gut;1477505 wrote:I still think the whole issue of "following" has been blown way out of proportion. You have Zimmerman saying he went a few hundred feet to see which way TM went down the street, and then you have Jenteal's account (who has a variety of credibility issues, especially after her disclosures to Piers Morgan that might border on her having committed perjury).

So we don't know. But some people are acting like Zimmerman was stalking TM when reality might be something that barely qualifies as "following" (i.e. 15 seconds, and stopping after the dispatcher told him to).

Which would make sense since the dispatcher told him "we don't need you doing that" [following him] and zimmermans response was "ok"

"I still think the whole issue of "following" has been blown way out of proportion."

It isn't just out of proportion, it is irrelevant. As I posted earlier on this thread, it isn't illegal to walk in your own neighborhood. If it is, we have bigger problems than GZ vs. TM.

Manhattan Buckeye;1477526 wrote:"I still think the whole issue of "following" has been blown way out of proportion."

It isn't just out of proportion, it is irrelevant. As I posted earlier on this thread, it isn't illegal to walk in your own neighborhood. If it is, we have bigger problems than GZ vs. TM.

Oh, you said bigger, thought you said something else. Never mind.

BoatShoes;1477471 wrote:I am directly quoting you.



Should means the same as ought in this context. It is a normative claim. And indeed, it is still unreasonable (being based on tenuous evidence at best), imprudent and demonstrative of a lack of caution to follow person fitting this description:



when police are in route. You are not a police officer empowered by the people of Florida to protect the health, safety and welfare of Floridians. There was no obvious or known risk that would necessitate the use of emergency police powers by a citizen.

In my opinion he should follow anyone and everyone, yes. It doesn't me he has to or is required to.

An obvious or know risk isn't required to make such a decision.

Zimmerman is guilty of being a giant *****.

#1DBag;1477553 wrote:Zimmerman is guilty of being a giant *****.

Cool Story Bro.

Raw Dawgin' it;1477490 wrote:Next time you get attacked, you should not defend yourself, lay there, and take your beating until it's over.

Try to follow along. I'm referring to Zimmerman's actions of getting out of the vehicle and pursuing what he called a suspicious person who fled the scene (in his own words) while police were to arrive shortly thereafter.

I made clear, from the beginning of my posting in this thread that, A). TM was wrong to beat Zimmerman down (even if Zimmerman would have initiated the altercation by grabbing TM or what have you) and that B). The Jury did not err in reasonably believing that Zimmerman acted in self-defense when he killed Martin. The state grants us back the ability to use deadly force when we are being attacked and fear for our lives.

BoatShoes;1477560 wrote:Try to follow along. I'm referring to Zimmerman's actions of getting out of the vehicle and pursuing what he called a suspicious person who fled the scene (in his own words) while police were to arrive shortly thereafter.

I made clear, from the beginning of my posting in this thread that, A). TM was wrong to beat Zimmerman down (even if Zimmerman would have initiated the altercation by grabbing TM or what have you) and that B). The Jury did not err in reasonably believing that Zimmerman acted in self-defense when he killed Martin. The state grants us back the ability to use deadly force when we are being attacked and fear for our lives.

Really? What've you seen that would make him guilty of murder?

BoatShoes;1477560 wrote:Try to follow along. I'm referring to Zimmerman's actions of getting out of the vehicle and pursuing what he called a suspicious person who fled the scene (in his own words) while police were to arrive shortly thereafter.

I made clear, from the beginning of my posting in this thread that, A). TM was wrong to beat Zimmerman down (even if Zimmerman would have initiated the altercation by grabbing TM or what have you) and that B). The Jury did not err in reasonably believing that Zimmerman acted in self-defense when he killed Martin. The state grants us back the ability to use deadly force when we are being attacked and fear for our lives.

Also - all your points are essentially irrelevant.

gut;1477505 wrote:I still think the whole issue of "following" has been blown way out of proportion. You have Zimmerman saying he went a few hundred feet to see which way TM went down the street, and then you have Jenteal's account (who has a variety of credibility issues, especially after her disclosures to Piers Morgan that might border on her having committed perjury).

So we don't know. But some people are acting like Zimmerman was stalking TM when reality might be something that barely qualifies as "following" (i.e. 15 seconds, and stopping after the dispatcher told him to).

Stalking is not the word but he himself told the dispatcher that he was indeed following the suspicious person who ran away. He ran away at 7:11pm and the altercation occurred some time between 7:15pm when Zimmerman's call ended and 7:17pm when the cop arrived and TM was dead. Bottom line, he pursued after him in some manner per his own words and that was dumb (albeit legal). It's not a crime to be dumb. Why are you pursuing a person you basically suspect of burglary in any fashion when you're not a police officer? Also, it is certainly not clear that he "stopped" after the dispatcher said "we don't need you to do that" considering where the altercation occurred.

