Zimmerman in the news, part infinity

[coloradoatheist]

"M sees Z sitting in a car watching him and decides to run":

This part is pretty reliable. It comes from both Zimmerman's testimony and Jenteal's testimony.

"...and is gone by the time Z gets out of the car."

This part is unreliable as it only comes from 1 witness and that witness is a known liar and racist.

"We are then speculating on how they actually met, ":

Granted, they met as to how is questionable.

"...with some people saying they went through the whole neighborhood b ack and forth and Z just saying they met at the T."

I really don't care about the whole bringing up past threads to argue over points not relevant to points in the op. But because you've brought it up, Z is a racist and a liar. His testimony is untrustworthy.

"They [sic] evidence is the T with one witness who only stated at trial she heard something the other direction and no neighbors further down hearing the struggle or running first."

Some things you think you know, such as the location of the car, is verified by anything other than Zimmerman's testimony which is suspect since he is a racist and a liar. And virtually nothing you are saying is relevant to the op. Besides that, there is no reason for the one witness to be lying and the phone location is physical evidence in support of that scenario. The only thing to counter it is Zimmerman's testimony which is unreliable now. Of course, none of this remains relevant to much.

"So the T was within visual site of the car and only about 200 or so feet, not far [sic] to say that that was being chased very far."

First, who said he was being chased very far? Second, it doesn't matter how far Zimmerman chased after him with a gun after he ran away. Even chasing someone without a gun who is running away is an aggressive action. These points aren't very relevant to the issues the op brings up either about Zimmerman's honesty and his racism.

I suggest instead of trying to resurrect old irrelevant arguments, you look at the misbehaviors in the op and try to imagine how they apply to the old situation. There simply isn't a need to re-discuss EVERY old point, only the ones made relevant by these new data shown by the op.

It's like those logic puzzles where you know one tribe always lies and the other tells the truth so you need to find the one question to get on your way. It's funny that you will also accept jeantel's story with no questions even though she told about the incident a long time after the event and after influenced by M's parents and lawyers

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It's like those logic puzzles where you know one tribe always lies and the other tells the truth so you need to find the one question to get on your way. It's funny that you will also accept jeantel's story with no questions even though she told about the incident a long time after the event and after influenced by M's parents and lawyers

Only one person was armed with a gun and looking for trouble that night.

 

[coloradoatheist]

It's like those logic puzzles where you know one tribe always lies and the other tells the truth so you need to find the one question to get on your way. It's funny that you will also accept jeantel's story with no questions even though she told about the incident a long time after the event and after influenced by M's parents and lawyers

Only one person was armed with a gun and looking for trouble that night.

Define looking for trouble. But yes on the first part.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Only one person was armed with a gun and looking for trouble that night.

Define looking for trouble. But yes on the first part.

He was literally looking for trouble, someone looking to break into a home. And he wanted to play the hero.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Define looking for trouble. But yes on the first part.

He was literally looking for trouble, someone looking to break into a home. And he wanted to play the hero.

But that's not describing looking for trouble, you are describing looking to be a hero, big difference.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

He was literally looking for trouble, someone looking to break into a home. And he wanted to play the hero.

But that's not describing looking for trouble, you are describing looking to be an angry racist vigilante, big difference.

FIFY.

- - - Updated - - -

"M sees Z sitting in a car watching him and decides to run":

This part is pretty reliable. It comes from both Zimmerman's testimony and Jenteal's testimony.

"...and is gone by the time Z gets out of the car."

This part is unreliable as it only comes from 1 witness and that witness is a known liar and racist.

"We are then speculating on how they actually met, ":

Granted, they met as to how is questionable.

"...with some people saying they went through the whole neighborhood b ack and forth and Z just saying they met at the T."

I really don't care about the whole bringing up past threads to argue over points not relevant to points in the op. But because you've brought it up, Z is a racist and a liar. His testimony is untrustworthy.

"They [sic] evidence is the T with one witness who only stated at trial she heard something the other direction and no neighbors further down hearing the struggle or running first."

Some things you think you know, such as the location of the car, is verified by anything other than Zimmerman's testimony which is suspect since he is a racist and a liar. And virtually nothing you are saying is relevant to the op. Besides that, there is no reason for the one witness to be lying and the phone location is physical evidence in support of that scenario. The only thing to counter it is Zimmerman's testimony which is unreliable now. Of course, none of this remains relevant to much.

"So the T was within visual site of the car and only about 200 or so feet, not far [sic] to say that that was being chased very far."

First, who said he was being chased very far? Second, it doesn't matter how far Zimmerman chased after him with a gun after he ran away. Even chasing someone without a gun who is running away is an aggressive action. These points aren't very relevant to the issues the op brings up either about Zimmerman's honesty and his racism.

I suggest instead of trying to resurrect old irrelevant arguments, you look at the misbehaviors in the op and try to imagine how they apply to the old situation. There simply isn't a need to re-discuss EVERY old point, only the ones made relevant by these new data shown by the op.

It's like those logic puzzles where you know one tribe always lies and the other tells the truth so you need to find the one question to get on your way. It's funny that you will also accept jeantel's story with no questions even though she told about the incident a long time after the event and after influenced by M's parents and lawyers

I didn't actually do that, but nice try.

 

[laughing dog]

He was literally looking for trouble, someone looking to break into a home. And he wanted to play the hero.

But that's not describing looking for trouble, you are describing looking to be a hero, big difference.

Heroes deal with trouble. So if you are looking to be a hero, you are looking for trouble. More importantly, most heroes do not go around looking to be heroic - they simply react to surprise situation.

 

[coloradoatheist]

But that's not describing looking for trouble, you are describing looking to be a hero, big difference.

Heroes deal with trouble. So if you are looking to be a hero, you are looking for trouble. More importantly, most heroes do not go around looking to be heroic - they simply react to surprise situation.

Looking for suspicious activity in your neighborhood is not going around looking to be heroic and neither is trying to help the police try and track down suspicious activity. It's like the left doesn't want crime to be investigated or stopped.

 

[RavenSky]

No because Zimmerman was an aggressive, maniac, racist with a gun running after him and Martin therefore concluded he was fighting for his life which it turns out he was.

Out of the 4 only one of those weakly applies to what M knew about Z.

aggressive, maniac, racist with a gun running after him

I count three of 5 strongly applying

 

[RavenSky]

Heroes deal with trouble. So if you are looking to be a hero, you are looking for trouble. More importantly, most heroes do not go around looking to be heroic - they simply react to surprise situation.

Looking for suspicious activity in your neighborhood is not going around looking to be heroic and neither is trying to help the police try and track down suspicious activity. It's like the left doesn't want crime to be investigated or stopped.

Chasing after someone who was NOT EVEN BREAKING ANY LAWS with your gun IS looking to be a vigilante and is a maniac move.

Sitting his fat ass in his truck and only calling the police would have been "looking for suspicious activity in your neighborhood" and would not have resulted in him murdering an innocent young man

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But that's not describing looking for trouble, you are describing looking to be an angry racist vigilante, big difference.

FIFY.

I don't know if he was racist, but he certainly was an armed racially profiling vigilante.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Out of the 4 only one of those weakly applies to what M knew about Z.

aggressive, maniac, racist with a gun running after him

I count three of 5 strongly applying

This is from M's point. The gun was never mentioned and there no yell for help regarding gun. And for running Z stopped on the phone and it wasn't mentioned by J as Z running, just following. So all you have as aggressive, and that is weak.

- - - Updated - - -

Looking for suspicious activity in your neighborhood is not going around looking to be heroic and neither is trying to help the police try and track down suspicious activity. It's like the left doesn't want crime to be investigated or stopped.

Chasing after someone who was NOT EVEN BREAKING ANY LAWS with your gun IS looking to be a vigilante and is a maniac move.

Sitting his fat ass in his truck and only calling the police would have been "looking for suspicious activity in your neighborhood" and would not have resulted in him murdering an innocent young man

It's considered a bad idea because normally criminals don't take too lightly to be watched or turned over to the police.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Looking for suspicious activity in your neighborhood is not going around looking to be heroic and neither is trying to help the police try and track down suspicious activity. It's like the left doesn't want crime to be investigated or stopped.

Chasing after someone who was NOT EVEN BREAKING ANY LAWS with your gun IS looking to be a vigilante and is a maniac move.

Sitting his fat ass in his truck and only calling the police would have been "looking for suspicious activity in your neighborhood" and would not have resulted in him murdering an innocent young man

It's considered a bad idea because normally criminals don't take too lightly to be watched or turned over to the police.

Or rapists, waiting to kidnap a teen.

 

[laughing dog]

Heroes deal with trouble. So if you are looking to be a hero, you are looking for trouble. More importantly, most heroes do not go around looking to be heroic - they simply react to surprise situation.

Looking for suspicious activity in your neighborhood is not going around looking to be heroic and neither is trying to help the police try and track down suspicious activity. It's like the left doesn't want crime to be investigated or stopped.

You are the one who wrote "But that's not describing looking for trouble, you are describing looking to be a hero, big difference." Now you are contradicting yourself. Moreover, if Zimmerman was really just trying to help the police, he would have just stayed put (like he was told by the police) after he called them.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

FIFY.

I don't know if he was racist, but he certainly was an armed racially profiling vigilante.

How closely did you read the op and link? You might want to take another look:

Before Zimmerman left the bar, he told the manager, "I didn't know you were a (racial expletive) lover," deputies said. There were also reports of Zimmerman's friends using racial slurs toward other customers throughout the night.

Just to be clear, I don't want to get into everything about the original Dying for Skittles thread and all those hundred pages and follow-up issues.... In the case of the op, though, Zimmerman proves his real feelings by demonstrating what he has held inside. He lets it out when angry. So applying that to the old situation...

 

[coloradoatheist]

Looking for suspicious activity in your neighborhood is not going around looking to be heroic and neither is trying to help the police try and track down suspicious activity. It's like the left doesn't want crime to be investigated or stopped.

You are the one who wrote "But that's not describing looking for trouble, you are describing looking to be a hero, big difference." Now you are contradicting yourself. Moreover, if Zimmerman was really just trying to help the police, he would have just stayed put (like he was told by the police) after he called them.

But that wasn't the operator's instruction. It was to stop following him which after the guy said it you can hear Zimmerman slow down. And the operator said stop following and since he had lost site of him, he's no longer following. The instructions weren't, go get in the car.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You are the one who wrote "But that's not describing looking for trouble, you are describing looking to be a hero, big difference." Now you are contradicting yourself. Moreover, if Zimmerman was really just trying to help the police, he would have just stayed put (like he was told by the police) after he called them.

But that wasn't the operator's instruction. It was to stop following him which after the guy said it you can hear Zimmerman slow down. And the operator said stop following and since he had lost site of him, he's no longer following. The instructions weren't, go get in the car.

The instructions in his training were to never get out of the car in the first place. The police officer was repeating to him what he already knew in the training. Therefore, that repetition should have reminded a reasonable person to get back in the car.

 

[coloradoatheist]

But that wasn't the operator's instruction. It was to stop following him which after the guy said it you can hear Zimmerman slow down. And the operator said stop following and since he had lost site of him, he's no longer following. The instructions weren't, go get in the car.

The instructions in his training were to never get out of the car in the first place. The police officer was repeating to him what he already knew in the training. Therefore, that repetition should have reminded a reasonable person to get back in the car.

He wasn't on the job at the time, and there are no Neighborhood watch certifications that you must have like a MD or Law degree for official conduct. And there is no law that says you must stay in your vehicle. The operator had no problem with having the officer meet Z somewhere else besides his car which was agreement with Z being out of the car.

 

[laughing dog]

You are the one who wrote "But that's not describing looking for trouble, you are describing looking to be a hero, big difference." Now you are contradicting yourself. Moreover, if Zimmerman was really just trying to help the police, he would have just stayed put (like he was told by the police) after he called them.

But that wasn't the operator's instruction. It was to stop following him which after the guy said it you can hear Zimmerman slow down. And the operator said stop following and since he had lost site of him, he's no longer following. The instructions weren't, go get in the car.

Splitting that hair does not deal with your internal contradictions. You wrote of Zimmerman's following of Martin "that's not describing looking for trouble, you are describing looking to be a hero, big difference." and subsequently wrote "Looking for suspicious activity in your neighborhood is not going around looking to be heroic and neither is trying to help the police try and track down suspicious activity. " If you wish your position to be taken seriously, it should be internally consistent.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The instructions in his training were to never get out of the car in the first place. The police officer was repeating to him what he already knew in the training. Therefore, that repetition should have reminded a reasonable person to get back in the car.

He wasn't on the job at the time, ...

JOB? Neighborhood watchman isn't a paid job, it's a voluntary activity and he volunteered to be the neighborhood watch captain!

Correction: George Zimmerman got the official position of Neighborhood Watch program coordinator. His position meant he needed to recruit block captains in addition to normal tasks.

...and there are no Neighborhood watch certifications that you must have like a MD or Law degree for official conduct.

Zimmerman observed a presentation and received handouts about how to accomplish the position he obtained. The presentation included how to act and therefore is considered training he completed. Likewise, the handouts were also training. These instructional materials, both the presentation and handouts, tell people not to follow suspicious people.

And there is no law that says you must stay in your vehicle.

It's called reckless endangerment in many states and in Florida it's called culpable negligence.

As defined under Florida case law and the Florida Standard Jury Instructions, “Culpable Negligence” is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard for human life, or for the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness, recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard for the safety and welfare of others.

Under Section 784.05, Florida Statutes, the crime of Culpable Negligence consists of two elements: (1) the accused exposed a person to personal injury or inflicted personal injury on that person, and (2) the accused did so with “culpable negligence.” If the incident of Culpable Negligence involves a child gaining access to firearms (a third degree felony), it must also be shown that the accused stored or left the loaded firearm within the reach or easy access of the minor.

The operator had no problem with having the officer meet Z somewhere else besides his car which was agreement with Z being out of the car.

That was an agreement with Z being out of the car at the same time as the officers, not necessarily before the officers arrived on scene and without knowledge that Zimmerman had a personal firearm.

Besides that, an agreement that Z could do A is not an agreement that Z could do B. So for example it is not an agreement that Z could confront M. Since the officers did not want Z to follow M and since Z's training said not to confront M, he had no approval to do so.

NOT THAT ANY of this rehash has anything significant to do with the OP....

So why are you evading the specific ramifications of the op to the situation Zimmerman put himself in?

I will write to you again:

I suggest instead of trying to resurrect old irrelevant arguments, you look at the misbehaviors in the op and try to imagine how they apply to the old situation. There simply isn't a need to re-discuss EVERY old point, only the ones made relevant by these new data shown by the op.