Florida, Florida, Florida

[ChicosBailBonds]

Guns, I'm pretty much with you all the way on this case. You dissected a complex, emotion filled situation and came to logical conclusions. To think that a guy who wouldn't take his foot off of first base until the ball had been at the backstop for 5 years when pondering the worth of a basketball coach can be quick, decisive and accurate is an inspiration to lollygaggers everywhere!

I find this typical of your nonsense.  I said I would FULLY judge him after 5 years, but said repeatedly each year "so far so good".  Would you like the 1000's of posts saying that very thing?

The reason for this is simple, there are carcasses of coaches all over the landscape that had solid first couple of years and they burned out by year 4, 5, 6. 

Not surprising from you.....and how that comparison of a coaches success has to do with a self defense case is a wild stretch even by your standards. 

[reinko]

While we continue to go in circles, literally read page 3 of this thread, people are



saying the exact same thing.

Now some, have brought up race, media, and the like, and I think it has relevance to the thread...curious to hear folks thoughts on this article.

http://gawker.com/video-of-violent-rioting-surfers-shows-white-culture-o-954939719

[StillAWarrior]

We also know from that same 9-1-1 call that when asked to stop he said "OK" and tried to return to his car when the incident happened. 

I think that the truth lies somewhere in the middle here.  I've listened to the 911 call and read the transcript.  It is absolutely not true that Zimmerman was "told repeatedly" not to follow Martin.  That's simply not true.  As MM pointed out, he was told that the (i.e., the police) did not need him to do that.  And it seems clear (to me at least - but this is not "fact") that Zimmerman stopped running after the 911 dispatcher told him that.  I say this because the sound of wind on the phone stopped and Zimmerman caught his breath again.

That said, he also initially told the dispatcher that he would meet the police by the mailboxes which is where he was parked.  Then, he changed his mind and asked if the police could call him when they arrived so he could tell them where he was.  This clearly suggests (again, not a "fact") that Zimmerman changed his mind about going back to his truck.  The timeline also suggests that Zimmerman wasn't just going back to his truck.

My personal theory about what happened is that Zimmerman had lost sight of Martin and wanted to find him.  Rather than going back to his truck, he continued to walk around the area.  Again, in my opinion, Zimmerman wanted to observe...not apprehend.  I also think that rather than going home, Martin chose to confront the person following him, which led to a fight and, tragically, Martin's death.  I am not presenting these things as facts.  These are my beliefs about what happened based upon the facts that I have seen and heard.

Another thing about the 911 call that has bothered me:  someone on here (I don't really remember who) has said that it seems odd that Zimmerman did not know what street he was on and that it was his own street.  Not true. Read the transcript.  He knew the street name (the one he lives on) and provided it.  He even provided the street address for the clubhouse.  He said he didn't know the address where his truck was parked, which was not his street.  It's not clear from the transcript whether he knew the street name, but I think he didn't.  Honestly, I don't find that too odd.  I know the main streets in my neighborhood, but not the other streets -- even lost of the ones I walk my dog on.

[Henry Sugar]

I'd appreciate it if you not post my picture on the Intertubes. Pretty uncool, dude.

[reinko]

I'd appreciate it if you not post my picture on the Intertubes. Pretty uncool, dude.

Whatever you say.

Signed,

[TinyTimsLittleBrother]

http://gawker.com/video-of-violent-rioting-surfers-shows-white-culture-o-954939719

Well authored irony is so delicious. 

[Lennys Tap]

I find this typical of your nonsense.  I said I would FULLY judge him after 5 years, but said repeatedly each year "so far so good".  Would you like the 1000's of posts saying that very thing?

The reason for this is simple, there are carcasses of coaches all over the landscape that had solid first couple of years and they burned out by year 4, 5, 6. 

Not surprising from you.....and how that comparison of a coaches success has to do with a self defense case is a wild stretch even by your standards. 

Whoa.

First, I wasn't talking to you. Butt out.

Second, the person to whom I was speaking has a sense of humor and took it in the good natured, it's a joke way it was intended (did you see the smiley face?).

You want to talk typical? Fine. Yours was a typical post - angry, humorless, self righteous. Have a nice day.

[ChicosBailBonds]

911 transcript....here you go.  Maybe there are others out there.

GZ was repeatedly asked not to follow him.

LOL.  New definition of repeatedly is now ONCE.

Asked one time and in this manner "we don't need you to do that".

http://misterbillohno.newsvine.com/_news/2013/07/10/19392176-transcript-of-george-zimmerman-911-call


Earlier in this thread I believe it was Forgetful or someone else that stated GZ claimed the guy was armed.  Really?  Not in this call he didn't.  He said he has something in his hands, but wasn't sure what it is.  Can the person who claimed GZ stated TM was armed please provide evidence of this?

[ChicosBailBonds]

http://gawker.com/video-of-violent-rioting-surfers-shows-white-culture-o-954939719

This riot happened over the weekend here in the O.C.  It was a bit crazy.  One of my employees is married to the head video guy at Vans, the title sponsor of the surfing event.  They were caught up in it.  One of the rioters was a OC Fireman from Fullerton, he's been suspended and I would guess much bigger issues await him.  There are elements of the surfing culture that has done this for years.  We would surf at our high school on dawn patrol in the early hours, shower up and then go to school.  Invariably there was often some fight between the locals who claimed they owned that beach and outsiders.  Or some other BS going one.  15 to 25 year old boys\men...testosterone pumping through....what are the odds.  


As for the thread keep going on....when you have TM folks saying that GZ thought TM was armed, that GZ was told multiple times not to go after him, that GZ was on top, marijuana has no impact, he smoked it weeks ago, blah blah blah and they all turn out to be untrue, well someone has to bring in some facts into the discussion.  And yes, I made an error as well, as Pakuni correctly pointed out.  I'm just as guilty.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

As for the thread keep going on....when you have TM folks saying that GZ thought TM was armed, that GZ was told multiple times not to go after him, that GZ was on top, marijuana has no impact, he smoked it weeks ago, blah blah blah and they all turn out to be untrue, well someone has to bring in some facts into the discussion.  And yes, I made an error as well, as Pakuni correctly pointed out.  I'm just as guilty.

But, here's the problem, arguing over the tiny details doesn't change the big picture, does it?

Do we want citizens arming themselves and following around other citizens, and then claiming self defense when something goes wrong?

Should MU students carry firearms and follow around local teens to prevent crime? What about local Milwaukee residents following around UWM students on the eastside because college kids cause a lot of property damage/crime?

Zimmerman is "not guilty". Fine.

But, think about what that means in the big picture. Think about it from a public safety perspective. Think about your own family. Think about your own neighborhood. Are we ok with this type of action?

[MU82]

I just re-read the transcript. I apologize for saying the dispatcher repeatedly told GZ not to pursue TM. I was wrong. The dispatcher told GZ once and GZ said OK. Again, I do not like being inaccurate, so again, I apologize.

GZ also said TM ran away and that he (GZ) would meet the cops when they arrive. Would it be wrong to assume that GZ then, in fact, did pursue TM instead of waiting for the cops, given what happened next?

Anyway, I'm embarrassed that I screwed up with my first post and, as I said, I would have agreed with the jury due to reasonable doubt. So I'll hang up and listen now ...

[StillAWarrior]

But, here's the problem, arguing over the tiny details doesn't change the big picture, does it?

Do we want citizens arming themselves and following around other citizens, and then claiming self defense when something goes wrong?

Should MU students carry firearms and follow around local teens to prevent crime? What about local Milwaukee residents following around UWM students on the eastside because college kids cause a lot of property damage/crime?

Zimmerman is "not guilty". Fine.

But, think about what that means in the big picture. Think about it from a public safety perspective. Think about your own family. Think about your own neighborhood. Are we ok with this type of action?

While I generally agree with you, I think the part of your post that I highlighted is important.  What is "this type of action?"  Some on this board think it is hunting Martin with gun drawn.  Others think it is pursuing Martin with an intent to apprehend.  Others think it is trying to observe Martin so that information on his whereabouts can be given to police.  Others think that it is dutifully returning to his truck after the 911 dispatcher told him that he didn't need to follow Martin.

I'm not OK with two of those things.  I am OK with two of those things.  So, in order to come to some sort of an agreement over whether we are OK with this type of action, it might be necessary to discuss the type of action we're talking about.

[StillAWarrior]

I just re-read the transcript. I apologize for saying the dispatcher repeatedly told GZ not to pursue TM. I was wrong. The dispatcher told GZ once and GZ said OK. Again, I do not like being inaccurate, so again, I apologize.

GZ also said TM ran away and that he (GZ) would meet the cops when they arrive. Would it be wrong to assume that GZ then, in fact, did pursue TM instead of waiting for the cops, given what happened next?

I think it's hard to say, and it certainly depends on what you mean by "pursue."  The fact that he did not go back to his truck absolutely could mean that he was trying to chase and/or capture Martin (if that's what you mean by "pursue").  It could also mean that he was trying to walk around and figure out where Martin went so he could relate that information to police (if that's what you mean by "pursue").  At the time he hung up with the 911 dispatcher, he did not know where Martin was.  This was just after Martin had run away.  Somehow, despite the fact that Martin had run and Zimmerman didn't know where he was, the two ended up together.  Only one person on earth knows how they got back together again.  Some on this board are not inclined to believe him.  Others on this board do believe him.

[Pakuni]

While I generally agree with you, I think the part of your post that I highlighted is important.  What is "this type of action?"  Some on this board think it is hunting Martin with gun drawn.  Others think it is pursuing Martin with an intent to apprehend.  Others think it is trying to observe Martin so that information on his whereabouts can be given to police.  Others think that it is dutifully returning to his truck after the 911 dispatcher told him that he didn't need to follow Martin.

I'm not OK with two of those things.  I am OK with two of those things.  So, in order to come to some sort of an agreement over whether we are OK with this type of action, it might be necessary to discuss the type of action we're talking about.

And therein lies the rub.
I've said this before (yes, stunningly, things are getting repetitive around here ... maybe we should take on a fresh topic like the Indiana coach or keefe), but nobody, other than GZ, truly knows what happened between the time the 911 call ended and the confrontation began. Did Zimmerman continue to pursue and finally confront Martin? Did Martin approach him? Beats me.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

While I generally agree with you, I think the part of your post that I highlighted is important.  What is "this type of action?"  Some on this board think it is hunting Martin with gun drawn.  Others think it is pursuing Martin with an intent to apprehend.  Others think it is trying to observe Martin so that information on his whereabouts can be given to police.  Others think that it is dutifully returning to his truck after the 911 dispatcher told him that he didn't need to follow Martin.

I'm not OK with two of those things.  I am OK with two of those things.  So, in order to come to some sort of an agreement over whether we are OK with this type of action, it might be necessary to discuss the type of action we're talking about.

That's fair.

And, in actually, I'd argue that we are all closer to a similar opinion, but do the the nature of message boards, it appears like we (the royal "we") are MILES apart.

I think your earlier post regarding what PROBABLY happened is pretty accurate.

I don't know if I've read anybody say that Zimmerman hunted TM down. Maybe some extremists on (insert media) have said that, but I don't know if anybody here has said that.

Again, I understand the "not guilty" verdict, but I also understand the confusion and anger that other people are feeling, especially his family and friends.

[StillAWarrior]

That's fair.

And, in actually, I'd argue that we are all closer to a similar opinion, but do the the nature of message boards, it appears like we (the royal "we") are MILES apart.

I think your earlier post regarding what PROBABLY happened is pretty accurate.

I don't know if I've read anybody say that Zimmerman hunted TM down. Maybe some extremists on (insert media) have said that, but I don't know if anybody here has said that.

Again, I understand the "not guilty" verdict, but I also understand the confusion and anger that other people are feeling, especially his family and friends.

I agree with you.

As for your highlighted comment, I was very taken aback by the prosecutor's comment in the closing argument that "George Zimmerman didn't need to kill Trayvon Martin; he wanted to kill him."  (Paraphrasing, but close.)  I think that it was this attitude -- unsupported by the evidence in my opinion -- that caused them to overcharge Zimmerman and quite possibly resulted in his full acquittal (even for manslaughter).  It was a horrible tragedy that could have been avoided many times over if people had made different and better decisions.

I personally found it disgusting that the prosecution charged him with a crime that they could never prove, that was not supported by the evidence, and that was largely the result of political pressure.  Believe me, it's not common that I find myself in agreement with Alan Dershowitz. 

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I agree with you.

As for your highlighted comment, I was very taken aback by the prosecutor's comment in the closing argument that "George Zimmerman didn't need to kill Trayvon Martin; he wanted to kill him."  (Paraphrasing, but close.)  I think that it was this attitude -- unsupported by the evidence in my opinion -- that caused them to overcharge Zimmerman and quite possibly resulted in his full acquittal (even for manslaughter).  It was a horrible tragedy that could have been avoided many times over if people had made different and better decisions.

I personally found it disgusting that the prosecution charged him with a crime that they could never prove, that was not supported by the evidence, and that was largely the result of political pressure.  Believe me, it's not common that I find myself in agreement with Alan Dershowitz. 

I'm not a lawyer, I don't know all of the finer details of the law or even every detail of this case. It seems like manslaughter to me, but I'm not a pro.

I'm guessing political pressure influenced the DA, but like I said, I'm not an expert, so I don't have a great feel for the specifics.

