General Political Thread

[Tweedling]

"negro"

Sheez.

[Good Old Neon]

And George Zimmerman was also walking down the street. Legally. No crime was committed that night until Trayvon Martin began beating Zimmerman and threatening to kill him.

 

And yet, in the 911 transcript, he's actively pursing Martin for walking down the street - after being instructed otherwise.

 

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

Those defending Zimmerman's actions are either being willfully obtuse or an asshole.

 

Where ya been pal?

 

[Good Old Neon]

Martin's not allowed to "Stand His Ground" in the face of a threatening stranger?

No, apparently.

 

I guess I'll just have to assume you're not familiar with all the cases in which teenagers, returning from convenience stores have lured grown men out of their cars with the promise of scrumptious Skittles, and then attempted to abduct and/or murder them. So, as you can clearly see, it was obviously Zimmerman, and not Martin who should have been terrified.

[Hixter]

Martin's not allowed to "Stand His Ground" in the face of a threatening stranger?

Not under the law. If you'll read the statute here, you'll see that the majority of the law pertains to illegally and forcefully entering dwellings and vehicles -- better known as "The Castle Doctrine." The only part that is even close to applying is this:

 

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Matin wasn't attacked, so it doesn't apply. Zimmerman, however ...

 

And yet, in the 911 transcript, he's actively pursing Martin for walking down the street - after being instructed otherwise.

 

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html

Simply untrue. The transcript does not say any such thing.

[Good Old Neon]

 

Simply untrue. The transcript does not say any such thing.

 

Dispatcher: Are you following him?

Zimmerman: Yeah.

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

 

In another version of events.

 

Wife: Are you stopping to pick up a pizza?

Me: Yeah.

Wife: Ok, we don’t need you to do that.

Me: Ok, I’ll head home – love you.

 

We can play symantics and word games all day, and yet, and the end of the day, it's clear Zimmerman was basically told to back off - but didn't.

[NoJ]

Wasnt Martin stalked and then accosted on the street by a self appointed "law man"?

[Mr. Heartbreak]

We need to lighten this thread up. Here is how New York City (and CT, I can vouch for us) sees the country. It's supposed to be funny, but it's actually pretty accurate...even when we have been to these places.

[Atticus]

I don't have any big hats.

[LouieB]

Once again I don't know why we are even talking about this.  Hixter does think it was perfectly okay for Zimmerman to shoot Martin because his life was in danger.  How he put his life in danger is really not germane to the conversation. It was enough that he had a gun and he got to use it under FLA law. 

 

Remember this is a person who owns a gun strong enough to shoot a person in half in case he needs it against an intruder.  No one is going to fuck with him and Trayvon Martin should have not fucked with George Zimmerman because the dude was packing.  So Zimmerman got out of his car and followed him even when it was strongly suggested that he NOT do that by the police dispatcher.  According to Hixter he was not obligated to pay attention to the dispatcher because, after all, this is a free country and we can do whatever we want. 

 

Lou

[Hixter]

Dispatcher: Are you following him?

Zimmerman: Yeah.

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

And what happened after that? He made arrangements to walk back to his truck and meet the police. That's when Martin surprised him and began beating him.

 

it's clear Zimmerman was basically told to back off - but didn't.

Nope. Not at all.

[Hixter]

So Zimmerman got out of his car and followed him even when it was strongly suggested that he NOT do that by the police dispatcher. 

Incorrect. He followed him before the dispatcher said "We don't need you to do that.

 

And thanks for putting words in my mouth yet again.

[Atticus]

Once again I don't know why we are even talking about this.  

 

I think it stems from the general inclination of members of a message to post posts on the message board--particularly when others on the message board aren't agreeing with the viewpoint of the poster.

[LouieB]

Incorrect. He followed him before the dispatcher said "We don't need you to do that.

 

And thanks for putting words in my mouth yet again.

So why didn't he back off? You keep defending a guy who shot a teenager who didn't invade his home or initially threaten him in any way. 

 

LouieB

[Good Old Neon]

And what happened after that? He made arrangements to walk back to his truck and meet the police. That's when Martin surprised him and began beating him.

 

Nope. Not at all.

 

According to Zimmerman - who, has a criminal past - both counts of which are related to violence against another person.

 

As far as "Nope. Not at all." Once again, you're ignoring what is being laid clearly at your feet, and willfully ignoring it. Tell me, how often do police dispatchers tell bystanders to get involved and pursue a suspected suspect? I'll answer the question for you -  never.

[Magnetized]

Once again I don't know why we are even talking about this. 

 

This. Seriously. Honestly, I never thought so many Wilco fans would find guns and gun-related topics so endlessly absorbing. I just glance at the thread every few days and shake my head. Sorry, Hixter, your infallible politeness and dedication to responding to every single point that anyone makes is just bizarre. No one is changing anyone's mind around here. It's just endless yammering on about the same damn thing, interspersed with minutiae about court testimony. It is so BORING and such a waste of creative energy. I suppose I can just choose to ignore it completely, but I keep hoping the thread will change course at some point.

[Hixter]

So why didn't he back off?

I've said it a dozen times -- including just a few minutes ago -- but I'll say it again: Zimmerman did back off. He was walking back to his truck to meet the cops when Martin jumped him and began beating him.

 

You keep defending a guy who shot a teenager who didn't invade his home or initially threaten him in any way.

And you keep defending a teenager who was beating a man's head on the ground while telling him that he was going to die. And the man who was being beaten had broken absolutely zero laws.

[Atticus]

 

It's just endless yammering on about the same damn thing, interspersed with minutiae.

 

just a helpful suggestion, but you may want to stay away from the Solid Sound threads.  Or the other threads.

[bleedorange]

According to Zimmerman - who, has a criminal past - both counts of which are related to violence against another person.

 

As far as "Nope. Not at all." Once again, you're ignoring what is being laid clearly at your feet, and willfully ignoring it. Tell me, how often do police dispatchers tell bystanders to pursue a suspected suspect? I'll answer the question for you - pretty much never.

 

I haven't followed any of the trial, so I don't know what other evidence is out there. But after just reading the transcript of the 911 call, I don't see how you can come to your conclusion. After the dispatcher says "We don't need you to do that," Zimmerman says "OK" and then starts making arrangements with the dispatcher where the police can meet him.

 

Was there testimony that he was still following him at that point? Because on the transcript he even says, "I don't know where this kid is."

[bleedorange]

This. Seriously. Honestly, I never thought so many Wilco fans would find guns and gun-related topics so endlessly absorbing. I just glance at the thread every few days and shake my head. Sorry, Hixter, your infallible politeness and dedication to responding to every single point that anyone makes is just bizarre. No one is changing anyone's mind around here. It's just endless yammering on about the same damn thing, interspersed with minutiae about court testimony. It is so BORING and such a waste of creative energy. I suppose I can just choose to ignore it completely, but I keep hoping the thread will change course at some point.

 

To me, that's the most interesting aspect of all of this. I don't find it boring. Plus, I don't think it's a waste to read differing points of view on such a hot-button topic. But that's just me.

[Magnetized]

just a helpful suggestion, but you may want to stay away from the Solid Sound threads.  Or the other threads.

 

Totally different. That's enthusiastic fans discussing joyous things. Endlessly fascinating. As I suppose this shit is if guns are your thing.

[LouieB]

Okay, so we are all wrong. Zimmerman didn't pursue Martin, he did back off, and this whole case is totally Trayvon Martin's fault. I get it.  So really I don't know what anyone anywhere is excited about. Clearly Zimmerman had every right to shoot him when he attacked him. 

 

LouieB

[Atticus]

Totally different. That's enthusiastic fans discussing joyous things. Endlessly fascinating. As I suppose this shit is if guns are your thing.

 

endlessly fascinating to you.

 

perhaps people have an interest in the facts of the case, or the way our laws address the issue of self-defense, or the legal/court system in general, or the effect this case is having/has had on the American mindset.  

 

Just because it's not what interests you does not mean you have to dump on the people who find it interesting (I'm not saying that you don't have the right to dump on them in here--for the record I think people should be allowed to offer such opinions as long as they're not unnecessarily vulgar or repetitive or directed at ction).  I have not read every post but I don't recall seeing a great interest in guns.  I accept that I could be mistaken.

[Hixter]

Clearly Zimmerman had every right to shoot him when he attacked him. 

Yes, that's the law. If a person who isn't breaking the law is attacked and fears for his life, he is legally allowed to use deadly force to protect himself. 

 

There were several poor decisions made that night, but Martin's decision to attack Zimmerman was the poorest of them all.

[Good Old Neon]

I haven't followed any of the trial, so I don't know what other evidence is out there. But after just reading the transcript of the 911 call, I don't see how you can come to your conclusion. After the dispatcher says "We don't need you to do that," Zimmerman says "OK" and then starts making arrangements with the dispatcher where the police can meet him.

 

Was there testimony that he was still following him at that point? Because on the transcript he even says, "I don't know where this kid is."

 

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/23/justice/florida-zimmerman-timeline