Trayvon Martin: 'Shoot first' law under scrutiny

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Bay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
seekerz said:
Dispatcher: Which entrance is that that he’s heading towards?
Zimmerman: The back entrance…****ing [unintelligible]

Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah

Dispatcher: Ok, we don’t need you to do that.
Zimmerman: **Ok **

Source
Click to expand...
Not

We need you to not do that
 
seekerz said:
I’m not sure who you’re quoting those claims from because I know of no single entity who has made all of these 7 claims. So there is a lot of generalizing happening on both side of the story; most of which would not have arisen if the matter had been properly handled initially.

As to whose telling the truth about what, let’s wait and see…
Click to expand...
Indeed.
 
OrdinaryMelkite said:
Yet you are shooting down or explaining away every speculation that GZ’s actions may have been anything less than totally honest and honorable.

Almost as if you have already made up your mind that GZ’s was justified in what he did and TM’s was wrong.

And people are doing the opposite in regards to TM, as well, to be honest.

Just seems you are saying do not rush to judgement" when you basically seem to be implying the same thing for the other side.
Correct me if I am wrong.

Trayvon had every right to be where he was, remember that. Why was Zimmerman following him?

And just what was “suspicious” about Trayvon that exacted GZ’s curiosity? That he was out late at night?

Nobody has determined that
Click to expand...
If you think replacing innuendo with documented fact is advocating someone’s death then you have a problem that I can’t help you with.
 
seekerz said:
I’m not sure who you’re quoting those claims from because I know of no single entity who has made all of these 7 claims. So there is a lot of generalizing happening on both side of the story; most of which would not have arisen if the matter had been properly handled initially.

As to whose telling the truth about what, let’s wait and see…
Click to expand...
We don’t know if the case was mishandled, yet. Unless you’ve seen a report from the Feds that I haven’t. And if you have and you didn’t share…well that’s just not very nice. 😛
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
That would certainly aid pubic trial by lynch mob.

Alternatively, update your opinions as new information becomes available.
Click to expand...
There is no lynch mob here, unless you have your own personal definition of the world lynch. One way to win a dispute is to exaggerate the opponents claims; I have not heard a single person ask for Zimmerman to be brought out to face vigilante justice. All I have heard, from the outset are demands for his arrest and trial. How that translates to “lynch mob” is beyond me…
 
SamH said:
Not

We need you to not do that
Click to expand...
Oh-----------so it’s a matter of subtle semantics then??? :confused:

Sounds like the same meaning to me. And I don’t think GZ was looking to discern the meaning of a sentence right at that moment.

Again, sounds like the same meaning to me. But if you see something I don’t (i.e., I’m wrong) and have more knowledge than me of sentence meaning, please ennlighten me. :rolleyes:
 
OrdinaryMelkite said:
Oh-----------so it’s a matter of subtle semantics then??? :confused:

Sounds like the same meaning to me. And I don’t think GZ was looking to discern the meaning of a sentence right at that moment.

Again, sounds like the same meaning to me. But if you see something I don’t (i.e., I’m wrong) and have more knowledge than me of sentence meaning, please ennlighten me. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
No, it a matter of changing the words to mean something else than what was actually said.

quot·ed, quot·ing, quotes
v.tr.
  1. To repeat or copy the words of (another), usually with acknowledgment of the source.
  2. To cite or refer to for illustration or proof.
  3. To repeat a brief passage or excerpt from:
 
Bocephus said:
So, unless Eric Holder and Obama themselves come down and do their own Sherlock Holmes investigation and convict George as Judge, Jury and Executioner. Your going to call every lawyer a liar?
Click to expand...
Did you see me do that? I have no idea what you mean about Obama and Holder playing Sherlock Holmes; it is their duty to see that justice in not only done, but is seen to be done. Maybe there was a time when human life could be disposed of according to arbitrary social ‘values’ with no answers to next of kin - that time is no more.
 
seekerz said:
There is no lynch mob here, unless you have your own personal definition of the world lynch. One way to win a dispute is to exaggerate the opponents claims; I have not heard a single person ask for Zimmerman to be brought out to face vigilante justice. All I have heard, from the outset are demands for his arrest and trial. How that translates to “lynch mob” is beyond me…
Click to expand...
He’s generalizing the “bounty” that the Panthers made and some of the more extreme comments of Sharpton and Jackson with ALL people involved with the Martins or in the media.

Basically “transferring.” Some extremists call for extreme actions----which even TM’s parents have repudiated-----therefore that means EVERYBODY wants vigilante justice.:rolleyes:

In fact, Trayvon’s parents and their lawyer said on Geraldo that calling for vigilantism against Zimmerman goes down to the level of what THEY FEEL Zimmerman cimmitted against their son.

Basically, they are angry with the “racializing” of this---------without even stopping to ask whether there is evidence of this having an element of racism to it.

I do not know-----I just think all sides need to be looked into and considered before the recom mendation of what to do by the District Attorney comes through.

That’s what we should do.
 
OrdinaryMelkite said:
Oh-----------so it’s a matter of subtle semantics then??? :confused:

Sounds like the same meaning to me. And I don’t think GZ was looking to discern the meaning of a sentence right at that moment.

Again, sounds like the same meaning to me. But if you see something I don’t (i.e., I’m wrong) and have more knowledge than me of sentence meaning, please ennlighten me. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
There is a huge difference between saying you don’t have to do something and not to do something. The first is a suggestion, the second an order.

If your doctor tells you that you don’t need to eat a cookie before coming to see him, would you think that was directive not to eat a cookie before coming to see him?
 
iamrefreshed said:
I never claimed he was justified to anyone other than himself.

And justify is obviously a personal opinion. For example your justify may be very different from someone on a neighborhood watch that has seen a rash of recent crime in their neighborhood.
Click to expand...
Crime happens everywhere and there are ways of protecting property that do not include shadowing every stranger arbitrarily deemed to be ‘suspicious’. At my house, we have one of those means in place - it’s called a security system.
 
The most interesting part of the 911 call to me is the end. It sounds like George lost him and was going to wait for the police at the mailboxes. The dispatcher said, “We don’t need you to do that” and his response was “Ok”. At what point did he run into Martin again? Did Martin double back and come after Zimmerman or did Zimmerman not wait where he said he would and continue driving around for a minute?
 
seekerz said:
There is no lynch mob here, unless you have your own personal definition of the world lynch. One way to win a dispute is to exaggerate the opponents claims; I have not heard a single person ask for Zimmerman to be brought out to face vigilante justice. All I have heard, from the outset are demands for his arrest and trial. How that translates to “lynch mob” is beyond me…
Click to expand...
Demands for arrest and trial, without following due process (police investigation, formal charges, etc) = VIGILANTE JUSTICE.

I for one don’t feel most will be satisfied without not just an investigation, but a conviction.
 
seekerz said:
So 17 summers (he had just turned 17 if my info serves me right), does that make a real difference to his innocence in this matter?
Click to expand...
He was definitely young. Whether he was entirely innocent in this matter is an unknown. I’m beginning to think that only God knows that and the rest of us won’t find out in this life.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top