

el diablo
Guest
« Reply #588 on: June 25, 2012, 07:26:12 pm »

Actually, he does have to defend that position.  Because he claims to have stopped following Martin
 He claims to have been attacked from behind. Because it takes away the prosecution's claim of him being the aggressor. If he's not following Martin, then Martin was tracking him. Whether or not we take the dispatcher's advisory statement as order or not, is not important. The fact that the dispatcher asked if Zimmerman was following is important. Because Zimmerman acknowledged the "advice" as a directive.  Yet, he still met up with someone who he "was not following". Not only caught up to, he cut him off. So if Zimmerman had stopped following Trayvon, how do they meet up? Remember, Zimmerman claims he lost sight of Trayvon. Given their locations, Martin didn't double back to meet up with Zimmerman. In any case, we'll all find out the answers and more during the trial.
Logged
Phishfan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 15558



« Reply #589 on: June 25, 2012, 09:38:20 pm »

I take it by your continued defense of your position that you still think your statement was perfectly reasonable.  Since you insist:
Wrong.  The operator made a request with (as you admitted) clear intent: he told Zimmerman to stop chasing Martin.  Was Zimmerman under any legal obligation to comply with that request?  No.  But that doesn't mean it didn't happen, and according to Zimmerman, he did comply.  That blows a gaping hole in any claims of ambiguity as to the dispatcher's intent.
...except that Zimmerman's position is that he did stop when so advised (<--- this part is important).

Now, in an alternate reality, could Zimmerman have went with the defense that he didn't stop pursuing Martin because he didn't have to?  Sure.  But in THIS reality, Zimmerman chose to go with the defense that he DID stop chasing Martin.  So no, you can't say, "Yes, I stopped chasing him" and then, if that is shown to be not credible, immediately pivot to, "Oh, well I kept following him because I had every right to!"  It immediately exposes you as an intentional liar.

So in summary: you can use the "I wasn't chasing him" defense, OR you can use the "I had every right to chase him" defense, but you can't use BOTH.  And since Zimmerman has already clearly shown that he's using the former, your attempts to tread down the "there was nothing wrong with chasing Martin!" path are a waste of time.  They are not even remotely relevant.

What the fuck are you talking about? You say I am wrong that what the operator said was not a directive but admit the operator had no power to give the order. That is talking in circles. Also, I am not on the defense team so I don't have to make any singular claim as I am not in a court of law. As posters on this forum make multiple claims, I am able to make a atatement on each an every one as I see fit.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2012, 09:51:52 pm by Phishfan » Logged
Phishfan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 15558



« Reply #590 on: June 25, 2012, 09:43:23 pm »

So if Zimmerman had stopped following Trayvon, how do they meet up? Remember, Zimmerman claims he lost sight of Trayvon. Given their locations, Martin didn't double back to meet up with Zimmerman.

That is exactly what Zimmerman is saying, that Martin came up from behind. He could not have cut off Martin while heading to his car based on his story (the supposed path of interception in this thread does not correspond with Zimmerman's story). According to Zimmerman, he walked past the path where the encounter happened and then backtracked headed to his car. After passing the path on he return trip Martin yells to him from behind.
Logged
Spider-Dan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 15571


Bay Area Niner-Hater


« Reply #591 on: June 25, 2012, 11:06:08 pm »

What the fuck are you talking about? You say I am wrong that what the operator said was not a directive but admit the operator had no power to give the order. That is talking in circles.
...seriously?  Wow.

The only thing I can take from that statement is that your position this whole time has been that since the dispatcher had no force of law behind his advisement to stop following Martin, he effectively never made any such request.

This would be an awesomely relevant point if Zimmerman were insisting that he was completely within his rights to chase Martin.

WHICH HE IS NOT SAYING.

I am still struggling to understand why you keep clinging to this completely irrelevant point.  Do you somehow believe that there is someone in this thread that currently thinks that Zimmerman broke some law by following Martin, and that said violation will lead to his conviction?

I literally have NO IDEA why you would keep going back to the notion that the dispatcher had no legal status to order Zimmerman to stand down.  Who are you arguing that point with?  Who cares about that point?  When Zimmerman decided to make the claim that he stopped following Martin, that point became completely irrelevant.

I will try once more to make this clear: even if the dispatcher had no force of law behind his instruction to stop chasing Martin and Zimmerman was perfectly within his rights to continue his pursuit, the fact that Zimmerman decided to make the claim that he stopped following Martin means that if the prosecutor can convince the jury that Zimmerman did continue to follow Martin, that sets Zimmerman up as both a liar and the aggressor (because he lied to cover it up).  At that point, his rights within the law to follow someone are irrelevant; he would easily be convicted.

And all of this is a huge tangent from your statement that I originally objected to: your claim that the dispatcher "never told him to stop following Martin."  You've already admitted that the dispatcher's intent was clear, and Zimmerman's actions (and his own arguments in his defense) confirm this.  So why would you claim that the dispatcher never told him to stop?  What possible relevance does this have?

Long story short: if you don't like having your own statements micro-analyzed and ground into the dirt, then don't nitpick based on trite BS until you check your own statements first.  This entire tangent was brought on by you attempting to nitpick a claim ("the dispatcher told Zimmerman to stop chasing Martin") that was true in every meaningful way, by using an extremely shaky hyper-literal interpretation that any native-English-speaking American would immediately reject.  Take your crocodile tears elsewhere.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2012, 01:16:39 am by Spider-Dan » Logged

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



« Reply #592 on: June 26, 2012, 09:52:25 am »

...seriously?  Wow.

The only thing I can take from that statement is that your position this whole time has been that since the dispatcher had no force of law behind his advisement to stop following Martin, he effectively never made any such request.

Not sure how you drew this conclusion. He said "we don't need you to do that." My only stance is that this is not the same as being ordered to stop. Please quit asking me about this to get the same answer.

This would be an awesomely relevant point if Zimmerman were insisting that he was completely within his rights to chase Martin.

WHICH HE IS NOT SAYING.

I am still struggling to understand why you keep clinging to this completely irrelevant point.  Do you somehow believe that there is someone in this thread that currently thinks that Zimmerman broke some law by following Martin, and that said violation will lead to his conviction?

I literally have NO IDEA why you would keep going back to the notion that the dispatcher had no legal status to order Zimmerman to stand down.  Who are you arguing that point with?  Who cares about that point?  When Zimmerman decided to make the claim that he stopped following Martin, that point became completely irrelevant.

It was implied by an earlier posted that I responded to and you keep asking about it. If you don't continually ask for an explanation, I will not keep clinging to it (see how your circular speak keeps this up). The original poster I commented to made the implication that Zimmerman followed Martin after being told to stop by an authority. You keep asking me to defend my response, so I have to stick to it since it is the root of your question.


I will try once more to make this clear: even if the dispatcher had no force of law behind his instruction to stop chasing Martin and Zimmerman was perfectly within his rights to continue his pursuit, the fact that Zimmerman decided to make the claim that he stopped following Martin means that if the prosecutor can convince the jury that Zimmerman did continue to follow Martin, that sets Zimmerman up as both a liar and the aggressor (because he lied to cover it up).  At that point, his rights within the law to follow someone are irrelevant; he would easily be convicted.
I'm not sure why you think I need clarification here. This is my position, that he has no responsibility to stop. I also pointed out that the story I have seen (at least most recently and freshest in memory) is that Zimmerman continued on foot although not following Martin. Maybe this is where you are losing the concept of what I am saying? Just because he was still on foot walking in a certain direction does not mean he was following Martin anymore.

And all of this is a huge tangent from your statement that I originally objected to: your claim that the dispatcher "never told him to stop following Martin."  You've already admitted that the dispatcher's intent was clear, and Zimmerman's actions (and his own arguments in his defense) confirm this.  So why would you claim that the dispatcher never told him to stop?  What possible relevance does this have?
The only relevance is that you keep asking so I keep answering. See how that works. It was originally directed to someone who implied there was an order to stop.

Long story short: if you don't like having your own statements micro-analyzed and ground into the dirt, then don't nitpick based on trite BS until you check your own statements first.  This entire tangent was brought on by you attempting to nitpick a claim ("the dispatcher told Zimmerman to stop chasing Martin") that was true in every meaningful way, by using an extremely shaky hyper-literal interpretation that any native-English-speaking American would immediately reject.  Take your crocodile tears elsewhere.
There is never a short story dealing with you. This entire tangent was brought on because I was commenting on someone else's point and you like to come to the defense every time I call someone out for making an implication. Notice how the person I commented to has been completely silent, but you have sit here trying to find a hole in my statement over and over again?
« Last Edit: June 26, 2012, 09:57:04 am by Phishfan » Logged
Cathal
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 2519


« Reply #593 on: June 26, 2012, 11:36:33 am »

^^^ It might be Skip Bayless syndrome?  Grin
Logged
Spider-Dan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 15571


Bay Area Niner-Hater


« Reply #594 on: June 26, 2012, 02:20:26 pm »

Not sure how you drew this conclusion. He said "we don't need you to do that." My only stance is that this is not the same as being ordered to stop.
...while simultaneously, you are pointing out that the dispatcher had no authority to issue such an order.  So you're nitpicking over the wording of a request that had no legal force, for reasons unknown.

Quote
It was implied by an earlier posted that I responded to and you keep asking about it. If you don't continually ask for an explanation, I will not keep clinging to it (see how your circular speak keeps this up). The original poster I commented to made the implication that Zimmerman followed Martin after being told to stop by an authority.
He said that the dispatcher told Zimmerman to stop; this is true.  Nowhere was it said (or even implied) that this request had the force of law behind it.

Quote
There is never a short story dealing with you. This entire tangent was brought on because I was commenting on someone else's point and you like to come to the defense every time I call someone out for making an implication. Notice how the person I commented to has been completely silent, but you have sit here trying to find a hole in my statement over and over again?
Why do you keep trying to use the "I wasn't talking to you!" defense?  This is a public forum.  If you want to make (incorrect) statements to people and be free from commentary from others, you should try the Private Message function.

And yes, I understand why you keep replying to my posts.  What I don't understand is why you keep defending this ridiculous position (the dispatcher never told Zimmerman to stop) in your replies.  You already agreed that the dispatcher's intent was clear, and Zimmerman obviously understood it (based on his own claim of ending the pursuit).

Your attempt to nitpick a point based on an unrealistically hyper-literal interpretation of the 911 call has failed.  Best to abandon that useless line of reasoning.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2012, 02:24:27 pm by Spider-Dan » Logged

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



« Reply #595 on: June 26, 2012, 03:03:59 pm »

Nowhere was it said (or even implied) that this request had the force of law behind it.

It most certainly was implied because the poster was using it as an example of why the shooting was a crime.
Logged
CF DolFan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 16869


cf_dolfan
« Reply #596 on: June 26, 2012, 03:47:48 pm »

To say this topic is beat to death is like saying Mount Everest is a speed bump. Of course it seems like that is the norm anymore.

We need some football!!!!
Logged

Getting offended by something you see on the internet is like choosing to step in dog shite instead of walking around it.
suck for luck
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 558



« Reply #597 on: June 26, 2012, 04:40:07 pm »

Quote
A day after killing Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman passed a police lie detector test when asked if he confronted the teenager and whether he feared for his life “when you shot the guy,” according to documents released today by Florida prosecutors.

[...]

Along with questions about whether his first name was George and if it was Monday, Zimmerman was asked, “Did you confront the guy you shot?’ He answered, “No.” He was also asked, “Were you in fear for your life, when you shot the guy.” Zimmerman replied, “Yes.”


http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/george-zimmerman-lie-detector-421395

Logged

“The atmospheric conditions as well as the true equilibrium of the ball is critical to the measurement.” — Belichick
Spider-Dan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 15571


Bay Area Niner-Hater


« Reply #598 on: June 26, 2012, 05:07:59 pm »

It most certainly was implied because the poster was using it as an example of why the shooting was a crime.
Feel free to quote the statement you are citing.

Most people that have cited the dispatcher's request (myself included) have done so specifically because Zimmerman responded as if he was complying.  Leading the dispatcher to believe that you are following their (not-legally-binding) instructions right before you hang up the phone and ignore them establishes deception on the part of Zimmerman.  When you tell a 911 dispatcher that you are following their (not-legally-binding) directions and then do otherwise when you get off the phone, it implies that you understand that you shouldn't (read again: should not, not cannot) be doing what you are doing.

So no, it doesn't imply that ignoring the dispatcher's request is against the law.  It means that when you respond as if you are voluntarily following the directions but then ignore that request when you're off the phone, it implies that you are trying to hide something... and if that "something" is the fact that you were the aggressor, then yes, it does potentially turn the shooting into a crime.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2012, 05:14:04 pm by Spider-Dan » Logged

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



« Reply #599 on: June 26, 2012, 05:21:22 pm »

You can look it up. It is in the thread and in context with my statement that it was a response to, there is a clear implication.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 38 39 [40] 41 42 ... 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