- Joined
- Jul 28, 2008
- Messages
- 45,596
- Reaction score
- 22,536
- Location
- Everywhere and nowhere
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
that's pretty paranoid.
To be fair, that's a sign of a good NW's in a high crime area.
that's pretty paranoid.
I still have a problem with the 911 operator asking him to back off BUT report on the situation. That kind of bugs me from a standpoint that if I were Zimmerman I would think "well, how can I do both? I have to have eyes on him to report the situation." but if Zimmerman took it upon himself to confront Martin then it changes things drastically.I agree, which is why what happened after Martin fled is so important. If Z pursued him, M reacting violently is not unreasonable due to simple fight or flight instincts. When flight is taken away as an option, the fearful only have the fight option. Z pursuing Martin would have taken away his ability to engage in a flight response.
But if it was just an exchange of words that turned violent, it comes down to both people making egregious mistakes.
Not if there have been documented reports of burglary and other crimes which from what I understand is the case. Every stranger is a suspect when your area has been victimized, and sometimes your neighbors are "strangers" then too.
I still have a problem with the 911 operator asking him to back off BUT report on the situation. That kind of bugs me from a standpoint that if I were Zimmerman I would think "well, how can I do both? I have to have eyes on him to report the situation." but if Zimmerman took it upon himself to confront Martin then it changes things drastically.
Doesn't matter. Zimmerman was watching a stranger to the neighborhood, I'm pretty sure the guy wasn't thinking about the race at the time. There were two versions of the audio of the call and the unedited one shows that the only time Z spoke of the possible race was when asked, and then when asked specifically if he could determine that he said "he looks to be black" if he wasn't giving a positive like "yeah, he's black" I believe race was the last thing he looked at. That being said, I don't care who the person in my neighborhood is or what they look like, I'm making sure they aren't casing anyone's property, of course this comes down to when I notice anything because there is no NW on this block.Were all the burglaries committed by black males?
Well, GZ may be a raving nutter. He may have a hero complex, but even then that doesn't make what he did illegal but I will grant if he stepped beyond self defense that would be. Following the kid though was not relevant to the charges IMO.One of my sons is in NW in his neighborhood in Charlotte.. He think GZ is a raving nutter.
They don't do "patrols".. or chase people.. They observe and report. SOP.
Because it speaks to intent.Why do you think that matters?
Do you think all facts are relvent to all discussions? Did you know Aardvarks are the last species of the order Tubulidentata? That's a fact, and by your logic, it's also relevant.
Well, GZ may be a raving nutter. He may have a hero complex, but even then that doesn't make what he did illegal but I will grant if he stepped beyond self defense that would be. Following the kid though was not relevant to the charges IMO.
Nope. Reckless disreguard would show that he had no regard for the consequences of his actions, he was trying to comply with the orders of the 911 operator. The charge doesn't fit.Actually it does.. It goes to reckless disregard.
There was a communication lag. Based on what the police have released, no one can make affirmative charges, period.So everything GZ did was legal, yet he failed to meet the standard of what a reasonable man would do "under the circumstances".
That is the language of various degrees of manslaughter and reckless homicide.
That is compounded because he was armed and Trayvon wasn't doing anything unlawful.
Doesn't matter. Zimmerman was watching a stranger to the neighborhood....
Because it speaks to intent.
As such, it may be demonstrated that aggression may indeed be unlawful.
We've covered this.
Pursuing, following, whichever way you want to call it the 911 operator asked him to report......kind of hard to do that when you lose sight of the person.no, he was pursuing him.
watching is passive....following is not.
Nope. Reckless disreguard would show that he had no regard for the consequences of his actions, he was trying to comply with the orders of the 911 operator. The charge doesn't fit.
There was a communication lag. Based on what the police have released, no one can make affirmative charges, period.
You've already made up your mind, don't know that there's anything else to discuss here.Zimmerman will have to assert self defense which means he will have to take the stand.. and the prosecution will rip him apart on cross.
The 911 dispatcher should have been more specific.. Don't follow, just keep your eyes open.
The problem here is that GZ identified himself as Neighborhood Watch.. which means he had been instructed in NO uncertain terms that they were to observe and report NOT follow.
The liaison officer who met with GZ's NW group.. said it couldn't be more clear.. They also had a slide presentation.
Not of necessity. As I've previously mentioned, self defence may easily entail aggression, yet comprise extenuating circumstances. Indeed, self defence may be a legal defence in itself.So are you trying to say that in order to be an aggressive act, it must be unlawful?
Not of necessity. As I've previously mentioned, self defence may easily entail aggression, yet comprise extenuating circumstances. Indeed, self defence may be a legal defence in itself.
My point is that, aggression alone needn't vitiate nor validate an action in legal terms. Because the act itself is but one half of the equation. The mens rea/intent is what's decisive. Which brings us right back to my original post.
Translation: You have now come to the realisation that there was nothing to dispute.So basically your original post was off topic, which brings us right back to my first question/response.
We might draw an analogy with legality, whereby a crime constitutes both an act and an intention.
The actus reus and mens rea, respectively.
Translation: You have now come to the realisation that there was nothing to dispute.
Let the backtracking begin in earnest.
Nope. Same position.
What's the point of discussing legality in this thread? Aggressive =/= illegal.
And?Let's do that:
Hey, what a coincidence! It's same position!
I've explained just how legality is relevant.
As I myself was forced to point out to you, remember? And yes, the legality is evident. As I've said previously, I won't rephrase a thing, until such time as you deem that it passes muster. Or, as you do here, attempt to pass off my original position as your own.No you didn't. Legality has absolutely no bearing at all on whether or not following someone is aggressive. Aggressive behavior can be, and often is, quite legal.
As I myself was forced to point out to you, remember?
And yes, the legality is evident. As I've said previously, I won't rephrase a thing, until such time as you deem that it passes muster. Or, as you do here, attempt to pass off my original position as your own.
Btw, don't become another Thunder. There's little point in omitting my comments, if your fans can read them for themselves.
...Btw, don't become another Thunder.....