• 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!

George Zimmerman sues Pete Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren over tweets honouring Trayvon Martin

Royal PITA said:
Agreed that the Dispatcher's advice isn't binding. That said, the facts prove that Zimmerman complied, partially I suspect because he lost Martin who turned right down the sidewalk instead of straight out the side entrance as Zimmerman assumed.

Since Zimmerman complied and was walking back to his truck while still on the phone with the Dispatcher, I fail to see how he was being immoral.
Click to expand...

I believe he even disconnected with dispatch before the encounter with Martin, which is a shame because that might have given us valuable insight.

On the morality front, it's more about his targeting a kid on a shaking premise and pursuing him aggressively enough that the kid felt he needed to ambush him. If he had made contact, or even tried, he could have defused the entire situation, but he was convinced for whatever reason this kids was trouble, and that tunnel vision as much as anything led to the tragedy.

There's an angle also on the idea that an adult that feels competent to protect the neighborhood should probably be able to get past a sucker punch from a teenager and still diffuse the situation without lethal force. Zimmerman was out of his depth, and should have known it.
 
Royal PITA said:
Yes, Martin ran as Zimmerman was calling the police. Zimmerman gave chase but lost him. The transcript proves what took place between Zimmerman` and the Dispatcher. It's not what you claimed happened Saying Martin was defending himself when he attacked Zimmerman is pure BS and not in line with the facts.

Full text of "Transcript of George Zimmerman's Call to the Police"
...Dispatcher: Are you following him?

Zimmerman: Yeah

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

Dispatcher: Alright sir what is your name?
Zimmerman: George. ..He ran.
Dispatcher: Alright George what's your last name?
Zimmerman: Zimmerman

Dispatcher: And George what's the phone number you're calling from?

Zimmerman: [redacted by Mother Jones]

Dispatcher: Alright George we do have them on the way, do you want to meet with the
officer when they get out there?

Zimmerman: Alright, where you going to meet with them at?

Zimmerman: If they come in through the gate, tell them to go straight past the
club house, and uh, straight past the club house and make a left, and then they
go past the mailboxes, that's my truck.. .[unintelligible].....
Click to expand...

yes when someone is chasing you they are the threat. zimmerman in this case was the threat.
he has 0 business chasing anyone. he is not law enforcement nor does he have any powers at all.

Is someone is chasing me you better believe that i am going defend myself if the time calls for it.
so yes facts are not on your side.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
What is the basis for that (bolded above) assertion? From what I read, Z stated that he was no longer able to observe T from his position on the roadway and moved on foot between building rows to try to keep T in sight. What followed, according to Z, was that T jumped Z and that Z shot T while being attacked. You may not believe Z, but there was no evidence presented to counter Z's version of shooting in self defense.
Click to expand...

Yes there is you just said it. zimmerman was stalking travyon. that is a threat.
Travyon has no idea who is chasing him or anything else. Zimmerman fails to identify himself
in any instance.

there was plenty of evidence and both you and zimmerman testified to it.
travyon was being chased by an unidentified man. he has every right to defend himself
again such a threat.
 
WillyPete said:
I believe he even disconnected with dispatch before the encounter with Martin, which is a shame because that might have given us valuable insight.

On the morality front, it's more about his targeting a kid on a shaking premise and pursuing him aggressively enough that the kid felt he needed to ambush him. If he had made contact, or even tried, he could have defused the entire situation, but he was convinced for whatever reason this kids was trouble, and that tunnel vision as much as anything led to the tragedy.

There's an angle also on the idea that an adult that feels competent to protect the neighborhood should probably be able to get past a sucker punch from a teenager and still diffuse the situation without lethal force. Zimmerman was out of his depth, and should have known it.
Click to expand...

Yes. Obviously he wasn't running after the Dispatcher said "we don't need you to do that":
Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah
Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.
Zimmerman: Ok

Your comments about morality and "aggressively" pursuing Martin are not borne out by the facts. Martin was no lean, mean fighting machine. He was a pudgy wannabe cop. Is there any doubt Martin could easily have run circles around him much less simply outran him? Also note that Martin ran first, which any cop will tell you is an indication of guilt. Zimmerman did nothing illegal or immoral by pursuing him. Obviously Martin did nothing illegal by running. The lines of the law got crossed when Martin attacked Zimmerman as shown by the wounds to Martin's knuckles and the wounds on Zimmerman's head.

All the forensics indicate Zimmerman's story was correct; he was attacked and pinned to the ground by Martin whereupon Zimmerman drew his gun and fired upwards in self-defense.

Trayvon Martin Autopsy Shows Injuries to Knuckles
 
Lord of Planar said:
Other instances don't matter. He planned the attack on Zimmerman. He told his girlfriend.

He obviously wasn't afraid of Zimmerman, or he wouldn't have done it.

To my knowledge, the only violence Zimmerman has exhibited was after this whole incident, where he was publicly persecuted, and having people threaten him. He was even shot at! What do you think this does to a person?
Click to expand...
His wife called the police on him prior to the Martin murder. Under questioning from prosecutors, Di Maio admitted he primarily focused on a statement Zimmerman gave police — and a statement by Zimmerman neighbor John Good that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman.

Di Maio testified that he did not take into account several witnesses who said Zimmerman was the aggressor in the struggle. He also said, when pressed, that Zimmerman's injuries could have been caused by rolling around on concrete with Trayvon.

Pathologist supports Zimmerman's description of attack
 
ludin said:
yes when someone is chasing you they are the threat. zimmerman in this case was the threat.
he has 0 business chasing anyone. he is not law enforcement nor does he have any powers at all.

Is someone is chasing me you better believe that i am going defend myself if the time calls for it.
so yes facts are not on your side.
Click to expand...

You are free to think Zimmerman committed a crime by chasing the running Martin, but the law doesn't back your claim.

You are free to shoot or beat up someone who is chasing you as you ran, but then the law will have to decide if you acted in self-defense or criminally. In the case of Zimmerman, a murder trial proved he acted lawfully. Obviously this upsets the gun-banners and those who think Zimmerman was a "white supremacist" chasing a "po' black child".
 
Royal PITA said:
You are free to think Zimmerman committed a crime by chasing the running Martin, but the law doesn't back your claim.
Click to expand...

and the strawman i never said anything about him breaking a law. I said he was a threat. If you are chasing me at night then you are a threat.
i will treat the threat as such.

You are free to shoot or beat up someone who is chasing you as you ran, but then the law will have to decide if you acted in self-defense or criminally. In the case of Zimmerman, a murder trial proved he acted lawfully. Obviously this upsets the gun-banners and those who think Zimmerman was a "white supremacist" chasing a "po' black child".
Click to expand...

They were wrong. since i am neither a gun banner nor do i think he is a white supremacist.
i think he did a stupid thing and killed someone on accident which could have been avoided had he not tried
being super cop.

Martin is free to run other than being black and running at night what law did martin break? none.
he started being chased by a stranger at night who he didn't know that was an adult male.

the only thing this kid did was defend himself.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The dispatcher told Z that a responding officer was on the way and to let them know if T did anything else - clearly implying that Z was to keep T in sight (if possible) but adding the CYA caveat "you don't have to do that" so that Z knew that he was not being ordered to follow or otherwise make contact with T.
Click to expand...
Wrong. You have it backwards.

The dispatcher asked Zimmerman to let them know what Martin was doing before telling Zimmerman not to follow Martin.

Read the transcript: Transcript of George Zimmerman's Call to the Police

Zimmerman was dead wrong. He played vigilante and killed an innocent kid.
 
Royal PITA said:
The dispatcher can be ignored, but as the facts prove, Zimmerman didn't ignore that advice. He was returning to his truck when Martin confronted him.
Click to expand...
Where’d you come up with that idea? Zimmerman stayed on Martin’s heels all the way to the point when Martin turned on him and said “why are you following me?”.
 
ludin said:
Yes there is you just said it. zimmerman was stalking travyon. that is a threat.
Travyon has no idea who is chasing him or anything else. Zimmerman fails to identify himself
in any instance.

there was plenty of evidence and both you and zimmerman testified to it.
travyon was being chased by an unidentified man. he has every right to defend himself
again such a threat.
Click to expand...

The jury decided otherwise.
 
Citizen said:
His wife called the police on him prior to the Martin murder. Under questioning from prosecutors, Di Maio admitted he primarily focused on a statement Zimmerman gave police — and a statement by Zimmerman neighbor John Good that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman.

Di Maio testified that he did not take into account several witnesses who said Zimmerman was the aggressor in the struggle. He also said, when pressed, that Zimmerman's injuries could have been caused by rolling around on concrete with Trayvon.

Pathologist supports Zimmerman's description of attack
Click to expand...

Sooooo, instead of going with the actual testimony of the pathologist, you want to run with the "what ifs" brought up by the prosecutor? If someone asked the pathologist "Is it possible there was a second gunman?" and the obvious "yes" answer, would you also support that?

From your link:
Evidence supports George Zimmerman's claim that Trayvon Martin was on top of him when Zimmerman fired the shot that claimed Trayvon's life, a forensic pathologist testified Tuesday at Zimmerman's murder trial.

"The medical evidence is consistent with Mr. Zimmerman's statement," said Vincent Di Maio, an expert witness for the defense. The pathologist also found that Trayvon lived no more than three minutes after the shooting and probably was conscious for at least 10 to15 seconds.

Di Maio also testified that Zimmerman's head injuries could have been caused by coming into contact with concrete and that such injuries can be very dangerous. That testimony supported Zimmerman's claim that Trayvon was slamming his head into a sidewalk.
 
WillyPete said:
This has never been a strong argument. Even if it was phrased as an order, it wasn't binding. 911 operators don't just get to boss people over the phone, even if they are full-bore police officers.

Disregarding good advice isn't illegal. It does speak to Zimmerman's morality and state of mind ("getting" Martin was more important to him than following police advice.)
Click to expand...
You misunderstand my position. I didn’t assert that the dispatcher ordered Zimmerman to do anything. Only that she told him not to follow Martin and he ignored the advice.

I’m well aware that dispatchers aren’t police officers (usually) and don’t have police powers. That doesn’t mean that they should be ignored. They are trained specifically for the various situations people find themselves in and generally provide sound advice/direction. Advice that Zimmerman should’ve followed.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
Where’d you come up with that idea? Zimmerman stayed on Martin’s heels all the way to the point when Martin turned on him and said “why are you following me?”.
Click to expand...

So your story is that pudgy Zimmerman was hot on the heels of Martin all the way through the phone call? Did you read the transcript? At what point in it did Martin turn on Zimmerman? Are you claiming Zimmerman shot Martin in cold blood while both were standing up and a few feet apart?
 
Royal PITA said:
So your story is that pudgy Zimmerman was hot on the heels of Martin all the way through the phone call? Did you read the transcript? At what point in it did Martin turn on Zimmerman? Are you claiming Zimmerman shot Martin in cold blood while both were standing up and a few feet apart?
Click to expand...
I asked you first. Where’d you get the wrong idea that Zimmerman was walking away from Martin, headed to his truck?

And yes, I’ve read the transcript of Zimmerman’s 911 call. Matter of fact, I posted it (#283), and the confrontation wasn’t recorded.
 
ludin said:
and the strawman i never said anything about him breaking a law. I said he was a threat. If you are chasing me at night then you are a threat.
i will treat the threat as such. ....
Click to expand...

And you are free to shoot me and defend your actions in court. Just be certain I'm not chasing you because you left your credit card at the gas station.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
I asked you first. Where’d you get the wrong idea that Zimmerman was walking away from Martin, headed to his truck?

And yes, I’ve read the transcript of Zimmerman’s 911 call. Matter of fact, I posted it (#283), and the confrontation wasn’t recorded.
Click to expand...

How can facts be "the wrong idea"? Because it doesn't follow the LW politically correct version? Transcript, testimony, forensics.

Correct the confrontation wasn't recorded yet you stated "Zimmerman stayed on Martin’s heels all the way to the point when Martin turned on him and said “why are you following me?”" How can that be if Zimmerman was calmly on the phone returning to his truck as shown in the transcript? In fact, since Zimmerman was on the phone until he lost Martin, and if your version was correct, then wouldn't he have been on the phone when, as you claimed, Martin turned and said "why are you following me?"
 
Royal PITA said:
Yes. Obviously he wasn't running after the Dispatcher said "we don't need you to do that":
Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah
Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.
Zimmerman: Ok

Your comments about morality and "aggressively" pursuing Martin are not borne out by the facts. Martin was no lean, mean fighting machine. He was a pudgy wannabe cop. Is there any doubt Martin could easily have run circles around him much less simply outran him? Also note that Martin ran first, which any cop will tell you is an indication of guilt. Zimmerman did nothing illegal or immoral by pursuing him. Obviously Martin did nothing illegal by running. The lines of the law got crossed when Martin attacked Zimmerman as shown by the wounds to Martin's knuckles and the wounds on Zimmerman's head.

All the forensics indicate Zimmerman's story was correct; he was attacked and pinned to the ground by Martin whereupon Zimmerman drew his gun and fired upwards in self-defense.

Trayvon Martin Autopsy Shows Injuries to Knuckles
Click to expand...

You are talking legality, which is settled for me. The charges were weak and the jury made the right call.

Morally, Zimmerman created a situation that led to Martin attacking him and Zimmerman defending himself.

He was way way way out of line on that score, and it is fitting that he be haunted by the results for the rest of his life.

It is perfectly A-Ok in my book that a glancing mention of Trayvon Martin on his birthday sets Zimmerman off to the point that he launches a empty lawsuit. That's the form justice is taking in this case.

Morality is subjective, so we don't need to agree, but that's my read on the event.

I think this has run its course.
 
I am a staunch 2nd Amendment supporter and advocate for constitutional concealed carry. And that being said, George Zimmerman is an unhinged idiot who is NOT a good example of how anyone so blessed to have the right to carry a gun should act.

A CCW (concealed carry permit) is issued for YOUR PERSONAL protection. It isn't a badge to go out and enforce the laws, it is for YOUR protection. When Zimmerman got out of his vehicle that night he INSERTED his weapon into a situation which involved a suspicious person he believed was a criminal. It wasn't someone he thought was a mass shooter, or about to kill or rape someone which needed him to consider action. It was over someone he thought may have been looking to commit a theft---- which is NOT a life threatening situation.

He was right to call the police.
He was WRONG to get out of the car with his gun.

And another thing:

George Zimmerman is NOT white in the traditional definition of that race. If Zimmerman is "white" then so is Barrack Obama. Both are of mixed race, but neither is "white".
 
Royal PITA said:
How can facts be "the wrong idea"? Because it doesn't follow the LW politically correct version? Transcript, testimony, forensics.

Correct the confrontation wasn't recorded yet you stated "Zimmerman stayed on Martin’s heels all the way to the point when Martin turned on him and said “why are you following me?”" How can that be if Zimmerman was calmly on the phone returning to his truck as shown in the transcript? In fact, since Zimmerman was on the phone until he lost Martin, and if your version was correct, then wouldn't he have been on the phone when, as you claimed, Martin turned and said "why are you following me?"
Click to expand...
I realize that this thread is in a political forum, but there’s nothing political about what happened, so stow your dumbass “LW” garbage.

You have not stated any facts. You made an assertion that Zimmerman was walking away from Martin, towards his truck when Martin confronted him, and then asked me if I’d read the transcript as if that was somehow going to support your story.

As for the “why are you following me?” comment, that is what Martin’s girlfriend, who was on the phone with him when the confrontation happened, testified to in court.

Clearly, you don’t know **** about what happened.
 
Royal PITA said:
Sooooo, instead of going with the actual testimony of the pathologist, you want to run with the "what ifs" brought up by the prosecutor? If someone asked the pathologist "Is it possible there was a second gunman?" and the obvious "yes" answer, would you also support that?

From your link:
Evidence supports George Zimmerman's claim that Trayvon Martin was on top of him when Zimmerman fired the shot that claimed Trayvon's life, a forensic pathologist testified Tuesday at Zimmerman's murder trial.

"The medical evidence is consistent with Mr. Zimmerman's statement," said Vincent Di Maio, an expert witness for the defense. The pathologist also found that Trayvon lived no more than three minutes after the shooting and probably was conscious for at least 10 to15 seconds.

Di Maio also testified that Zimmerman's head injuries could have been caused by coming into contact with concrete and that such injuries can be very dangerous. That testimony supported Zimmerman's claim that Trayvon was slamming his head into a sidewalk.
Click to expand...
Being on top of him does not mean that Trayvon caused the injuries. It does not mean that Trayvon jumped Zimmerman. It does not mean that Trayvon was a thug looking for trouble as you claim. All it means is that Trayvon was on top of him when Zimmerman shot him. You have no clue what happened. But give Zimmerman the white privileged card if you must
 
WillyPete said:
You are talking legality, which is settled for me. The charges were weak and the jury made the right call.

Morally, Zimmerman created a situation that led to Martin attacking him and Zimmerman defending himself.

He was way way way out of line on that score, and it is fitting that he be haunted by the results for the rest of his life.

It is perfectly A-Ok in my book that a glancing mention of Trayvon Martin on his birthday sets Zimmerman off to the point that he launches a empty lawsuit. That's the form justice is taking in this case.

Morality is subjective, so we don't need to agree, but that's my read on the event.

I think this has run its course.
Click to expand...

So, if you see a man take a woman's purse and run, you wouldn't do anything because it might be morally wrong? In fact, it could turn out that it was his man-purse and the woman had stolen it from him so best to ignore it and walk away, right? Sorry, but common sense should prevail here.

Some facts:

  • Zimmerman was on Neighborhood Watch.
  • There had been crimes in the neighborhood.
  • Martin appeared suspicious to Zimmerman because Martin was looking at the "houses" as Zimmerman was on the phone.
  • When Martin saw Zimmerman sitting in his truck, he initially moved toward Zimmerman then broke and ran.
  • Suspecting a criminal, Zimmerman gave chase.
  • Zimmerman lost Martin and was returning to his truck as he arranged to meet the police on the phone.

Note most of that was on the transcript. Full text of "Transcript of George Zimmerman's Call to the Police"
 
RaleBulgarian said:
I realize that this thread is in a political forum, but there’s nothing political about what happened, so stow your dumbass “LW” garbage....Clearly, you don’t know **** about what happened.
Click to expand...

Awesome. Have a really nice day!
 
Citizen said:
Being on top of him does not mean that Trayvon caused the injuries. It does not mean that Trayvon jumped Zimmerman. It does not mean that Trayvon was a thug looking for trouble as you claim. All it means is that Trayvon was on top of him when Zimmerman shot him. You have no clue what happened. But give Zimmerman the white privileged card if you must
Click to expand...

Sorry, while your theories are nice, I'll go with the conclusions of the experts.

ROFLMAO. I knew there was a race card in there somewhere!!! So Zimmerman is now white even though most Republicans don't consider him to be "white"? LOL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom