Florida, Florida, Florida

[MU82]

You rightly got bent out of shape when I misrepresented the 9-1-1 dispatcher as telling GZ multiple times to stop following TM. Truth is, it was only once, and I apologized for saying otherwise.

You also are making a leap, however, when you say: "Again, he was asked to stop following him and he obliged."

We know GZ said he would stop following. We know GZ said TM was running away. We know GZ didn't stay put. And we know that somehow, GZ and TM ended up together. That suggests that either TM circled back and confronted GZ or that GZ continued his pursuit and found his man, igniting the confrontation. Either could be true.

We simply do not know if GZ obliged or if he didn't. Don't state it as fact.

[forgetful]

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.

In the 911 call I hear f'n a$$--- and I'm not the only one to hear that.  It occurs at about 1:37 of the 911 call and is clear as day.  There are some edited (not explicit) versions out there for the kiddos.  Your right though that was before he got out of the car...never heard the car door before.  You are right that he doesn't say he was looking for an address in the 911 call.  He says that in his re-enactment of the events (I posted the video for this a few pages ago).  His story has changed a bit as things have progressed.  

I'll add that the other large discrepancy he has is his statement that he had got on top of TM after shooting him to apprehend him and pulled his arms out wide.  The medical examiner said this could not be true as TM was incapable of moving and his body was found with his hands underneath him (I believe it was underneath, it wasn't as GZ had said).

[StillAWarrior]

In the 911 call I hear f'n a$$--- and I'm not the only one to hear that.  It occurs at about 1:37 of the 911 call and is clear as day.

You're absolutely right, and I don't disagree with that.  I didn't type "pretty boys" or anything of that nature -- must have been a filter.  My point was the timing...not what was said.

In my opinion, most of the discrepancies that I've heard about in Zimmerman's comments (including the two you pointed out in your post) are pretty minor and not surprising -- even from a person who is trying to truthfully recall events.

[ATL MU Warrior]

Evidently trying to set up a neighborhood watch program in the Dallas area.  Must be a neighborhood in need of some protection. 

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/31/us/texas-zimmerman-traffic-violation/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

[forgetful]

You're absolutely right, and I don't disagree with that.  I didn't type "pretty boys" or anything of that nature -- must have been a filter.  My point was the timing...not what was said.

In my opinion, most of the discrepancies that I've heard about in Zimmerman's comments (including the two you pointed out in your post) are pretty minor and not surprising -- even from a person who is trying to truthfully recall events.

Your right, somewhere early in this thread I talked about GZ likely having PTSD, which would cloud his recollection of the events (often biasing yourself towards things that make the event less traumatic).  Because of that, we can't take everything GZ says as fact.  He may not try to lie, but he does not necessarily recall the events correctly. 

My issues are more with chicos referring to lots of things as fact.  Including TM being 'high' on drugs.  I am an expert in pharmacology and the medical examiner is incorrect.  But for people that don't want to take my word for it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/12/opinion/reefer-madness-an-unfortunate-redux.html?_r=2&

This expert from columbia agrees.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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

Well a certain political philosophy has permeated there for 40+ years and hasn't improved the situation, maybe it's time for a new philosophy.  At the very least when you read stories from law abiding citizens that watch criminals literally walk onto their porch and steal stuff in broad daylight knowing the cops will never come, what is the law abiding citizen supposed to do?  Why shouldn't they have the ability to at least fight back, or put the perception of it. 

I don't understand this idea that we go meek, just cower and let ourselves be overrun in those situations.  A person should have the right to defend his home, his family and his own life.  Fortunately most state laws agree.

[ChicosBailBonds]

You rightly got bent out of shape when I misrepresented the 9-1-1 dispatcher as telling GZ multiple times to stop following TM. Truth is, it was only once, and I apologized for saying otherwise.

You also are making a leap, however, when you say: "Again, he was asked to stop following him and he obliged."