Raw Dawgin' it;1477564 wrote:Really? What've you seen that would make him guilty of murder?

WTF are you talking about? I never said he was guilty of murder??? Again. Try to follow along if you're going to comment. In my first comments I suggested that the DA, at best, should've tried for a manslaughter charge based on the evidence and even that was a stretch. The 2nd degree murder charge could not be supported by the affidavit.

BoatShoes;1477567 wrote:... Why are you pursuing a person you basically suspect of burglary in any fashion when you're not a police officer? ....

How is it that Mr. Zimmerman is believed to have suspected Mr. Martin of Burglary? I think I missed that.


Why is a fair question. I can only speak for myself obviously. I would continue because I want to maintain visibility of at all possible until the police arrive. I want to provide as much information as possible. I want to be visible to the individual but not necessarily in contact...in hopes of deterring them from doing any more than simply passing through and carrying our their desired legal actions.

BoatShoes;1477560 wrote:... A). TM was wrong to beat Zimmerman down (even if Zimmerman would have initiated the altercation by grabbing TM or what have you) and that B). The Jury did not err in reasonably believing that Zimmerman acted in self-defense when he killed Martin. The state grants us back the ability to use deadly force when we are being attacked and fear for our lives.

Agreed.

Raw Dawgin' it;1477565 wrote:Also - all your points are essentially irrelevant.

They are not irrelevant to the greater debate and profitable discussion we are having ITT wherein several posters have acted like Zimmerman is wholly innocent simply because he did not commit a crime. I have argued that he is clearly negligent and falling below the standard of care the law expects from citizens. That in and of itself is a failing and that it would not be this grave concession on the part of folks who feel Zimmerman was the victim of a politicized trial to admit this. It just so happens that Martin was the greater wrongdoer serving as the intervening cause in his own fate by unjustifiably assaulting his imprudent pursuer.

Con_Alma;1477572 wrote:How is it that Mr. Zimmerman is believed to have suspected Mr. Martin of Burglary? I think I missed that.


Why is a fair question. I can only speak for myself obviously. I would continue because I want to maintain visibility of at all possible until the police arrive. I want to provide as much information as possible. I want to be visible to the individual but not necessarily in contact...in hopes of deterring them from doing any more than simply passing through and carrying our their desired legal actions.

The crime of burglary basically amounts to breaking and entering a place where a person lives with the intent to commit a felony. I'm not sure if Florida still has that old common law crime but that's basically what a guy who breaks and enters at night is. If he justified his suspicions of Martin based upon the previous break-ins/attempted break-ins he's basically suspecting him of being a potential burglar. A prospective burglar might lurk between a yard in dark clothing and peer into windows. He apparently loses sight at 7:11pm. He's on the phone with dispatch until 7:15pm and the Cop arrives at the scene at 7:17pm. He knew the police were nearby. It just doesn't seem very cautious to me to try to "maintain visibility" of the so-called suspicious person.

BoatShoes;1477567 wrote:Bottom line, he pursued after him in some manner per his own words and that was dumb

The point being that the extent of his "pursuit" is unknown and there are certainly degrees of "pursuit" that range from responsible to irresponsible, and from completely benign to "harassment". How TM responded doesn't tell us much, because TM may have been unreasonable and/or irrational in his response.

And Zimmerman has a history to go off of here, with numerous other incidents not resulting in any sort of altercation. A reasonable person would conclude a young male felt challenged and chose to respond like a thug. And that doesn't mean Zimmerman actually "challenged" him, nor that he should have had a reasonable expectation of provoking that perception.

BoatShoes;1477581 wrote: A prospective burglar might lurk between a yard in dark clothing and peer into windows.

And that would require him to go in between houses and into yards, would it not? So now you acknowledge Zimmerman had reason to be suspicious. Progress, I suppose.

LOL @ Obama's speach (and the sudden 'yea me too!' that it inspired).

Do you know WHY women grab their purses when a random black guy walks by? Or WHY someone might suspect a black person of theft? Because statistically speaking, black males commit more crimes in America than any other race/sex. It's not discrimination, it's caution based on fact. Black people that don't like it shouldn't be mad at the white woman clutching her purse, they should be mad at their peers for the #s.

