Re: Do stand your ground laws allow the ground-stander to act agressively prior to...
:mrgreen: The conversation between Zimmerman and the Police dispatcher went something like this: ZIMMERMAN: "There's a suspicious looking black man out here.
You should not paraphrase things when people have access to the ACTUAL stuff, because it shows your dishonest attepmts to paint a situation.
Zimmerman's mention of him as "black" came in response to this line of conversation:
[qoute]Dispatcher: Sanford Police Department. ...
Zimmerman: Hey we've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a real suspicious guy, uh, [near] Retreat View Circle, um, the best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle. This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about.
Dispatcher: OK, and this guy is he white, black, or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black[/quote]
He brought up race because it was specifically asked to him, and it wasn't said in any way on his part in combination with his suggestions of "suspicious looking". Black is mentioned once more, when Trayvon is coming towards zimmerman and Zimmerman gets a better look at him and confirms he's black:
Dispatcher: That's the clubhouse, do you know what the--he's near the clubhouse right now?
Zimmerman: Yeah, now he's coming towards me.
Dispatcher: OK
Zimmerman: He's got his hand in his waistband. And he's a black male.
Dispatcher: How old would you say he looks?
Zimmerman: He's got button on his shirt, late teens.
Dispatcher: Late teens ok.
As you can see, as he comes closer the dispatcher and Zimmerman begin to ask and answer questions getting a better description of Zimmerman.
But you know, it's much easier to "paraphrase" in a way that paints the picture clearly in the way you'd like it than actually use the source where it's
far more ambiguous.
POLICE DISPATCHER: "Are you following him?". ZIMMERMAN: "Yes"! POLICE DISPATCHER: "Okay, well, we don't NEED you to do that".
You're questioning my english comrpehension when you continue to suggest that someone stating they don't NEED you to do something is the same as telling you explicitely NOT to do it? Its reasonable to suggest the Dispatcher didn't want him to do it, but that's differently than saying he directly TOLD him not to do it. If he wanted to tell him not to do it he could've said "Do not follow him". Simple as that, without the embelishment to try and emotionally prop up your argument with the hyperbolic example you put out.
Second, again...your paraphrasing and leaving out of evidence on the side that you're not on just shows your dishonest and your clear cut purpose of propoganda here. Let me again refer you to the ACTUAL statements, not a fraudulent paraphase like you keep presenting:
Dispatcher: Just let me know if he does anything ok
Zimmerman: How long until you get an officer over here?
Dispatcher: Yeah we've got someone on the way, just let me know if this guy does anything else.
Zimmerman: Okay. These assholes they always get away. When you come to the clubhouse you come straight in and make a left. Actually you would go past the clubhouse.
Dispatcher: So it's on the lefthand side from the clubhouse?
Zimmerman: No you go in straight through the entrance and then you make a left...uh you go straight in, don't turn, and make a left. **** he's running.
Dispatcher: He's running? Which way is he running?
Zimmerman: Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood.
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
Note a few things here.
Three times, each bolded for emphasis, the dispatcher requests that Zimmerman tells him what Trayvon is doing. Just like it's reasonable to assume the Dispatcher didn't want him to follow Trayvon with his last statement, it's ALSO reasonable to assume someone would think they need to keep a person in eye sight when they're being asked to tell the dispatcher what the person is doing. And that could require persuing them.
As to the final comment about following him, that does beg a question. However, the problem is there's no concrete evidence what so ever as to whether or not the "following" of Martin that Zimmerman did was in the early part of that call OR if it occured further after that call. Thus back to the issue of reasonable doubt.
But even beyond that, following him is still a perfectly legal and legitimate action to do and does not in and of itself justify physical force nor preclude self defense.
As far as forensic evidence is concerned, was there bruising on Martin's hands after giving this man who outweighed him by 80 lbs that savage beating? chuck
Nope. At the same time, there wasn't a mysterious 3rd person found who caused the bruising and cuts upon George Zimmerman. You have conflicting forensic evidence. There are some people, like me, that recognizes that we have conflicting evidence and acknowledges both and simply comes down that there's a reasonable doubt to how things occured....and then there's people like you that just seek to propogandize, ignore everything that doesn't fit their narrow little vision, and continue to try to rape the dead body of Trayvon for every bit of political capital they can get out of it.
(Source to the ACTUAL transcript)