We know GZ said he would stop following. We know GZ said TM was running away. We know GZ didn't stay put. And we know that somehow, GZ and TM ended up together. That suggests that either TM circled back and confronted GZ or that GZ continued his pursuit and found his man, igniting the confrontation. Either could be true.

We simply do not know if GZ obliged or if he didn't. Don't state it as fact.

Fair enough...though my point with obliged is that he said OK and was willing to acknowledge the request.  He says that he was trying to do just that and going to his car.  For some reason, and only those here can answer this, they seem to think that GZ's answers are false, or misleading, or an intentional liar whenever his statements come up.  I'm not sure why, but I suspect strongly it has to do with their disagreement in how this whole thing went down so they are prejudiced to think he is a liar or his version couldn't possibly be truthful.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Your right, somewhere early in this thread I talked about GZ likely having PTSD, which would cloud his recollection of the events (often biasing yourself towards things that make the event less traumatic).  Because of that, we can't take everything GZ says as fact.  He may not try to lie, but he does not necessarily recall the events correctly.  

My issues are more with chicos referring to lots of things as fact.  Including TM being 'high' on drugs.  I am an expert in pharmacology and the medical examiner is incorrect.  But for people that don't want to take my word for it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/12/opinion/reefer-madness-an-unfortunate-redux.html?_r=2&

This expert from columbia agrees.

I don't think I said he was high on drugs, but said he could be influenced by them?  I can't remember anymore.   I can have an alcohol buzz and not be considered drunk (legally), yet still influenced by them...correct?

My issue is people here saying he was absolutely not influenced when they don't know that.  As someone in pharma you should know that better than anyone.  We all know a drug can come on the market that behaves one way for 99.9% of the population but for 0.1% it acts differently and can cause major issues.  Just as TCP, or alcohol or any other chemical of the sort acts differently potentially with different people.  Their size, weight, how much they consumed, the grade of it, etc, all can play a role.

Because of the side effects of the drug, some people can react paranoid or other irrational behavior.  The judge let it in.  

As for the person's expertise, in the eyes of the court he is considered an expert witness and testified as such.

I also wonder how bias Dr. Hart is when he makes statements like this.  Says Hart: “If Trayvon was a white kid, we wouldn’t be here talking about drugs. George Zimmerman would have long been in jail.” Sounds like Dr. Hart made up his mind long before the trial or any evidence, so I do wonder if he is answering this with that predisposed idea.  Dr. Hart's background may have an impact on that bias as well, afterall we are all products of our environment.  http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2013/06/ivy_league_professor_wants_all_drugs_legalized_mocks_marijuana_use.php

Dr. Hart is a controversial person to be certain, including injecting people with crack cocaine.  He believes legalization of ALL DRUGS should be pursued.  He may be right, he may be wrong, but he is certainly controversial and one wonders what agenda he might bring. "Everything that we have been told about drugs, by the government, the cops, our teachers, our parents, it is all wrong according to Hart."

"Marijuana -- I just don't get it," Hart states, "It's not that good, and then it has these potential negative consequences. There are far better drugs, and I just don't get -- I think that people do it because of the chicness or the forbidden-fruit bullcrap."

No, really, he recommends a nice spike of heroin or snort of meth instead. You know, because of the "potential negative consequences" of pot. He does admit that heroin and meth might not be a good choice if you "have to go to work the next day and get some sleep". For that, he offers cocaine as a much better alternative to cannabis.


I'm guessing there is a reason why the prosecution didn't use Hart as a witness, based on his comments. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

Evidently trying to set up a neighborhood watch program in the Dallas area.  Must be a neighborhood in need of some protection. 


http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/31/us/texas-zimmerman-traffic-violation/index.html?hpt=hp_c2]http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/31/us/texas-zimmerman-traffic-violation/index.html?hpt=hp_c

I guess you missed the bit about the massive number of death threats he has received before, during and after the trial.  He's a fool if he didn't carry.  I see he told the cop immediately about it, again being forthright with law enforcement.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2382127/The-moment-George-Zimmerman-pulled-cops-Texas-speeding-Sunday--told-GUN-going-particular.html

[Hards Alumni]

I don't think I said he was high on drugs, but said he could be influenced by them?  I can't remember anymore.   I can have an alcohol buzz and not be considered drunk (legally), yet still influenced by them...correct?

My issue is people here saying he was absolutely not influenced when they don't know that.  As someone in pharma you should know that better than anyone.  We all know a drug can come on the market that behaves one way for 99.9% of the population but for 0.1% it acts differently and can cause major issues.  Just as TCP, or alcohol or any other chemical of the sort acts differently potentially with different people.  Their size, weight, how much they consumed, the grade of it, etc, all can play a role.

Because of the side effects of the drug, some people can react paranoid or other irrational behavior.  The judge let it in.  

As for the person's expertise, in the eyes of the court he is considered an expert witness and testified as such.

I also wonder how bias Dr. Hart is when he makes statements like this.  Says Hart: “If Trayvon was a white kid, we wouldn’t be here talking about drugs. George Zimmerman would have long been in jail.” Sounds like Dr. Hart made up his mind long before the trial or any evidence, so I do wonder if he is answering this with that predisposed idea.  Dr. Hart's background may have an impact on that bias as well, afterall we are all products of our environment.  http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2013/06/ivy_league_professor_wants_all_drugs_legalized_mocks_marijuana_use.php

Dr. Hart is a controversial person to be certain, including injecting people with crack cocaine.  He believes legalization of ALL DRUGS should be pursued.  He may be right, he may be wrong, but he is certainly controversial and one wonders what agenda he might bring. "Everything that we have been told about drugs, by the government, the cops, our teachers, our parents, it is all wrong according to Hart."

"Marijuana -- I just don't get it," Hart states, "It's not that good, and then it has these potential negative consequences. There are far better drugs, and I just don't get -- I think that people do it because of the chicness or the forbidden-fruit bullcrap."

No, really, he recommends a nice spike of heroin or snort of meth instead. You know, because of the "potential negative consequences" of pot. He does admit that heroin and meth might not be a good choice if you "have to go to work the next day and get some sleep". For that, he offers cocaine as a much better alternative to cannabis.


I'm guessing there is a reason why the prosecution didn't use Hart as a witness, based on his comments. 

This is classic you.  My degree is in Biomedical sciences, forgetful is a pharmacologist, but you know more about how drugs interact with the body than either of us.

CLASSIC.

[ATL MU Warrior]

I don't think I said he was high on drugs, but said he could be influenced by them?  I can't remember anymore.   I can have an alcohol buzz and not be considered drunk (legally), yet still influenced by them...correct?

Actually, there was at least one instance where you said exactly this.  On this one you are actually talking about GM as though he were TM...but you still claim it as if it were a fact that TM was high.

There are other screen shots of his other postings, photos, etc.  Isn't it interesting that the media was able to post a nice shot of him when he was 12 years old, was able to edit Zimmerman's 911 call to make him look racist, posted a picture of GZ that made him look like the evil, plodding killer but all of these details were left out.  Hmmm.  One wonders if GZ had these facebook and twitter postings if the national media would carry them?  One wonders if GZ openly talked about lean and purple drank, was high on  marijuana if it would be reported that he was simply getting candy and ice tea (not Skittles and a specific drink to mix into a codeine cocktail).  Yes, one wonders.  

Here are some where you state as fact that TM was making Lean...that's 100% pure conjecture, not fact.  You rail against others when they do this, yet it's no problem for the great Chicos, right?

Otherwise, we can play this game forever.  If TM isn't out late at night in the rain buying skittles and Arizona drink to make some Lean, he's alive today.  If there weren't burglaries for the past few months committed by young black males, GZ isn't following TM because he isn't suspicious...thus alive today.  Etc, etc, etc.

