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

[Citizen]

To me, the president was saying his son would be a bully that assaults people, if he had a son.

So who did Martin bully or assault? There is no record of him ever bullying or assaulting anyone. Zimmerman on the other hand has a record of bullying and assaulting both before and after he murdered Martin. But I guess since he is white, you will give him the white privileged pass

 

[Mason66]

That's you inferring a meaning into his comments that the words don't say.

There was intent behind those chosen words.

What do you think that intent was?

 

[Lord of Planar]

So who did Martin bully or assault? There is no record of him ever bullying or assaulting anyone. Zimmerman on the other hand has a record of bullying and assaulting both before and after he murdered Martin. But I guess since he is white, you will give him the white privileged pass

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?

 

[JasperL]

There was intent behind those chosen words.

What do you think that intent was?

I've told you. Just because you don't like what I said doesn't mean I need to change my view.

And the charge was Obama "interfered" with the case. I don't see it, I don't read those words and see POTUS deliberately trying to sway a jury for a trial that was 15 months later, and before charges were filed. What he asked for was a thorough investigation. We see what ACTUAL presidential interference in a case looks like TODAY, and those comments aren't it, they are completely different. I believed at the time and now that the outrage about Obama's comments was as manufactured as the birther bull****, or the complaints about his golf and vacations and choice of suits, and wearing jeans and a helmet riding his bike. Obama said it so it's WRONG!!!

Years later we're dissecting those comments and you have to imply a meaning not said to condemn them. Let's say you're right. OK, so he made ill advised comments 15 months before a trial, and it's STILL a controversy? It's ridiculous. I believe his intent was simple - to show empathy in part by reassuring the black community in particular that the incident would be fully investigated. That's it, that's all he advocated for. He didn't suggest that Zimmerman must be convicted or that he committed a crime.

 

[ludin]

While a series of unsolved burglaries were happening.

The fact is that he was told by the police not to do anything and he did it anyway.
I think it was a bad shoot and he should have gone to jail as he was the one that instigated
the situation to begin with.

 

[WillyPete]

If Martin ran off, you think the police are going to just walk away? The running off would be seen as a guilty action and they would have looked for him further, which is what Zimmerman did.

Ok, find a law enforcement professional that agrees police would and should escalate a pursuit when a kid who was looking in windows runs off before they make contact. I certainly don't think that's the norm.

In any case, it's not really a good comparison, because police typically wear uniforms and are trained to announce themselves early and often. Martin's behavior wouldn't be the same, because getting followed by uniformed police is different from being followed by some random jackass.

Did you know Zimmerman was walking back to his vehicle when Martin jumped him? As far as Zimmerman was concerned, it was over for him, but not for Martin.

I agree Martin absolutely made mistakes that contributed to his own death. They both did, but Zimmerman created the situation. Morally, he is far more culpable.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The fact is that he was told by the police not to do anything and he did it anyway.
I think it was a bad shoot and he should have gone to jail as he was the one that instigated
the situation to begin with.

That is simple not true. He was told "we don't need you to do that," and by the 911 operator. Not the police.

 

[ludin]

That is simple not true. He was told "we don't need you to do that," and by the 911 operator. Not the police.

the 911 operator works for the police force. I know a friend of ours is one.

 

[Divine_Wind]

It's not what I believe, but what you DID....

First, clipping a post for brevity is normal. Second, it is what you believe since you labeled my action as dishonest....and that's a matter of record:

I didn't confirm it. Not sure why you clipped this part of my comment, then dishonestly mischaracterized what I said.

If that's the way you want to debate, that's fine. I'll just ignore those comments going forward other than to point out your lies.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

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

Time for Democrats to help us relive the incident that Obama used to vastly worsen the racial divide in America. Buttigieg and Warren are jackasses.

Add yourself to the list.

Zimmerman is just looking for attention. Nothing that was posted was libelous.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The fact is that he was told by the police not to do anything and he did it anyway.
I think it was a bad shoot and he should have gone to jail as he was the one that instigated
the situation to begin with.

Nope, Z was initially asked (by the police dispatcher) to let them know if T did anything else, when Z was later asked if he was following T and he was told "you don't have to do that". He was never told not to do anything.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

That is simple not true. He was told "we don't need you to do that," and by the 911 operator. Not the police.

That’s some interesting thinking. Completely wrong, but interesting.

 

[Divine_Wind]

the 911 operator works for the police force. I know a friend of ours is one.

Correct. Your friend can tell you that it's not illegal to not take their advice. Second, Zimmerman did take their advice and was returning to his truck when Martin attacked him.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Nope, Z was initially asked (by the police dispatcher) to let them know if T did anything else, when Z was later asked if he was following T and he was told "you don't have to do that". He was never told not to do anything.

Your logic is that because Zimmerman was not specifically told not to follow Martin, the 911 dispatcher should have been ignored?

 

[ludin]

Nope, Z was initially asked (by the police dispatcher) to let them know if T did anything else, when Z was later asked if he was following T and he was told "you don't have to do that". He was never told not to do anything.

when someone says you don't have to do that. the answer is ok.

zimmerman then got out of his car and started chasing the kid.

he started the confrontation.
he should have been charged and gone to jail. it was a bad shoot.

martin was defending himself from a stranger that he didn't know following him for no reason.
zimmerman never identified himself or said who he was or anything else.

 

[JasperL]

First, clipping a post for brevity is normal. Second, it is what you believe since you labeled my action as dishonest....and that's a matter of record:

For brevity is fine, but it's not fine when you delete the part of the comment that's relevant to the discussion. You've done it twice now.

"It's not what I believe, but what you DID. It's in the record. You thanked me for confirming something when my comments said the opposite, and to advance that dishonest characterization, you quoted me but deleted the part of my comment demonstrating that."

The bolded is what was relevant to my assertion your post was dishonest, and then to dispute it, you dishonestly deleted that part of my comment in your next reply. It's like you're trying to prove the point you're unable to have an adult debate.

 

[ludin]

Correct. Your friend can tell you that it's not illegal to not take their advice. Second, Zimmerman did take their advice and was returning to his truck when Martin attacked him.

no he didn't. he got out of his car and was chasing martin.
martin was defending himself against an unknown person following him at night.

it was a bad shoot.
you can't claim self defense when you are the one that starts the confrontation.

 

[Divine_Wind]

For brevity is fine, but it's not fine when you delete the part of the comment that's relevant to the discussion. You've done it twice now. ...

Then, again, you should ignore me if you truly believe your own words. So far you've derailed this conversation far too long. Obviously you would rather whine and complain about perceived wrongs than discuss the topic. Fine, but you can do it without me.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Your logic is that because Zimmerman was not specifically told not to follow Martin, the 911 dispatcher should have been ignored?

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.

 

[WillyPete]

Your logic is that because Zimmerman was not specifically told not to follow Martin, the 911 dispatcher should have been ignored?

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.)

 

[JasperL]

Then, again, you should ignore me if you truly believe your own words. So far you've derailed this conversation far too long. Obviously you would rather whine and complain about perceived wrongs than discuss the topic. Fine, but you can do it without me.

I'm happy to stay on point, which is possible when we respect each other enough to reply to each other's full posts and to quote them in context, versus selectively deleting my comments, then misrepresenting what was said in the part you deleted. You've proved your unable to do that, and it's THAT dishonesty that's derailed the thread.

Quote me in context, and reply to what I said and we'll do fine staying on topic. It's easy. I do it every day with other posters, even those with whom I disagree.

 

[Divine_Wind]

no he didn't. he got out of his car and was chasing martin.
martin was defending himself against an unknown person following him at night.

it was a bad shoot.
you can't claim self defense when you are the one that starts the confrontation.

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].....

 

[ttwtt78640]

when someone says you don't have to do that. the answer is ok.

zimmerman then got out of his car and started chasing the kid.

he started the confrontation.
he should have been charged and gone to jail. it was a bad shoot.

martin was defending himself from a stranger that he didn't know following him for no reason.
zimmerman never identified himself or said who he was or anything else.

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.

 

[Divine_Wind]

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.)

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.

 

[Divine_Wind]

Your logic is that because Zimmerman was not specifically told not to follow Martin, the 911 dispatcher should have been ignored?

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.