[forgetful]

I think that the truth lies somewhere in the middle here.  I've listened to the 911 call and read the transcript.  It is absolutely not true that Zimmerman was "told repeatedly" not to follow Martin.  That's simply not true.  As MM pointed out, he was told that the (i.e., the police) did not need him to do that.  And it seems clear (to me at least - but this is not "fact") that Zimmerman stopped running after the 911 dispatcher told him that.  I say this because the sound of wind on the phone stopped and Zimmerman caught his breath again.

That said, he also initially told the dispatcher that he would meet the police by the mailboxes which is where he was parked.  Then, he changed his mind and asked if the police could call him when they arrived so he could tell them where he was.  This clearly suggests (again, not a "fact") that Zimmerman changed his mind about going back to his truck.  The timeline also suggests that Zimmerman wasn't just going back to his truck.

My personal theory about what happened is that Zimmerman had lost sight of Martin and wanted to find him.  Rather than going back to his truck, he continued to walk around the area.  Again, in my opinion, Zimmerman wanted to observe...not apprehend.  I also think that rather than going home, Martin chose to confront the person following him, which led to a fight and, tragically, Martin's death.  I am not presenting these things as facts.  These are my beliefs about what happened based upon the facts that I have seen and heard.

Another thing about the 911 call that has bothered me:  someone on here (I don't really remember who) has said that it seems odd that Zimmerman did not know what street he was on and that it was his own street.  Not true. Read the transcript.  He knew the street name (the one he lives on) and provided it.  He even provided the street address for the clubhouse.  He said he didn't know the address where his truck was parked, which was not his street.  It's not clear from the transcript whether he knew the street name, but I think he didn't.  Honestly, I don't find that too odd.  I know the main streets in my neighborhood, but not the other streets -- even lost of the ones I walk my dog on.

I believe I was the one that said this.  I will clarify a bit.  His actions don't support him trying to determine the address where he was parked.  In his reenactment, he points to the houses on his left saying he had to go to the street opposite since those houses were pointing away from him.  So he went after where TM went, to a different street (the street he lived on) to get an address.

His car was directly parked next to the front of a house (address visible from car), that he had reported to police recently, for windows being suspiciously open (afraid someone broke in).  If he wanted to give them the address of where he was (and no longer remembered it) he could have read it off the house from his car.  If he didn't know the street name, he would have had to go in the opposite direction of TM to get the street name.  This he would have known as he just drove from that direction.  There is no way to get the street name by going to a completely different street.

His actions reflect chasing after Trayvon, (his voice is stained from running) and he admits to following TM.  This was also when he uttered the famous phrase...F'n A$$---- always get away.

[MerrittsMustache]

His actions reflect chasing after Trayvon, (his voice is stained from running) and he admits to following TM.  This was also when he uttered the famous phrase...F'n A$$---- always get away.

True, but this was all before the dispatcher told him that they didn't need him to follow TM, at which point GZ stopped following him. He may or may not have tried to chase him again after hanging up with the dispatch. Only GZ knows that.

[StillAWarrior]

I believe I was the one that said this.  I will clarify a bit.  His actions don't support him trying to determine the address where he was parked.  In his reenactment, he points to the houses on his left saying he had to go to the street opposite since those houses were pointing away from him.  So he went after where TM went, to a different street (the street he lived on) to get an address.

His car was directly parked next to the front of a house (address visible from car), that he had reported to police recently, for windows being suspiciously open (afraid someone broke in).  If he wanted to give them the address of where he was (and no longer remembered it) he could have read it off the house from his car.  If he didn't know the street name, he would have had to go in the opposite direction of TM to get the street name.  This he would have known as he just drove from that direction.  There is no way to get the street name by going to a completely different street.

His actions reflect chasing after Trayvon, (his voice is stained from running) and he admits to following TM.  This was also when he uttered the famous phrase...F'n A$$---- always get away.

Please listen to the 911 call and/or read the transcript.  Zimmerman uttered the infamous "these pretty boys always get away" comment before he left the car and started following Martin.  Also, Zimmerman left the car when Martin started running.  You can clearly hear the car door open and the beeping (probably because either the lights were on or the keys were in the ignition).  There is nothing in the 911 call that suggests that Zimmerman left his car to look for an address.  He was talking to the dispatcher and left his car to follow Martin when Martin started to run.  Yes, his voice was strained from running at one point, but by the end of the 911 call he has clearly stopped running and his voice is no longer strained.

Like I mentioned in another post, I believe that Zimmerman did not go back to his car (although he was not told to do so).  I think he was looking for Martin in the neighborhood.

But, what was said during the 911 call is one of the few "facts" that we have in this case.  It doesn't do anyone any good to misrepresent what was said in that call (e.g., repeatedly told to return to his car; when he uttered the infamous comment; he left the car to check an address that he clearly could have seen from his car; etc.).  To the extent Zimmerman later said he left his car to check an address, the 911 call shows that this is incorrect.  Whether it's because he's lying, or because he's mistaken, people can form their own opinions.  But it's clear from the 911 tape that Zimmerman wasn't trying to hide the fact that he was following Martin.

[ChicosBailBonds]

But, here's the problem, arguing over the tiny details doesn't change the big picture, does it?  Yes, it does, IMO, because it distorts the reality of what was decided.  It's a HUGE difference of one's perception if a guy is casually asked not to pursue TM vs REPEATEDLY being told.  Huge difference.  When GZ says the guy is on drugs and people here are saying he wasn't or no way he could be influenced by them when that is false, of course it makes a difference.  When someone says GZ though the guy was armed when there is no evidence in the transcripts to support this, that makes a difference.   We view things based on those inputs and if those inputs are distorted, either through not knowing or purposely to distort, it does make a difference IMO.

Do we want citizens arming themselves and following around other citizens, and then claiming self defense when something goes wrong?  Again, he was asked to stop following him and he obliged.  I get your premise, but let's not make this out to be GZ was following every singe person he suspected.  He happened to do it in this one situation and when asked to stop, he did.  I do get your overall point, but I also get the argument that in some areas of this country it takes 10, 15, 20 minutes for a cop to get there.  I'm ok with someone at least keeping an eye on them.  Then we get into the issue of define "keeping an eye on him"

Should MU students carry firearms and follow around local teens to prevent crime? What about local Milwaukee residents following around UWM students on the eastside because college kids cause a lot of property damage/crime?   If policing in that area is fine, then no.  If I lived in Detroit, I would have no problem with it. I don't if you realize this, but there are actually private security firms now in Detroit that you can pay for to respond because they will get there faster than the Detroit cops get there.  So to answer your question, it all depends on the circumstances.  If your neighborhood is being run over by criminals and police aren't impactful, I have no problem with it.

Zimmerman is "not guilty". Fine.

But, think about what that means in the big picture. Think about it from a public safety perspective. Think about your own family. Think about your own neighborhood. Are we ok with this type of action?  Again, totally depends.  If my family is in jeopardy because it takes cops to get there 20 minutes, or in Detroit where sometimes they don't even bother to arrive unless a fatality is involved, I would be negligent (in my mind) to not consider arming them and myself and I am perfectly fine with that action.  It comes down to the situation.  I don't think it is an all or nothing proposition, and common sense usually prevails

[Hards Alumni]

I forgot I was discussing law with a guy who works for DirecTV.  My mistake.

I 100% regret getting into a legal conversation with you, Chicos.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Again, totally depends.  If my family is in jeopardy because it takes cops to get there 20 minutes, or in Detroit where sometimes they don't even bother to arrive unless a fatality is involved, I would be negligent (in my mind) to not consider arming them and myself and I am perfectly fine with that action.  It comes down to the situation.  I don't think it is an all or nothing proposition, and common sense usually prevails

#1 I assume these private security agencies train their people before they just send them out with a gun, right? If you want to hire well trained private security, go for it. MU has their own. They seem to be just fine.

#2 Do you think the thefts and burglaries (non-violent variety) call for citizens to arm themselves and walk around their neighborhood (in plain clothes and follow people without identifying themselves)?

Realistically, everybody tolerance for crime is going to vary, and that's where I think the danger is. Honestly, if somebody wants to steal my bike from my garage, go ahead. I'm not going to buy a gun and patrol my block. I'm not willing to shoot somebody over $500. I'll get a new bike. I'll get better locks. I get a motion light. I'll ask MPD to increase their patrol.

Now, that doesn't mean "Joe-psycho" down the street won't go buy a pistol, and try to "bust" criminals (if somebody stomps on his grass). In theory, it's all good (this guy is keeping an eye out for us!)... but in practice, an overzealous citizen with a firearm is quite dangerous.

You want to carry a firearm. Fine. But, you better make sure that you do EVERYTHING you can to AVOID using it. I'm just not sure that GZ did that. To me, he created a situation that required him to use it, and I'm just not OK with that.  

[Pakuni]

The solution to Detroit's problems .... more people with guns!

[ATL MU Warrior]

The solution to Detroit's problems .... more people with guns!

In addition to more people with guns, if Detroit could force all young, suspicious looking (aka black), hoodie-wearing, obviously high (at least to the guy following them around in the dark...in the rain), Lean-addicted, illegal firearm seeking, violent members of the community to remain indoors when it's dark out, they might have something.