The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[HereWeGoAgain]

So at the end of the day, we don't have to respect Police Dispatchers everybody....you heard it here first!

So you want a guy who is miles away calling the shots?
The dispatcher is just that,a dispatcher. Nothing more,nothing less.

 

[The Gadfly]

This is a thinly veiled reference to the GZ case.

1. "We don't need you to do that (follow TM)" is not an order. It's a suggestion. The dispatcher does not give orders due to liability issues.
2. There actually is no proof that GZ did follow TM after that suggestion.

So it begs the question, why should dispatchers even be called in the first place if all we need to do is take the law into our own hands?

My, that was quick! I go away for a while; I stick my nose back in here, just to see... and sure enough, my faith is reaffirmed; some things in this place just never change! First of all, 4Horseman here posts up a very thinly disguised "straw man fallacy" of an argument; and then everyone else gives the thing 6 (count 'em, SIX!) pages of attention, when a single, simple reply would have put the poor thing out of its misery! Ok, boys and girls, Gadfly is back in the house, and you know I won't let that slide.

Cutting through the drivel, the post quoted above reveals the unstated but obvious intent. Here's the argument, stated openly: "Dispatchers ARE the police, and if we don't do what the nice policeman/woman tells us, then we are taking the law into our own hands; that's bad, and it must be punished ( and by extension, any case where it wasn't punished is an injustice, so we should be outraged, OUTRAGED, I tell you!)". That about cover it, 4Horseman? That IS where you were trying to go, isn't it, at least by implication? Unfortunately the issue you are actually upset about, is not that at all; as a matter of fact, the question you raised is not even remotely legally (or morally) germane to what you are upset about, and I think you know that. (If you don't, your education in logical argumentation and critical thinking is somewhat deficient). There are legitimate moral, ethical, legal and societal issues in the situation alluded to here that are actually worth serious discussion and thought. This is NOT one of them.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

If the Dispatcher had told SG not to get a shotgun, and OG had driven his car into SG's mother, that would have raised liability issues for the police department and the city, which is why dispatchers are specifically trained not to tell people what to do in cases like this.

Do you have some factual basis for this statement, or do you just think dispatchers are "specifically trained" not to tell people what to do in cases like this?

Yes they are trained not to give out advice that may make them liable.

 

[The Gadfly]

So at the end of the day, we don't have to respect Police Dispatchers everybody....you heard it here first!

So you want a guy who is miles away calling the shots?
The dispatcher is just that,a dispatcher. Nothing more,nothing less.

I doubt he does, really; and if he did get his way, the first time the result was not to his emotional liking, he'd be demanding the contrary. No, I suspect this argument is more about "This didn't turn out the way I would have liked" than it is about "This is the only way to do things". However, it's easier to put up a straw man argument, and/or an appeal to authority (this is a little of both), than to argue the real substance of complex issues.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

This is a thinly veiled reference to the GZ case.

1. "We don't need you to do that (follow TM)" is not an order. It's a suggestion. The dispatcher does not give orders due to liability issues.
2. There actually is no proof that GZ did follow TM after that suggestion.

So it begs the question, why should dispatchers even be called in the first place if all we need to do is take the law into our own hands?

My, that was quick! I go away for a while; I stick my nose back in here, just to see... and sure enough, my faith is reaffirmed; some things in this place just never change! First of all, 4Horseman here posts up a very thinly disguised "straw man fallacy" of an argument; and then everyone else gives the thing 6 (count 'em, SIX!) pages of attention, when a single, simple reply would have put the poor thing out of its misery! Ok, boys and girls, Gadfly is back in the house, and you know I won't let that slide.

Cutting through the drivel, the post quoted above reveals the unstated but obvious intent. Here's the argument, stated openly: "Dispatchers ARE the police, and if we don't do what the nice policeman/woman tells us, then we are taking the law into our own hands; that's bad, and it must be punished ( and by extension, any case where it wasn't punished is an injustice, so we should be outraged, OUTRAGED, I tell you!)". That about cover it, 4Horseman? That IS where you were trying to go, isn't it, at least by implication? Unfortunately the issue you are actually upset about, is not that at all; as a matter of fact, the question you raised is not even remotely legally (or morally) germane to what you are upset about, and I think you know that. (If you don't, your education in logical argumentation and critical thinking is somewhat deficient). There are legitimate moral, ethical, legal and societal issues in the situation alluded to here that are actually worth serious discussion and thought. This is NOT one of them.

It's like they live in a fantasy world of their own making.
The dispatcher argument has been beat to death,and yet here we are again.
It's frigging mind boggling !

 

[The Gadfly]

So it begs the question, why should dispatchers even be called in the first place if all we need to do is take the law into our own hands?

My, that was quick! I go away for a while; I stick my nose back in here, just to see... and sure enough, my faith is reaffirmed; some things in this place just never change! First of all, 4Horseman here posts up a very thinly disguised "straw man fallacy" of an argument; and then everyone else gives the thing 6 (count 'em, SIX!) pages of attention, when a single, simple reply would have put the poor thing out of its misery! Ok, boys and girls, Gadfly is back in the house, and you know I won't let that slide.

Cutting through the drivel, the post quoted above reveals the unstated but obvious intent. Here's the argument, stated openly: "Dispatchers ARE the police, and if we don't do what the nice policeman/woman tells us, then we are taking the law into our own hands; that's bad, and it must be punished ( and by extension, any case where it wasn't punished is an injustice, so we should be outraged, OUTRAGED, I tell you!)". That about cover it, 4Horseman? That IS where you were trying to go, isn't it, at least by implication? Unfortunately the issue you are actually upset about, is not that at all; as a matter of fact, the question you raised is not even remotely legally (or morally) germane to what you are upset about, and I think you know that. (If you don't, your education in logical argumentation and critical thinking is somewhat deficient). There are legitimate moral, ethical, legal and societal issues in the situation alluded to here that are actually worth serious discussion and thought. This is NOT one of them.

It's like they live in a fantasy world of their own making.
The dispatcher argument has been beat to death,and yet here we are again.
It's frigging mind boggling !

Well, you have to understand the frame of reference; if the facts are not on your side, and you didn't get your way, it's just easier to fall back on whatever you think sounds good than to construct a rational argument; so it's either that, or just start slinging the "r-word" around. and see what sticks first. Last refuge of the intellectually slothful and emotionally desperate. Then again, some people have the notion that if they repeat something inane often enough, it might sound intelligent.

 

[The Gadfly]

Again- same deal. Data was collected and analyzed.

You just don't like what the Data says.

Cherry pick the data, you can make it say anything you want.

Yes, you can.

Which wasn't done here.

Which brings me up to an obvious question, is there any form of data that would convince you AGW is true, or will you always find an excuse why it isn't.

93% of Climate Scientists think that it is true. Are they ALL in on it?

Academics believe what the grant money pays them to think; It's really very simple. Do I REALLy need to remind you of "Climategate"? Please! And by the way, Joe, in case you haven't noticed, this is America, NOT Australia; but hey, if you like their way of doing it better, you're free to join them; our borders are open, and you're free to go elsewhere anytime you like.

 

[JQPublic1]

NW, fake NW, no NW, doesn't matter. It is still legal to follow someone in America. Even if the person you are following is black.

I respect your point of view but the word "following" is far more complex than you seem to know. Stalking is" following" and that is a crime even if the person you are stalking is Black!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Thank you. You listening to this, QW?

I am not going to be able to get anything out of our local police department. They aren't going to tell me bo-diddily, afraid that whatever they say (to a lawyer) will probably be used against them.

But think about it, QW - and Boss, I realize what I am about to say is not the Zimmerman case, but bear with me for a second anyway - if a dispatcher is being told by someone in a car that he is being chased by another car and that he is going to go home and get his shotgun, which scenario is probably going to result in the safest result: (1) advising the gun-threatening driver not to go home and get his gun but, instead, simply to drive to the police station or (2) saying nothing, followed by the gun-threatening driver doing exactly what he threatened he was going to do? Hint: No. 1.

It defies common sense to think that liability-fearing police departments have policies which would require a dispatcher to say nothing when confronted with the type of situation outlined, above.

I advise women who think they are being followed to head for the nearest firestation, they are more likely to get someone's attention there than at a police station, especially at night.

I think dispatchers should be able to tell people to avoid dangerous situations, but there is no way you can say that it is always safer to go to the police station than home. Let us go out of our way to create a ridiculous situation, the type that get lawyers thinking about losing money.

