For police, the goal is vigilance, not vigilantes

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Sock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
How did you arrive at that conclusion? Your statements are incorrect. You keep saying that TM saw the gun and was defending himself. If he saw the gun, it would have been while Z was on the ground that is after TM had hit him. No matter how you cut it TM was not defending himself. You attack Z without credible evidence.
How do YOU possibly know when TM saw the gun?
You don’t.

I haven’t attacked GZ
The truth is he is not stellar little angel of a do gooder citizen by any means. Not someone who attacks a police officer and a girlfriend.

Now if people want to explain and makes excuses for this too why not murder of an innocent kid.

Was he an angel? No but I don’t try to say
Oh No He REALLY didn’t try to skip school he really didn’t do this and that, it’s REALLY
this excuse and the other.

He gently put his hand on the police officer who was leading his friend away.
REALLy?
 
Since he had told his girlfriend that he had lost him than there was not reason he should not have gone to where he was staying instead of returning to someone who was following him. Does the police recommend you confront someone who is following him. He should have called the police or if he didn’t want to lead him to the place he was staying go back to the store. You can’t get over the fact he hit Z not because he was defending himself but because he was annoyed at he “cracker” following him. What cause the whole thing was not Z following but TM attacking Z.
**
Perspective taking**: What’s the other person’s perspective?
 
Mary- I’m not saying he was an angel. ETA: to be clear, he put his hand on the plain clothes officer’s shoulder- hence the change. However, given the circumstances I would not describe it as a violent assault. If he and his friend were both lying/wrong about the police identifying themselves (I don’t know if there were other witnesses), than he did assault a police officer. But I wouldn’t agree he was ‘lucky the police officer didn’t shoot him.’ I would call into question an officer shooting under these circumstances.

But the circumstances do give some insight to what both the DA and the defense attorney in that case may have been thinking in doing the Alcohol Rehab. If there were no witnesses, it would come down to a he-said, he-said case for the prosecutor. Not a guarantee at all, particularly for someone with no record. If there are any witnesses confirming the police didn’t identify themselves, it’s a loser. With deferral, its something to hold over Zimmerman in the event of a future problem. And he closes a case quickly.

If your’e Zimmerman’s attorney, here’s the deal (assuming $300/hr for an ok, but not great attorney). If Zimmerman decides to fight it in court:

If you fight it, and you could lose:
  • Initial meeting 1 hr 300
  • Court representation prep 1 hr 300
  • Court time initial hearing 2 hrs 600 (1 hr in court, 1hr travel time)
  • Phone calls for preps 1 hr 300
  • initial filing docs 100
  • Preps for depositions 2hrs 600
  • Depose Zs friend 2 hrs 600
  • Depose two officers 4 hrs 1200
  • secretary for deposition 300 (transcribe and write up)
  • Private investigator locate witnesses 500
  • Depose witnesses (assume 1) 600
  • secretary for deposition 100
  • Discovery analysis 4 hrs 1200
  • Research precedent 1 hr 300
  • Prepare motion to dismiss 300
  • File motion 100
  • Calls with client on case 2 hrs 600
  • Analyse/respond to prosecution
    opposition to dismissal 2 hrs 600
  • Court hearing on motions 2 hrs 600
  • Prep witnesses for court 4 hrs 1200
  • Jury selection/court time
    to hear case assume 8 hrs 2400
  • In court for verdict 2 hrs 600
Total est to defend himself 14,400 (I’m not a lawyer, so anybody who is, feel free to chime in)

Now. Regardless of who’s telling the truth. (and they probably both are, maybe cops Id’d themselves but Z and friend didn’t hear it- not expecting it and focused on other things-- and attention capability impaired by alcohol).

So, you’re Z. The lawyer says- hey, DA has offered rehab and deferment, and will drop the charges. 1,200 for my time and no record. OR

you can fight it, ~14,400, with no guarantee on how the jury will see it.

What would you do?
I’m not a police officer wanna be; so he was buddying up to A police officerby gently putting his hand on the police officer’s shoulder AND got an assault charge?
Ok then…
NOT
 
Do police truly recommend if you are being followed by some overzealous “creep” you go home so they now know where you live and can follow you yet there?
:eek:
I’m 99.9% sure the police would recommend you call 911 from your cell phone and/or go home and call 911. I very much doubt that they would recommend going back to find the person who was following you and confront them.
40.png
MaryT777:
It’s prudent to hit anyone to defend your life. Too bad TM didn’t get the gun and have more restraint than GZ just shooting someone. Then the police could have handled it.
Hopefully then GZ wouldn’t assault that police officer though and has learned his lesson.
So, after punching him in the nose and banging his head into the concrete, it’s too bad Martin wasn’t able to get Zimmerman’s gun??
 
I’m 99.9% sure the police would recommend you call 911 from your cell phone and/or go home and call 911. I very much doubt that they would recommend going back to find the person who was following you and confront them.

So, after punching him in the nose and banging his head into the concrete, it’s too bad Martin wasn’t able to get Zimmerman’s gun??
The police recommend no such thing; they recommend you go to a public area. You can be shot in the dark by a vigilante waiting around for the police to arrive as you are being followed.

TM has every right to go back and ask why he is being followed as much as GZ has a right to follow someone creepy as it IS. He is no stranger to trolling around after people though;
did it before with a girlfriend. Oh that’s right. she is LYING. angel George would never DO that? Past behavior predicts future behavior.

TM saw the gun before he assaulted him, and yes he should have got GZ 's gun to defend himself before he was shot; he tried but this “thug” wasn’t getting away on GZ’s deadly WATCH.

(It’s neighborhood WATCH, for a reason, WATCH not act let the police do that )
 
How do YOU possibly know when TM saw the gun?
You don’t.
:rolleyes:It is you who keeps saying that he saw the gun and grabbed for it. You based this on the statement Z made. But Z said that he reached for the gun after he was on his back. You can’t accept part of a statement as true and dismiss the rest. You are the one who tries to make a scenario where TM is defending himself in spite of all the evidence that he was the aggressor.
I haven’t attacked GZ
Warning! Warning! attack coming.
The truth is he is not stellar little angel of a do gooder citizen by any means. Not someone who attacks a police officer and a girlfriend.
Now if people want to explain and makes excuses for this too why not murder of an innocent kid.
:tsktsk:
Was he an angel? No but I don’t try to say
Oh No He REALLY didn’t try to skip school he really didn’t do this and that, it’s REALLY
this excuse and the other.
Yeah you are excusing him for breaking someones nose. I have aske this question before
Once Z was on the ground being slammed against the cement what should have done instead of using the gun?
He gently put his hand on the police officer who was leading his friend away.
REALLy?
What does this have to do with the fact the TM had him on the ground attacking Z?
 
The police recommend no such thing; they recommend you go to a public area. You can be shot in the dark by a vigilante waiting around for the police to arrive as you are being followed.
They don’t recommend you call 911? They prefer that you confront the person following you?
TM has every right to go back and ask why he is being followed as much as GZ has a right to follow someone creepy as it IS.
The “right?” Sure. But, would police recommend it? Was it the right thing to do? Are you truly trying to defend yourself, when you go back to confront a follower who has lost you?
**TM saw the gun before he assaulted him, **and yes he should have got GZ 's gun to defend himself before he was shot;
He did? What’s your source?
 
The police recommend no such thing; they recommend you go to a public area. You can be shot in the dark by a vigilante waiting around for the police to arrive as you are being followed.

TM has every right to go back and ask why he is being followed as much as GZ has a right to follow someone creepy as it IS. He is no stranger to trolling around after people though;
did it before with a girlfriend. Oh that’s right. she is LYING. angel George would never DO that? Past behavior predicts future behavior.

TM saw the gun before he assaulted him, and yes he should have got GZ 's gun to defend himself before he was shot; he tried but this “thug” wasn’t getting away on GZ’s deadly WATCH.

(It’s neighborhood WATCH, for a reason, WATCH not act let the police do that )
Perspective? I don’t know though, I’m a little shaky on your view of stand your ground. Little shy of that theory, I’m to old for the 4-minute sessions with 18 yo athletes, two minute for that matter.

But hey long at everyone keeps talking in peaceful dialogue in the communities, then only good can come out of it. I think its called purifying the land for the sake of the good.
 
:rolleyes:It is you who keeps saying that he saw the gun and grabbed for it. You based this on the statement Z made. But Z said that he reached for the gun after he was on his back. You can’t accept part of a statement as true and dismiss the rest. You are the one who tries to make a scenario where TM is defending himself in spite of all the evidence that he was the aggressor.

Warning! Warning! attack coming.

:tsktsk:

Yeah you are excusing him for breaking someones nose. I have aske this question before
Once Z was on the ground being slammed against the cement what should have done instead of using the gun?

What does this have to do with the fact the TM had him on the ground attacking Z?
TM attacked GZ because he saw the gun. Yes you can break the nose of a person
who might kill you with their gun and is a citizen trying to detain you. Why else was GZ following TM on foot ? To “catch” him of course. Thug that he was (up to no good and on drugs- that alone shows you the poor judgment of GZ-following someone as such)

GZ should learn that Neighborhood WATCH is named as such because it’s WATCH
not ACT and kill someone)

If he had stayed in his car TM would not have seen his gun and had to defend himself.
 
The police recommend no such thing; they recommend you go to a public area. You can be shot in the dark by a vigilante waiting around for the police to arrive as you are being followed.
Police do not recommend that you confront the person following you. They recommend changing directions, go into the nearest store or public place and calling the police. TM did none of these things.
TM has every right to go back and ask why he is being followed
Not recommend by the police. There is a difference in asking and attacking.
as much as GZ has a right to follow someone creepy as it IS.
Personal opinion.
He is no stranger to trolling around after people though;did it before with a girlfriend. Oh that’s right. she is LYING. angel George would never DO that? Past behavior predicts future behavior.
Unsubstantiated accusation.
TM saw the gun before he assaulted him
Statement contrary to facts.

, and
yes he should have got GZ 's gun to defend himself before he was shot; he tried but this “thug” wasn’t getting away on GZ’s deadly WATCH.
Statement contrary to facts.
(It’s neighborhood WATCH, for a reason, WATCH not act let the police do that )
It TM hadn’t of attacked Z that is all that is would have been. Z called the police and was waiting for them. TM attacked him that is what the evidence shows.
 
They don’t recommend you call 911? They prefer that you confront the person following you?

The “right?” Sure. But, would police recommend it? Was it the right thing to do? Are you truly trying to defend yourself, when you go back to confront a follower who has lost you?

He did? What’s your source?
This has all been addressed; the rest is pure speculation.
 
Police do not recommend that you confront the person following you. They recommend changing directions, go into the nearest store or public place and calling the police. TM did none of these things.

Not recommend by the police. There is a difference in asking and attacking.

Personal opinion.

Unsubstantiated accusation.

Statement contrary to facts.

When people post in snippets in the middle of a post it’s near impossible to address as you can’t quote back your own post then that was quoted.

, and
Statement contrary to facts.

It TM hadn’t of attacked Z that is all that is would have been. Z called the police and was waiting for them. TM attacked him that is what the evidence shows.
 
TM attacked GZ because he saw the gun.
Fiction contrary to fact.
Yes you can break the nose of a person
who might kill you with their gun and is a citizen trying to detain you.
Contrary to fact.
Why else was GZ following TM on foot ? To “catch” him of course. Thug that he was (up to no good and on drugs- that alone shows you the poor judgment of GZ-following someone as such)
Unsubstantiated opinion. He had stopped following him. He had lost him did not know where TM was until he came back and assaulted him.
GZ should learn that Neighborhood WATCH is named as such because it’s WATCH
not ACT and kill someone)
Watching was all that he was doing.
If he had stayed in his car TM would not have seen his gun :rolleyes:and had to defend himself.
Fiction unsubstantiated by the evidence.
 
Fiction contrary to fact.

Contrary to fact.

Unsubstantiated opinion. He had stopped following him. He had lost him did not know where TM was until he came back and assaulted him.

Watching was all that he was doing.

Fiction unsubstantiated by the evidence.
If snippets of the quote are posted and responded to the entire post doesn’t show so it’s difficult to respond to. If you use quote, and respond below my quote shows up as well so it’s easier to FOLLOW the dialogue.
 
This repeated talk of “Perspective taking” is not only redundant, it’s annoying, adds nothing to the topic, has already been addressed, and only shows that posters here can’t follow each others arguments.

I thought this was about vigilantes, when did it suddenly become about Zimmerman? I had hoped that talk of him would be over after the trial was done. Seems I was hoping in vain.
 
If snippets of the quote are posted and responded to the entire post doesn’t show so it’s difficult to respond to. If you use quote, and respond below my quote shows up as well so it’s easier to FOLLOW the dialogue.
The entire post is there not just snippets. I answered your post point by point which isn’t hard to follow.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top