GZ was there, should have gone back to his car, but didn't legally have to.  Linkage...of course.  Does TM die if the fight doesn't happen.  NO.  Thus, ANOTHER action had to happen.   It's a series of actions that had to happen, not just one.  Don't go out in rain to get your jonesing on to get high on your drug cocktail, you aren't dead.  Don't bash a guy's head into the cement, you aren't dead.  

This one may win the prize for disparaging a dead person.  TM wanted to be a drug dealer???  Wow.  Sad.  Pathetic.

Is being a wannabe cop the same as wanting to be a drug dealer and trying to score that stuff?  Could it have influenced him...sure, probably.  Comes down to whether that was a negative influence or not.  

Stop being so damn self-righteous.  You are acting in exactly the same way (making things up) as those you are trying to condemn.  

[MerrittsMustache]

Actually, there was at least one instance where you said exactly this.  On this one you are actually talking about GM as though he were TM...but you still claim it as if it were a fact that TM was high.
Here are some where you state as fact that TM was making Lean...that's 100% pure conjecture, not fact.  You rail against others when they do this, yet it's no problem for the great Chicos, right?
This one may win the prize for disparaging a dead person.  TM wanted to be a drug dealer???  Wow.  Sad.  Pathetic.
Stop being so damn self-righteous.  You are acting in exactly the same way (making things up) as those you are trying to condemn.  

Are you unfamiliar with Chico's work on this board?

We actually share some very similar views on this topic and I still find a lot of his posts to be insufferable.

[ATL MU Warrior]

Are you unfamiliar with Chico's work on this boards?

LOL!  Good one.   

I am familiar, but still find it galling I guess. 

[Henry Sugar]

Florida Man Arrested For Barking At Police Dog

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2013/7/21/4542752/antonio-morrison-arrest-florida-football

[StillAWarrior]

We actually share some very similar views on this topic and I still find a lot of his posts to be insufferable.

Ditto.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Well a certain political philosophy has permeated there for 40+ years and hasn't improved the situation, maybe it's time for a new philosophy.  At the very least when you read stories from law abiding citizens that watch criminals literally walk onto their porch and steal stuff in broad daylight knowing the cops will never come, what is the law abiding citizen supposed to do?  Why shouldn't they have the ability to at least fight back, or put the perception of it. 

I don't understand this idea that we go meek, just cower and let ourselves be overrun in those situations.  A person should have the right to defend his home, his family and his own life.  Fortunately most state laws agree.

If people want to arm themselves and sit on their front porch, go for it. Nobody here has said they shouldn't or can't.

I personally have implied/said that I'm not comfortable with people arming themselves, following "suspects", and then claiming self defense from an unarmed "suspect". It's not a good plan... for anybody.

[ATL MU Warrior]

Well a certain political philosophy has permeated there for 40+ years and hasn't improved the situation, maybe it's time for a new philosophy.  At the very least when you read stories from law abiding citizens that watch criminals literally walk onto their porch and steal stuff in broad daylight knowing the cops will never come, what is the law abiding citizen supposed to do?  Why shouldn't they have the ability to at least fight back, or put the perception of it. 

I don't understand this idea that we go meek, just cower and let ourselves be overrun in those situations. A person should have the right to defend his home, his family and his own life.  Fortunately most state laws agree.

Exactly who has advanced this little gem?  Nobody.

Another complete fabrication.  Surprising.

[Pakuni]

Well a certain political philosophy has permeated there for 40+ years and hasn't improved the situation, maybe it's time for a new philosophy. 

No, Chico's, Detroit's woes are not the fault of a certain political philosophy. Detroit's woes are primarily the result of the decline/migration of the auto industry and massive white flight sparked by the 1967 riots, as well as a host of other complex factors.
Must you offer a  knee-jerk "blame the liberals!" to everything?
 

At the very least when you read stories from law abiding citizens that watch criminals literally walk onto their porch and steal stuff in broad daylight knowing the cops will never come, what is the law abiding citizen supposed to do?  Why shouldn't they have the ability to at least fight back, or put the perception of it. 
I don't understand this idea that we go meek, just cower and let ourselves be overrun in those situations.  A person should have the right to defend his home, his family and his own life.  Fortunately most state laws agree.

So your solution is to shoot thieves? Is that a serious suggestion on your part? Explain to me how that revives Detroit.
And, no, Chico's, there are no state laws that say you're allowed to shoot someone for stealing something off your patio.
And, no, Chico's, not a single person here has suggested a person doesn't have the right to defend his family's or his own life.

[ATWizJr]

Exactly who has advanced this little gem?  Nobody.

Another complete fabrication.  Surprising.

A person shouldn't have the right to defend himself, his family and his property?

[ATWizJr]

No, Chico's, Detroit's woes are not the fault of a certain political philosophy. Detroit's woes are primarily the result of the decline/migration of the auto industry and massive white flight sparked by the 1967 riots, as well as a host of other complex factors.
Must you offer a  knee-jerk "blame the liberals!" to everything?
 
So your solution is to shoot thieves? Is that a serious suggestion on your part? Explain to me how that revives Detroit.
And, no, Chico's, there are no state laws that say you're allowed to shoot someone for stealing something off your patio.
And, no, Chico's, not a single person here has suggested a person doesn't have the right to defend his family's or his own life.

 

Why did the auto industry decline?  Why was there massive white flight?

[Pakuni]

 

Why did the auto industry decline?  Why was there massive white flight?

Read a book.

Cliff's notes ...

1. The Detroit auto industry decline began in the late 50s/early 60s when several smaller companies shut down and larger companies began moving production elsewhere in search of lower-priced labor. Things got worse in the 70s when American auto companies failed to keep up with international competitors and changing consumer demands (such as the smaller, more fuel-efficient  - and, not to mention, better designed and engineered - vehicles coming out of Japan).

2. White flight began slowly when the auto makers began following newly built highways out of town, but accelerated greatly after massive riots in 1967. And, to be clear, while it was primarily whites who fled, many in Detroit's black middle class - which was substantial in the 60s - left as well.

[MerrittsMustache]

Read a book.

Cliff's notes ...

1. The Detroit auto industry decline began in the late 50s/early 60s when several smaller companies shut down and larger companies began moving production elsewhere in search of lower-priced labor. Things got worse in the 70s when American auto companies failed to keep up with international competitors and changing consumer demands (such as the smaller, more fuel-efficient  - and, not to mention, better designed and engineered - vehicles coming out of Japan).

2. White flight began slowly when the auto makers began following newly built highways out of town, but accelerated greatly after massive riots in 1967. And, to be clear, while it was primarily whites who fled, many in Detroit's black middle class - which was substantial in the 60s - left as well.

What does this have to do with Jimmy Butler's t-shirt selection? Wait, have we moved off that topic?

[ATWizJr]

Read a book.

Cliff's notes ...

1. The Detroit auto industry decline began in the late 50s/early 60s when several smaller companies shut down and larger companies began moving production elsewhere in search of lower-priced labor. Things got worse in the 70s when American auto companies failed to keep up with international competitors and changing consumer demands (such as the smaller, more fuel-efficient  - and, not to mention, better designed and engineered - vehicles coming out of Japan).

2. White flight began slowly when the auto makers began following newly built highways out of town, but accelerated greatly after massive riots in 1967. And, to be clear, while it was primarily whites who fled, many in Detroit's black middle class - which was substantial in the 60s - left as well.

  Read, unions and liberal policies.  That Cliffy enough for ya'?

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

 Read, unions and liberal policies.  That Cliffy enough for ya'?

So liberal policies were responsible for making crapty, overpriced and over-sized cars that nobody wanted?

The marketplace changed, Detroit was slow to evolve/react.

The UAW has had some major issues, and that has certainly contributed to Detroit's current condition.

But, let's not get carried away.

[Pakuni]

  Read, unions and liberal policies.  That Cliffy enough for ya'?

Is that what Fox News told you?
Obviously unions are to blame for management decisions and the substandard work of designers and engineers. Everybody knows that.