Someone calls in to report being followed, and the dispatcher advises him to drive to the nearest police station. He does so, and the guy following him happens to be a whacko crazed survivalist who is armed to the teeth. When they get to the police station the guy that called is killed in the ensuing gun battle, and it turns out that he was shot by one of the police officers that was aiming at the other guy.

Would you want to defend the police from the ensuing law suit under those circumstances?

Your situation here is too far-fetched. I see where you are going, but here's the deal - I truly believe that police departments, and the dispatchers that work for them, are mainly concerned with preventing violence, without all that much concern for liability. So far absent in our discussion here is the fact that it is virtually impossible to maintain a civil lawsuit against a police department (or any governmental agency, for that matter) based on negligent conduct. Intentional conduct, yes, but when a dispatcher messes up, it's negligent, not intentional. It's nice to THINK about holding a police agency liable in money damages for negligence, but in reality, it just doesn't happen.

Have you ever gotten involved in a road rage incident? I have - several times. Fortunately, none of them ever came to anything physical, just your usual posturing, gesturing, etc. But if I was ever being followed by a guy in a road rage incident, and I was on my home turf, I would go STRAIGHT to the police station, pull up in front, get out, and invite the jerk to take it inside if he has a complaint.

I think I said up front that the situation was far fetched.

Tell me something, given your premise that the one thing police departments want to do is prevent violence, why the fuck didn't this call get the highest possible priority? The guy called 911, told them he was being followed, where he was, where he was going, and that he was going to get a gun, yet the two people still had enough time to argue after he went into his house and came out with his gun.

Think about that, the response time for something that was clearly escalating to the point of violence, and possibly death, was still slow enough that they had time to argue in front of his house. How long did this incident last before the police finally put down their coffee and donuts to see if they could prevent that violence that you think is their primary concern.

Face the facts George, the number one concern for every cop, even the good ones, is to get home every night. (Honestly, I would hate to see cops that didn't want to get home carrying a gun, it would be worse than it is now.) If they really wanted to prevent violence they wouldn't break down the doors of septuagenarians and put them in the hospital after shooting the family pet simply to serve a search warrant.

EXCLUSIVE: Seniors get*$300G for cop attack by NYPD in Brooklyn home - NY Daily News

If they wanted to prevent violence they would arrest a stroke victim on the side of the road for refusing to answer questions.

Inmate's untreated, fatal stroke results in $1 million settlement by Hillsborough sheriff, jail medical provider | Tampa Bay Times

I was involved in a road rage incident once, many years ago, so long ago that they didn't even call it road rage. Frankly, if I had access to a shot gun then I would have gone for it because the nearest police station was about 15 miles in the other direction, and I would have had to go through downtown to get to it. Even today downtown in that city is empty after 6 pm.

Where did shotgun guy live in relation to the police station? Would it have been more dangerous to attempt to get there than go home? The little I know seems to indicate it would have been a longer drive, does it really make sense to prolong the danger than to get off the streets? Keep in mind that, despite your personal feelings about guns, shotgun guy did not shoot at the guy that followed him, even when he claims to have believed his mother was in danger. All he did was disable the car he was driving, which is the equivalent of disarming him.

Why try to turn this into a crusade about following the orders of dispatchers, which they probably didn't give in the first place, instead of pointing out how responsible and civic minded shotgun guy was?

 

[Interpol]

This is a thinly veiled reference to the GZ case.

1. "We don't need you to do that (follow TM)" is not an order. It's a suggestion. The dispatcher does not give orders due to liability issues.
2. There actually is no proof that GZ did follow TM after that suggestion.

That's correct, just like there is actually no proof that TM threw the first punch, even if some people tell themselves that's the truth.

 

[Boss]

It they have no authority, why call them in the first place?

That is who you are connected to when you dial 911. That's why.

Let's clear something up, because there seems to be a bit of a misconception happening here. Police dispatch and 911 dispatch, are two different entities. In a small town or rural area, when you dial 911, you may in fact be connected directly to the Police dispatcher. In larger cities, you are probably not connected directly to the PD, but rather, an independent agency which handles emergencies of all nature. "What is your emergency?" is usually their first question. You see, they need to know whether they should contact the police, fire, or ambulance dispatcher from there.

But regardless of whether you are speaking to an emergency management dispatcher, or an actual police officer who is working dispatch, the protocols are the same. What they tell you, is not legally binding or enforceable as law, they are merely instructed to advise you of the most safe action to take, given the situation. Whether you follow their advice or not, is entirely up to you. If you don't follow their advice, it is not a violation of the law. If you violate the law, it is still a violation of the law.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

5'11" my ass. I see picture after picture with him towering over people. The 6'3" reports are more accurate. More corruption from the state to list him at 5'11"

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

That poor, helpless, little kid surely couldn't defend himself against the 5'7" George Zimmerman. STUPID FUCKING MEDIA. GOOD FOR FUCKING NOTHING.

 

[Boss]

This is a thinly veiled reference to the GZ case.

1. "We don't need you to do that (follow TM)" is not an order. It's a suggestion. The dispatcher does not give orders due to liability issues.
2. There actually is no proof that GZ did follow TM after that suggestion.

That's correct, just like there is actually no proof that TM threw the first punch, even if some people tell themselves that's the truth.

But that's not the truth. First, there is the testimony of Zimmerman, that is evidence. Then, there is the phone call made by TM to his girlfriend, where he stated that he was going back to confront Zimmerman and "make the cracka pay" ...again, this is evidence. Then, there is the evidence of Zimmerman's face, which was severely lacerated, while TM suffered only lacerations to his ring finger, (aside from the gunshot wound, of course.) Again, this is evidence that TM struck GZ first, and in fact, was the only one to land a punch to the face at all. We also have to suspend reality to believe that Zimmerman phoned 911 for help, and THEN attacked someone. Attackers just don't do that, it's extremely illogical.

So the "proof" is in the combined evidence of all this, and your failure to recognize it, is not withstanding. The jury, who is the only entity that really matters here, was convinced by this evidence and found to acquit on all charges. To try and now claim there wasn't any proof, is beyond reason, and is an abject LIE.

 

[The Gadfly]

Zimmerman called the cops and they told him to stand down. He didn't listen and pursued anyway.

There are a lot of ifs and buts in the case but for you to try to turn it around into "simple police involvement" and pretend no police contact was made, directions given by the police and they were ignored is dealing in fantasy

With all due respect, did you even watch the trial? Or listen to the 911 call?

1. The 911 Dispatcher did not give him an order. He said, "we don't NEED you to do that" and not "Please do NOT follow him." 911 Dispatchers are required to tell people that in EVERY situation. If you ask a 911 dispatcher if it's alright to shoot a home invader they won't tell you yes or no. IF you are asking a dispatcher if it's ok to save someone from a burning building they'll tell you that they don't need to you to that in order to take liability off themselves.

2. According to Zimmerman's statements, corroborated by his own 911 call, he only "chased" Martin for a few seconds before the 911 dispatcher made his comment about not needing him to follow and Zimmerman replied "Ok." What prompted the dispatcher to ask this question was because he heard Zimmerman's heavy breathing in the phone. After Zimmerman said, "ok" his breathing returned to normal indicating that he'd stopped running after Zimmerman.

3. Now here's a physics lesson, or perhaps a mathematical one. According to Zimmerman's statements he was returning to his vehicle when Martin attacked him, implying that Martin must have turned around and returned in order to confront Zimmerman. (I think this is actually what happened seeing has how the only evidence of initial verbal contact was when Martin asked "What are you following me for?" while Jeantel was on the phone with him.

NOW, Let's hypothetically say that Zimmerman continued following Martin at a walking pace. You have a 17 year old black boy running in the other direction being followed by an overweight hispanic guy at a walking pace. How did they end up running back in to one another? Either way Martin would have HAD to have turned around and came back to confront Zimmerman. He was only 300+ feet from his house and had plenty of time to get there...

4. There's no doubt that, in the space time continuum, the actions of Zimmerman ultimately led to Martin's death. But we could say that about ANYTHING! We could say that Martin's poor behavior, leading to him being kicked out of school, put him in that neighborhood that day. The "domino" theory can be used to explain EVERYTHING that happens. If only somone had set their alarm 5 minutes earlier like a responsible working American, they wouldn't have gotten in that car accident that killed someone. The problem is that the domino theory is not "law."

Nothing that Zimmerman did that day, leading up to the shooting ,was illegal. Nothing Martin did, leading up to the confrontation, was illegal. