Do You Think Zimmerman is Guilty?

[CHARMtheMEDIA]

Keep up the race-baiting and your Messiah is going to lose millions of votes. What if Romney had said that Zimmerman looked like he could have been one of his sons? I'd support Zimmerman even if Martin had been White, so that makes your race card a Joker.

I must ask. When you say "your Messiah"
Who is the "your" you refer to in possessive form?
It is quite vague, and a person such as myself might interpret that as racist, and I am a white conservative.
Be careful when you say things like that.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[OhIsee.Then]

everything you said is supported by ZERO evidence, but is supported by your clear agenda.

Thunder, ever have someone play games with you. You're being teased.

 

[dontworrybehappy]

edited for accuracy

Sharon, you still not seeing him do this, right?

I don't think Zim is guilty of doing anything other than shooting a thug who thought he could open up a can of whoopass on a white boy who was following him.

 

[Thunder]

Sharon, you still not seeing him do this, right?

I don't think Zim is guilty of doing anything other than shooting a thug who thought he could open up a can of whoopass on a white boy who was following him.

hahahah!!!!! now you're accusing Martin...of racism??????


oh man, that's good. The irony is great! When folks accuse criminal Zimmerman of racism, its just pointless crying wolf, but when folks accuse Martin of it, its all good?

wow. just wow. the hypocrisy has reached supernova.

 

[NoC_T]

I can't get into the Zimmerman furore again.

For the record, I think he's as guilty as hell. But it's nothing I could prove.

 

[Tucker Case]

Well its not boot camp.. Was your person some sort of liaison with the police dept?

No, it was someone from the management company. It was mostly stuff about preventing lawsuits and learning what to look out for.

 

[Tucker Case]

Now you're making stuff up. The person who trained Zimmerman was not some random "non-official" dude but the Crime Prevention Specialist (Wendy Dorival) working out of the Sanford Police Department.

Sanford Police Department

People have posted that Z's NW was unofficial.

Yeah, it means you're trying to hide behind a little word if to cover for your big ass mistake. But you fail. Miserably.

I pointed out how you said, "had a previous 911 call also advised him not to follow..."

And your absurd claim that you didn't say that when you said, "if he had been told not to follow during one of those previous 911 calls," is simply nonsensical on its face since both "had" and "if" are used in the same context in the two sentences. The sentences have the same meaning and it's more respectful for someone to just own up to their ****ups rather than dig their hole even deeper.

Ah, so you don't know what the word "If" means. Don't blame me for that.

 

[John Tucker]

This case is very difficult because, it seemingly is just bringing forth extremists on the left and the right to use this case as propaganda to spread whatever "position" they have been trying to spread for seemingly decades now.

But in relation to the case itself, there's just WAY too many missing variables that we do not know yet to say if someone is guilty of this, or guilty of that, OR innocent of this and innocent of that. None of us were at the scene, none of us seen what happened and all we have is information revealed by the major news networks who have been KNOWN to lie, hide information, change information, etc.

What I can say based on information revealed is that it APPEARS as though we had two opposing viewpoints when it came to both Zimmerman and Trayvon:

> Zimmerman's point of view was coming from recent crimes in the area by people that fit a certain "profile," and they seemingly didn't receive much justice because the police might have some difficulty in capturing these individuals. So Zimmerman sees a person walking that "fits" this profile and calls the police immediately just in case the person is also potentially plotting a crime. To "assist" the police Zimmerman gets out of the car to follow the individual to keep him in view to seemingly inform the police of his whereabouts once they arrive.

> By Zimmerman getting OUT of the car this triggers the individual, Trayvon to turn around and wonder why the HELL this guy is following him when all he's doing is walking back home from the store? The police officer tells Zimmerman to go back to his car, Zimmerman says "ok" after being out of breathe and saying, "he ran," which means that obviously Zimmerman started to run after the individual after the individual fled from seeing Zimmerman following him.

NOW....what happened after that, how the fight started, who was screaming on the tapes, NOBODY (left, right, black, white, latino, etc) KNOWS WHAT HAPPENED. This is why we have courts and trials, to sort out these things and determine what happened and not try cases over the internet, the radio or the television.

I'm disgusted by the left and the right in this case, with both sides trying the case over the media saying who's guilty and who's innocent, etc. All they do is stir violence and emotions that are not needed at this point in time especially when nobody knows what the hell happened.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

People have posted that Z's NW was unofficial.

Who cares what people have posted? It's been well established in news reports that his Neighborhood Watch program was an official program in which he received training by the Sanford police department. The program he belonged just wasn't registered with the NSA, but registering with the NSA is not a requirement anyway in order to run a Neighborhood watch. His homeowners association notified the residents of his neighborhood that he was the captain of their Neighborhood watch and to contact him directly if needed.

Ah, so you don't know what the word "If" means. Don't blame me for that.

Stop being ridiculous.

• IF Zimmerman stayed in his car, Trayvon would still be alive.

• HAD Zimmerman stayed in his car, Trayvon would still be alive.

... explain the difference between IF and HAD in that context ...

 

[Tucker Case]

It's been well established in news reports that his Neighborhood Watch program was an official program in which he received training by the Sanford police department. The program he belonged just wasn't registered with the NSA, but registering with the NSA is not a requirement anyway in order to run a Neighborhood watch.

So what evidence do you have that he was trained to not follow people?

Stop being ridiculous.

• IF Zimmerman stayed in his car, Trayvon would still be alive.

• HAD Zimmerman stayed in his car, Trayvon would still be alive.

... explain the difference between IF and HAD in that context ...

In that context, there is no difference. They both signify a hypothetical... in that context.

Why do you think that this similarity in this particular context supports your inaccurate claims about what I said?

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

So what evidence do you have that he was trained to not follow people?

again ...

Police volunteer program coordinator Wendy Dorival said she met Zimmerman in September at a community neighborhood watch presentation.

“I said, ‘If it’s someone you don’t recognize, call us. We’ll figure it out,’ ” Dorival said. “‘Observe from a safe location.’ There’s even a slide about not being vigilante police. I don’t know how many more times I can repeat it.”

Shooter of Trayvon Martin a habitual caller to cops - Trayvon Martin - MiamiHerald.com

In that context, there is no difference. They both signify a hypothetical... in that context.

Why do you think that this similarity in this particular context supports your inaccurate claims about what I said?

Ummm ... I used HAD in that same context to replace the word IF in your post. i.e., as you now admit, there is no difference.

 

[Tucker Case]

again ...

Police volunteer program coordinator Wendy Dorival said she met Zimmerman in September at a community neighborhood watch presentation.

“I said, ‘If it’s someone you don’t recognize, call us. We’ll figure it out,’ ” Dorival said. “‘Observe from a safe location.’ There’s even a slide about not being vigilante police. I don’t know how many more times I can repeat it.”

Shooter of Trayvon Martin a habitual caller to cops - Trayvon Martin - MiamiHerald.com

Ah, so he wasn't trained to not follow. HE was trained to observe from a safe location. People might consider their cars to be a safe location, no?

Ummm ... I used HAD in that same context to replace the word IF in your post. i.e., as you now admit, there is no difference.

Do you know what a hypothetical is?

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

Ah, so he wasn't trained to not follow. HE was trained to observe from a safe location. People might consider their cars to be a safe location, no?

Yes, I imagine they would. Which is why Zimmerman should not have gotten out of his car to follow Trayvon. Especially since he was trained not to do that.

Do you know what a hypothetical is?

Of course. For some reason, you refuse to cease being ridiculous. You gave a hypothetical with the conditional word, "IF" and I repeated it with the conditional word "HAD." You seem to think there's a difference.

 

[Tucker Case]

Yes, I imagine they would.

And it is your belief that your imagination should be considered evidence in a court of law?

Of course. For some reason, you refuse to cease being ridiculous. You gave a hypothetical with the conditional word, "IF" and I repeated it with the conditional word "HAD." You seem to think there's a difference.

OK, so then you understand I was talking about a hypothetical situation, then, right? A specific hypothetical situation related to a specific hypothetical defense. You took my statement out o fthat context and pretended it was about something else.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

And it is your belief that your imagination should be considered evidence in a court of law?

Now that's odd ... That's the part I agreed with you that people might consider their car to be a safe location.

Now you question if that [what we agreed upon] should considered evidence in the trial??

OK, so then you understand I was talking about a hypothetical situation, then, right? A specific hypothetical situation related to a specific hypothetical defense. You took my statement out o fthat context and pretended it was about something else.

No, I changed "IF" to "HAD," maintaining the conditional requirement you first invoked. You've been acting ridiculous ever since.

 

[Tucker Case]

Now that's odd ... That's the part I agreed with you that people might consider their car to be a safe location.

Now you question if that [what we agreed upon] should considered evidence in the trial??

You are correct. My apologies for my mistake.

Why do you think that Z was trained to not get out of the car? What evidence do you have of that?

No, I changed "IF" to "HAD," maintaining the conditional requirement you first invoked. You've been acting ridiculous ever since.

If you think I'm acting ridiculous it's because you didn't understand what I was talking about when I stated that hypothetical. You've got some bizarre hard on for his NW training as though it's legally binding. It's not. You're the only person I've ever encountered with this hard on, and it's been detracting from intelligent discourse on the topic even more than usual.

I was talking about the way that he could possibly have the false belief that following was desired based on what he may or may not have been told in previous 911 calls where he followed people. You can't even provide any evidence that Z was trained to not follow people, yet you still keep pushing that idea as though it's valuable. The moment you start with that argument is the moment a discussion becomes ridiculous.

 

[Lightning]

No one can know for sure what happened that night. There are many gaps in the story thats been formulated by the evidence.

On a side note, I think this whole thing has been blown way out of proportion, because of race mongers like Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton. Yes, it's a tragedy, that a kid is dead and if Zimmerman is guilty, he needs to be punished. But what makes this murder, out of the thousands that happen in the states every year so special? NOTHING! It's been magnified by indecent people who constantly reopen America's healing wounds, which engorges problems that are becoming largely non-existent. Why don't these people cry out about the murder of a white woman at the hands of black men, or a Hispanic man at the hands of a white man or vice versa? Or the rape of a Hispanic or Asian women by black men?

These guys aren't exposing an underlying racism or hate towards black people. They're only trying to refuel the embers of our dirty past. I'm not racist by the way for anyone who will try to paint me as such. Half of my friends are black, my in-laws are Laotian, and my wife is Hispanic; and I love them all and they're all good people. It's just so infuriating to see these ignorant and malevolent men putting a match on events that will only kindle fire.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

You are correct. My apologies for my mistake.

Why do you think that Z was trained to not get out of the car? What evidence do you have of that?

He was trained to "observe from a safe location." We agreed that his car could be considered a safe location, so presumably, we agree that everything he did up until the time he got out of his car to follow Trayvon, was proper. However, and we may differ in opinions here, one cannot leave the safety of their car in the dark and in the rain, to go follow after a suspect they believe may be armed and dangerous, may even be high on drugs and up to no good; and go after them not even knowing where the suspect is because he lost sight of the suspect.

That is in no way, shape, or form, "observing from a safe location."

By the way, this is the point when most try to shift the goal posts and try the, "he wasn't legally bound by his training," angle.

If you think I'm acting ridiculous it's because you didn't understand what I was talking about when I stated that hypothetical. You've got some bizarre hard on for his NW training as though it's legally binding. It's not. You're the only person I've ever encountered with this hard on, and it's been detracting from intelligent discourse on the topic even more than usual.

I was talking about the way that he could possibly have the false belief that following was desired based on what he may or may not have been told in previous 911 calls where he followed people. You can't even provide any evidence that Z was trained to not follow people, yet you still keep pushing that idea as though it's valuable. The moment you start with that argument is the moment a discussion becomes ridiculous.

You are completely off base. You spoke of possible implications based on had he been previously warned not to follow on a previous call to 911. That had nothing to do with his training or even the 911 call on the night he killed Trayvon, but during one of his previous 911 calls. I then repeated what you said, but said, "HAD," where you used, "IF." In my repeating what you said, it also had nothing to do with his training or even the 911 call on the night he killed Trayvon, but during one of his previous 911 calls. I said the same thing you said, I just said "HAD he" where you said "IF he."

You seem like a bright enough guy to at least understand why this has become so ridiculous. So much so, that I'm done arguing with you over the difference between IF and HAD. We've wasted more than our share of time in this thread over this nonsense.

 

[sharon]

You are correct. My apologies for my mistake.

Why do you think that Z was trained to not get out of the car? What evidence do you have of that?



If you think I'm acting ridiculous it's because you didn't understand what I was talking about when I stated that hypothetical. You've got some bizarre hard on for his NW training as though it's legally binding. It's not. You're the only person I've ever encountered with this hard on, and it's been detracting from intelligent discourse on the topic even more than usual.

I was talking about the way that he could possibly have the false belief that following was desired based on what he may or may not have been told in previous 911 calls where he followed people. You can't even provide any evidence that Z was trained to not follow people, yet you still keep pushing that idea as though it's valuable. The moment you start with that argument is the moment a discussion becomes ridiculous.

Tucker, GZ didn't follow another "suspicious" character and the guy got away.. The cops didn't capture him for 10 days of something.. I think the date was Feb 2, 2012.

NW isn't legally binding but since the HOA acknowedge Zimmerman as their watch captain, he has created a civil liability for them.

GZ should have just hunted "crooks" on his own.

I can tell you that if GZ had followed me home, I would have his head.. I would have reported him to the police and the HOA.

 

[Tucker Case]

He was trained to "observe from a safe location." We agreed that his car could be considered a safe location, so presumably, we agree that everything he did up until the time he got out of his car to follow Trayvon, was proper. However, and we may differ in opinions here, one cannot leave the safety of their car in the dark and in the rain, to go follow after a suspect they believe may be armed and dangerous, may even be high on drugs and up to no good; and go after them not even knowing where the suspect is because he lost sight of the suspect.

So you admit that he wasn't trained to not follow, despite your previous claims that he was trained not to. Is that correct.

That is in no way, shape, or form, "observing from a safe location."

I don't know Z's concept of a safe location.

By the way, this is the point when most try to shift the goal posts and try the, "he wasn't legally bound by his training," angle.

What training? You just admitted he wasn't trained not to follow. How do you know what he considers a safe location? Are you the sole arbiter of what this is defined as?

You are completely off base. You spoke of possible implications based on had he been previously warned not to follow on a previous call to 911. That had nothing to do with his training or even the 911 call on the night he killed Trayvon, but during one of his previous 911 calls. I then repeated what you said, but said, "HAD," where you used, "IF." In my repeating what you said, it also had nothing to do with his training or even the 911 call on the night he killed Trayvon, but during one of his previous 911 calls. I said the same thing you said, I just said "HAD he" where you said "IF he."

You seem like a bright enough guy to at least understand why this has become so ridiculous. So much so, that I'm done arguing with you over the difference between IF and HAD. We've wasted more than our share of time in this thread over this nonsense.

I was discussing a possible defense based on what had been said about Z's hypothetical misconceptions about following people.

 

[PrometheusBound]

Who cares what people have posted? It's been well established in news reports that his Neighborhood Watch program was an official program in which he received training by the Sanford police department. The program he belonged just wasn't registered with the NSA, but registering with the NSA is not a requirement anyway in order to run a Neighborhood watch. His homeowners association notified the residents of his neighborhood that he was the captain of their Neighborhood watch and to contact him directly if needed.


Stop being ridiculous.

• IF Zimmerman stayed in his car, Trayvon would still be alive.

• HAD Zimmerman stayed in his car, Trayvon would still be alive.

... explain the difference between IF and HAD in that context ...

The "if" sentence means we don't know if Zimmerman stayed in his car. The "had" sentence means we know he didn't stay in his car. Only the second sentence contradicts a known fact in order to make a point.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

So you admit that he wasn't trained to not follow, despite your previous claims that he was trained not to. Is that correct.

No, I don't admit that. Following a suspect you can't see is not observing from a a safe location.

I don't know Z's concept of a safe location.

It's not his definition to define.

What training? You just admitted he wasn't trained not to follow. How do you know what he considers a safe location? Are you the sole arbiter of what this is defined as?

a) I didn't admit that. I can't be more clear ... following a suspect you can't see, in the rain and in the dark, is not observing from a safe location. It's entering a potentially dangerous situation; b) Again, it's not up to him to decide what is safe. It's what a reasonable person would consider safe. That's why I have described his actions as negligent because it's not what a prudent person would do in light of the training he received. Training which also included him being told to call it in (which he did) and let the police figure it out (which he didn't do when after he got out from the safety of his car).

 

[sharon]

The Orlando Sentinel has published the witness list and evidence..

They are loaded for bear......

No, I don't admit that. Following a suspect you can't see is not observing from a a safe location.


It's not his definition to define.


a) I didn't admit that. I can't be more clear ... following a suspect you can't see, in the rain and in the dark, is not observing from a safe location. It's entering a potentially dangerous situation; b) Again, it's not up to him to decide what is safe. It's what a reasonable person would consider safe. That's why I have described his actions as negligent because it's not what a prudent person would do in light of the training he received. Training which also included him being told to call it in (which he did) and let the police figure it out (which he didn't do when after he got out from the safety of his car).

 

[Excon]

again ...

Police volunteer program coordinator Wendy Dorival said [/COLOR]

volunteer program coordinator.
:lamo
volunteer program coordinator?
:lamo
volunteer program coordinator??
:lamo
volunteer program coordinator???
:lamo:lamo

She gave guidance, and nothing more.

 

[Excon]

I can tell you that if GZ had followed me home, I would have his head.. I would have reported him to the police and the HOA.

:lamo:lamo:lamo

The Orlando Sentinel has published the witness list and evidence..

They did?

Where is it?

They are loaded for bear......

Too bad they are going to an elephant hunt.