According to the BJS non-Hispanic blacks accounted for 39.4% of the prison and jail population in 2009.[SUP][21][/SUP] Hispanics (of all races) were 15.9% of those incarcerated in 2009.[SUP][21][/SUP]Hispanics comprised 16.3% of the US population according to the 2010 US census.[SUP][22][/SUP][SUP][23][/SUP] According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics from 2000 to 2008 the rate of prevalence of incarceration for blacks declined to 3,161 per 100,000 and the white rate slightly increase to 487 per 100,000.[SUP][24][/SUP] In 2009 American Indians and Alaskan Natives were jailed, paroled, or on probation at 932 per 100,000, 25% higher than for non-Indians/Natives (747), up 5.6% that year and 12% higher than 2007.[SUP][25][/SUP] However, crime in general declined during this time down to near 1970 levels, an 18% decrease from the previous decade.[SUP][26][/SUP] (US Imprisonment Rates by Race, Age, and Gender, 2011) "In 2011, imprisonment rates among age and racial groups tended to increase through age 34 before declining (table 8). The imprisonment rates indicate that about 0.5% of all white males, more than 3.0% of all black males, and 1.2% of all Hispanic males were imprisoned in 2011. Between 6.6% and 7.5% of all black males ages 25 to 39 were imprisoned in 2011, which were the highest imprisonment rates among the measured sex, race, Hispanic origin, and age groups. Slightly fewer than 3% of Hispanic males were imprisoned in each of the age cohorts between ages 25 and 39. "In 2011, blacks and Hispanics were imprisoned at higher rates than whites in all age groups for both male and female inmates. Among prisoners ages 18 to 19, black males were imprisoned at more than 9 times the rate of white males. In 2011, Hispanic and black male prisoners age 65 or older were imprisoned at rates between 3 and 5 times those of white males. Excluding the youngest and oldest age groups, black males were imprisoned at rates that ranged between 5 and 7 times the rates of white males. Among persons ages 20 to 24, black males were imprisoned at about 7 times that of white males. Among persons ages 60 to 64, the black male imprisonment rate was 5 times that of the white male imprisonment rate. In comparison, Hispanic males were imprisoned at 2 to 3 times the rate of white males in 2011. Black females were imprisoned at between 2 and 3 times the rate of white females, while Hispanic females were imprisoned at between 1 and 3 times the rate of white females."

gut;1477594 wrote:And that would require him to go in between houses and into yards, would it not? So now you acknowledge Zimmerman had reason to be suspicious. Progress, I suppose.

No not really. You still have to make some pretty unfair logical leaps to assume a man walking leisurely through yards is a prospective burglar. I said earlier in the thread that he may have been justified in calling the police, at best, as a precaution. He had no good reason to get out of the car and go after him/look for him. There was nothing that Trayvon Martin was doing based on Zimmerman's own description to the dispatcher that should lead a reasonable person to suspect imminent criminal activity (other than perhaps de minimus trespassing) unless the person inferring crime is informing their inferences based on logical fallacies or biases.

Trueblue23;1477597 wrote:LOL @ Obama's speach (and the sudden 'yea me too!' that it inspired).

Do you know WHY women grab their purses when a random black guy walks by? Or WHY someone might suspect a black person of theft? Because statistically speaking, black males commit more crimes in America than any other race/sex. It's not discrimination, it's caution based on fact. Black people that don't like it shouldn't be mad at the white woman clutching her purse, they should be mad at their peers for the #s.

There it is!!! We're justified in suspecting black males as criminals because of the color of their skin! :thumbup:

BoatShoes;1477603 wrote:There it is!!! We're justified in suspecting black males as criminals because of the color of their skin! :thumbup:

No.

gut;1477592 wrote:The point being that the extent of his "pursuit" is unknown and there are certainly degrees of "pursuit" that range from responsible to irresponsible, and from completely benign to "harassment". How TM responded doesn't tell us much, because TM may have been unreasonable and/or irrational in his response.

And Zimmerman has a history to go off of here, with numerous other incidents not resulting in any sort of altercation. A reasonable person would conclude a young male felt challenged and chose to respond like a thug. And that doesn't mean Zimmerman actually "challenged" him, nor that he should have had a reasonable expectation of provoking that perception.

TM was by definition irrational. He beat the piss out of him. Even if you take the view expressed in the African American community that they think it was a kind of justified resistance to an unlawful arrest/racial profiling, apprehension by Zimmerman....we're not talking about a sit-in here...he beat the shit out of him. Still doesn't mean that Martin was prudent or cautious when he goes out looking for a guy he suspects may be a potential criminal when the Police are minutes away.

Trueblue23;1477604 wrote:No.

That's what you just said guy. Women who see a guy with brown skin coming near their car are just playing the odds when they lock their car doors. :thumbup: