• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Addressing the Off-Topic Zimmerman comments.

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
40,195
Reaction score
9,015
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
The issue regarding the sale of Zimmerman's gun has lead to many untrue comments regarding the incident that brought about his killing of Trayvon.


This thread is intended to be the place to have those "Off-Topic" discussions instead of derailing any other topic.


IN reality a wannabe cop who should have stood down when told to
Untrue. (Reply since deleted.)
uh how is that untrue-its my opinion as someone involved in law enforcement for years.
It is an untrue for the following reasons.
1. Though he had at one time wanted to be a police officer he had since changed his mind and did not want to be one. This was clearly recorded and on the record.
That makes your statement factually untrue. He was not a wannabe.
Calling the police on a suspicious person and trying to keep tabs on him so that they may point that person out to the police when they arrive are the actions of a citizen and not acting as, or like the police, or in other words, not those of a wannabe. Again showing your statement is factually untrue in that regard.

2. He was never told to "Stand down" as you falsely stated.
a. A call-taker made a suggestion that they did not need him to follow.
A suggestion, let alone by a person who has no authority, is in no way being told to "stand down".

b. More importantly, he did follow the suggestion and actually traveled in a different direction than Trayvon had.
Trayvon went South while Zimmerman went East passing by the area Trayvon had gone.​





But, Trayvon wasn't even planning to rob a house in that area, he was going back to his house with some Arizona Tea and Skittles for his brother while they were watching a NBA game...
You have no idea what he was actually planning to do on his way home.

Instead of trying to get out of the rain, Trayvon was seen up on the grass looking into the homes.
That is suspicious behavior and it prompted Zimmerman to call the police.

Martin didn't ambush Zimmerman nor did he plan too. He was walking home from the store.
The walking home from the store part no longer applied.
Zimmerman went East past the area where Trayvon went South.
It was only upon Zimmerman returning past the area where Trayvon had headed off in a different direction did Trayvon then come out of "nowhere" and confront Zimmerman from his rear left.
There are only two possible scenarios in which that could have happened.
1. Trayvon laid in wait and only came out once Zimmerman had passed him the second time as he returned to his vehicle.
2. Trayvon had made it far enough out of Zimmerman's sight down that path that he was very close to home but instead decided to return to confront Zimmerman and approached him from his rear left.
They both suggest planning the attack that followed. Coming at Zimmerman from his rear to accomplish that attack is what makes it an ambush.​


If George Zimmerman had not engaged and instead listened to the police who had already told him not to,
1. At no point did the "Police" tell him not to engage. A call-taker made a suggestion that they did not need him to follow.
2. As for your "and instead listened" comment. It also shows that you do not know what you are talking about.
Zimmerman acknowledged the request and instead of continuing to follow Trayvon to the South, he walked East past the area Trayvon had gone.

So to sum it up.
Zimmerman was given a suggestion that he did not have to follow.
The suggestion was not made by the Police or anyone in authority, but by a call-taker.
It was also a suggestion that he did follow.





Nobody murdered Nicole Simpson either by that measure.
Wrong.
The Zimmerman case and OJ case are totally different.
There is no indication that Nicole was involved in committing any crime against the other person and causing them to legally defend their self with lethal force.
 

Mason66

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2009
Messages
26,989
Reaction score
6,364
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Excon, can we agree that if you give respect to George Zimmerman by using his surname, the same should be given to Martin?

You are using Trayvon and Zimmerman.
 

Grim17

Battle Ready
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
32,140
Reaction score
15,355
Location
Southwestern U.S.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Hey Excon, here are a few illustrations I did back during the trial that might be helpful.

The first shows the location of Zimmerman at 3 different times that night based on the 911 call, his walk through with police the day after, the physical evidence found at the scene by police, and based on the witnesses that testified at the trial.

The second image is the same as the first, but I added numbers with a blue background to show the approximate location of Martin at those 3 different times.


Z_timemap.jpg

Z_timemap_plus.jpg
 

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
40,195
Reaction score
9,015
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Excon, can we agree that if you give respect to George Zimmerman by using his surname, the same should be given to Martin?

You are using Trayvon and Zimmerman.
Apparently this is an issue for you to adapt and move on from.

I know not everybody has a great memory, let alone a photographic one, but I basically already provided you an answer by answering a question you asked of SheWolf four years ago.


{using Trayvon and Zimmerman}
Why do refer to Martin by his first name and Zimmerman by his last name?
I do that also. So if you do not mind I will state why I do it.
Because Trayvon is dead, he at least deserves the simple respect to be called by his first name. Not Martin or M or T. But Trayvon.

If he was alive, I would then use his last name as I do for Zimmerman.

You didn't reply to that post but did reply to others.

If you read the thread you will finally come upon this exchange 10 pages later.


Seriously.... who trolled us into this several page long off topic discussion of which ****ing name one uses to address each person.
That would be me but I didn't think it would go on for pages? I was asking an honest question.


So to answer your question this time around -
No, we can not agree.
I am mot using Zimmerman's last name as a sign of respect. To me, in discussion, using someone's surname is the informal norm, while using a deceased person's given name is more personal, formal and respectful.

This obviously isn't going to change so it is best to move past it.
 
Last edited:

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
16,632
Reaction score
21,897
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Hey Excon, here are a few illustrations I did back during the trial that might be helpful.

The first shows the location of Zimmerman at 3 different times that night based on the 911 call, his walk through with police the day after, the physical evidence found at the scene by police, and based on the witnesses that testified at the trial.

The second image is the same as the first, but I added numbers with a blue background to show the approximate location of Martin at those 3 different times.


View attachment 67201371

View attachment 67201372

I'm curious.

To be quite honest I did not follow the issue at the time it all went on. It may seem callous but it just wasn't all that important to me.

However, looking at this diagram, if the only two people involved at the time were Martin and Zimmerman, what factual basis exists to know where Martin "really was" as shown in the diagrams?
 

Grim17

Battle Ready
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
32,140
Reaction score
15,355
Location
Southwestern U.S.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I'm curious.

To be quite honest I did not follow the issue at the time it all went on. It may seem callous but it just wasn't all that important to me.

However, looking at this diagram, if the only two people involved at the time were Martin and Zimmerman, what factual basis exists to know where Martin "really was" as shown in the diagrams?

In the 911 call, Zimmerman said Martin turned south as the diagram shows, and there is no reason to disbelieve him at that point for several reasons. First, there would be no reason or benefit for Zimmerman to have made that up. Second, that is the direction he would have gone because it leads directly to his fathers house. Third, Zimmerman was on the phone with officers and passed that location, which was substantiated by a witness who testified she heard Zimmerman talking near point #2 (on the phone with police).

As for his location on point #2, it is pure speculation based on where he was headed and the fact that his fathers place is located about 2 doors down from the end of that map.

Point #3 is based on everything I mentioned in my previous post. It matches up with witness testimony on where the altercation occurred, the physical evidence found at the scene, the walk through and it fits with where Zimmerman was when he hung up with police, where his truck was, and the direction he would have had to have gone to return to his truck. Where else could Martin have been for the fight to have taken place there?
 
Last edited:

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
40,195
Reaction score
9,015
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
I'm curious.

To be quite honest I did not follow the issue at the time it all went on. It may seem callous but it just wasn't all that important to me.

However, looking at this diagram, if the only two people involved at the time were Martin and Zimmerman, what factual basis exists to know where Martin "really was" as shown in the diagrams?
Well Zimmerman's testimony is evidence, and without evidence to the contrary (as it is in this case), it stands as is.
Up until the point where Zimmerman places him at the the intersection beginning his attack (and after), Trayvon's position is all extrapolated from the other available information.


(Zimmerman's call below.)
Zimmerman got out of his vehicle to follow Trayvon when Trayvon ran out of view down the path to the South. (start @2:10 where he first says he is running)

As Zimmerman was attempting to follow, the call taker told him that they didn't need him to do that (@2:26). He acknowledged the call-takers suggestion and instead continued on to the East. At some point while passing by the intersection while heading East, he said, "He ran." (@2:41).
His not seeing Trayvon while passing by the intersection and Trayvon not making his presence known at this point, only leads to the two possibilities I stated above.

He either laid in wait or returned to confront him. Either way he was in that general area.

The attack happened near the intersection as Zimmerman was returning to his vehicle, with Trayvon approaching him from his left rear.

Having not seen Trayvon in the area when he passed the first time and not seeing him for a period of time as he was returning from the East, only leaves the two mentioned possibilities.
He could only have been South of Zimmerman's position.
So "where" specifically south is the question.
For all we know he could have circled around the building which still would have allowed him to approach from Zimmerman's left rear.


The other specifics can be ascertained by where the witness saw them both after the initial attack.

Youtube audio of Zimmerman's call.
 

rocket88

Mod Conspiracy Theorist
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
44,814
Reaction score
20,220
Location
A very blue state
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The issue regarding the sale of Zimmerman's gun has lead to many untrue comments regarding the incident that brought about his killing of Trayvon.


This thread is intended to be the place to have those "Off-Topic" discussions instead of derailing any other topic.


It is an untrue for the following reasons.
1. Though he had at one time wanted to be a police officer he had since changed his mind and did not want to be one. This was clearly recorded and on the record.
That makes your statement factually untrue. He was not a wannabe.
Calling the police on a suspicious person and trying to keep tabs on him so that they may point that person out to the police when they arrive are the actions of a citizen and not acting as, or like the police, or in other words, not those of a wannabe. Again showing your statement is factually untrue in that regard.

2. He was never told to "Stand down" as you falsely stated.
a. A call-taker made a suggestion that they did not need him to follow.
A suggestion, let alone by a person who has no authority, is in no way being told to "stand down".

b. More importantly, he did follow the suggestion and actually traveled in a different direction than Trayvon had.
Trayvon went South while Zimmerman went East passing by the area Trayvon had gone.​





You have no idea what he was actually planning to do on his way home.

Instead of trying to get out of the rain, Trayvon was seen up on the grass looking into the homes.
That is suspicious behavior and it prompted Zimmerman to call the police.


The walking home from the store part no longer applied.
Zimmerman went East past the area where Trayvon went South.
It was only upon Zimmerman returning past the area where Trayvon had headed off in a different direction did Trayvon then come out of "nowhere" and confront Zimmerman from his rear left.
There are only two possible scenarios in which that could have happened.
1. Trayvon laid in wait and only came out once Zimmerman had passed him the second time as he returned to his vehicle.
2. Trayvon had made it far enough out of Zimmerman's sight down that path that he was very close to home but instead decided to return to confront Zimmerman and approached him from his rear left.
They both suggest planning the attack that followed. Coming at Zimmerman from his rear to accomplish that attack is what makes it an ambush.​


1. At no point did the "Police" tell him not to engage. A call-taker made a suggestion that they did not need him to follow.
2. As for your "and instead listened" comment. It also shows that you do not know what you are talking about.
Zimmerman acknowledged the request and instead of continuing to follow Trayvon to the South, he walked East past the area Trayvon had gone.

So to sum it up.
Zimmerman was given a suggestion that he did not have to follow.
The suggestion was not made by the Police or anyone in authority, but by a call-taker.
It was also a suggestion that he did follow.





Wrong.
The Zimmerman case and OJ case are totally different.
There is no indication that Nicole was involved in committing any crime against the other person and causing them to legally defend their self with lethal force.

I guess people weren't being worshipful enough when talking about your hero, huh?
 

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
40,195
Reaction score
9,015
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
I guess people weren't being worshipful enough when talking about your hero, huh?
Addled thoughts do not substitute for rational argument.

Your reply is the typical irrational posting of one who can make no valid response to the what was said in the first place. Go figure, huh?

Trayvon was in the wrong here, not Zimmerman. I know you don't like that but your feelings are irrelevant to the facts.
 

americanwoman

dangerously addictive
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
28,900
Reaction score
23,066
Location
Somewhere over the rainbow
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Addled thoughts do not substitute for rational argument.

Your reply is the typical irrational posting of one who can make no valid response to the what was said in the first place. Go figure, huh?

Trayvon was in the wrong here, not Zimmerman. I know you don't like that but your feelings are irrelevant to the facts.

Can you agree that Zimmerman was in the wrong when he got out of his truck?
 

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
40,195
Reaction score
9,015
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
If you thought someone was suspicious, would you leave your vehicle and pursue on foot?
I asked how you figured it was wrong.
Your answer does not say how you figure it to be wrong.
 

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
40,195
Reaction score
9,015
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
And would you continue to pursue when the police had just previously told you not to?
You have already been corrected on that false bs.
The police did not tell him not to follow.

Learn the facts before trying to speak about them.
 

TheGoverness

Little Miss Sunshine
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
35,063
Reaction score
37,701
Location
Houston Area, TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
You have already been corrected on that false bs.
The police did not tell him not to follow.

Learn the facts before trying to speak about them.

No, that is not "false BS". The police most definitely did tell him to not pursue/follow.
You are 100% wrong on this point. You can try to act like you aren't, but that doesn't change the fact that you are.
 

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
40,195
Reaction score
9,015
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
No, that is not "false BS". The police most definitely did tell him to not pursue.
You are 100% wrong on this point. You can try to act like you aren't, but that doesn't change the fact that you [/i]are.
Now you are purposely being dishonest.

1. It was a call-taker, not the police and not anyone in authority.
What exactly do you not understand about that?

2. The call-taker made a suggestion. Did you get that? A suggestion.

So again.

You have already been corrected on that false bs.
The police did not tell him not to follow.

Learn the facts before trying to speak about them.

 
Last edited:

TheGoverness

Little Miss Sunshine
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
35,063
Reaction score
37,701
Location
Houston Area, TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Now you are being dishonest.
1. It was a call-taker, not the police and not anyone in authority.
What exactly do you not understand about that?

2. The call-taker made a suggestion. Did you get that? A suggestion.

So again.

You have already been corrected on that false bs.
The police did not tell him not to follow.

Learn the facts before trying to speak about them.


I'm not being dishonest here at all.

1.) Are you saying that the dispatcher did not work for the Police Department? Was that just a random number that Zimmerman decided to call?

2. Saying "We don't need you to follow" wasn't a suggestion. The are saying they didn't need him to follow, so by that metric, Zimmerman should've stopped pursuing.


But that's all I'm going to converse with you on this.

Because the last thing I want to do is waste my time taking to a very condensing, dishonest and downright rude individual.
 
Last edited:

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
40,195
Reaction score
9,015
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
I'm not being dishonest here at all.

1.) Are you saying that the call-taker did not work for the Police Department? Was that just a random number that Zimmerman decided to call?

2. Saying "We don't need you to follow" wasn't a suggestion. The are saying they didn't need him to follow, so by that metric, Zimmerman should've stopped pursuing.


But that's all I'm going to converse with you on this.

Because the last thing I want to do is waste my time taking to a very condensing and downright rude individual.
You are giving yourself away again.

And yes you are being dishonest.

And no, a call-taker is not "The Police".
You should endeavor to learn the difference.

As reported over four yeas ago.

Q.
If Zimmerman was told not to continue to follow Trayvon, can that be considered in this investigation?

A.
Yes it will. However, the telecommunications call taker asked Zimmerman, “Are you following him?” Zimmerman replied, “Yes.” The call taker stated, “You don’t need to do that.” The call taker’s suggestion is not a lawful order that Mr. Zimmerman would be required to follow.

Chief Bill Lee answers questions about investigation into shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin

A call-taker. Capiche?
A suggestion. Capiche?
No authority. Capiche?
Didn't have to follow the suggestion. Capiche?


But that's all I'm going to converse with you on this.
That is only because you know you are wrong.
You can run from being wrong all you like, but it doesn't change the facts as shown.



And even more importantly, you have failed to acknowledge that Zimmerman ceased following and went East when he was given the "suggestion".



Let me help you out a little here.
Even if the person had been a Police Officer taking calls, that person still has no authority to give any orders.
They can not give legal orders (not that it actually would be) as they are not on the scene to access the situation.
It is a liability issue.
 
Last edited:

americanwoman

dangerously addictive
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
28,900
Reaction score
23,066
Location
Somewhere over the rainbow
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
I asked how you figured it was wrong.
Your answer does not say how you figure it to be wrong.

I think it's mostly common sense not to try and take the law into your own hands, especially in this situation where it was only a case of a suspicious person walking. It was wrong of Zimmerman to get out of his truck and place himself in a situation that might (did) result in confronting someone who was not actively committing a crime. If you don't agree and think that's the right reaction, we are going nowhere and might as well agree to disagree.
 

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
40,195
Reaction score
9,015
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
I think it's mostly common sense not to try and take the law into your own hands, especially in this situation where it was only a case of a suspicious person walking. It was wrong of Zimmerman to get out of his truck and place himself in a situation that might (did) result in confronting someone who was not actively committing a crime. If you don't agree and think that's the right reaction, we are going nowhere and might as well agree to disagree.
1. Wrong is an opinion not supported by the law.
2. Nor was there taking the law into one's own hands. That is a completely dishonest representation of the known facts.
3. He wasn't suspicious only because he was walking. That is also a misrepresentation of the facts.
He was suspicious because he was seen walking nonchalantly in the rain while looking into homes.


Following a suspicious person to keep tabs on them until the police arrive is a very prudent thing to do.
There is absolutely nothing "wrong" with doing so and you can not point to one single thing about it that would make it "wrong".
 

americanwoman

dangerously addictive
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
28,900
Reaction score
23,066
Location
Somewhere over the rainbow
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
1. Wrong is an opinion not supported by the law.
2. Nor was there taking the law into one's own hands. That is a completely dishonest representation of the known facts.
3. He wasn't suspicious only because he was walking. That is also a misrepresentation of the facts.
He was suspicious because he was seen walking nonchalantly in the rain while looking into homes.


Following a suspicious person to keep tabs on them until the police arrive is a very prudent thing to do.
There is absolutely nothing "wrong" with doing so and you can not point to one single thing about it that would make it "wrong".


The wrong thing I can think of is that because of his unnecessary action of taking action when he did not need to, someone ended up dead. You don't think that's wrong but I do.
 

americanwoman

dangerously addictive
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
28,900
Reaction score
23,066
Location
Somewhere over the rainbow
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Why does doing so make someone wrong?

In this case it was the wrong decision, if you believe Zimmerman he was afraid for his life, that doesn't sound like he made the right decision. If I made a choice to pursue someone on foot that ended up in me fighting for my life, I certainly wouldn't look back and think I made a good or right choice. That's why those situations are best left to someone who is trained ro handle suspicious behavior.
 

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
40,195
Reaction score
9,015
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
The wrong thing I can think of is that because of his unnecessary action of taking action when he did not need to,
The problem is thinking it was unnecessary. Just because you think that doesn't mean it actually was.
"Unnecessary" is a personal judgement call, one of which you are assuming and can not actually support. Nor does it have anything to do with the legality of Zimmerman's actions.
Secondly it is an absurd argument as no one is saying it was necessary. Most likely no one argued that because they couldn't support that it was.

What was argued though is that it was prudent.


... someone ended up dead. You don't think that's wrong but I do.
Someone ended up dead because they decided to act out wrongly and in a violent fashion. That is what caused this.
You seem to forget that Trayvon was out of sight and could have just went home.
But instead, he either laid in wait or returned to confront Zimmerman.
He came at Zimmerman from his left rear yelling and then attacked him when he got up to him.
And he did this as Zimmerman was returning to his vehicle. Or in other words, walking away from him.
That is all on Trayvon. Not Zimmerman for doing a prudent thing.
 
Top Bottom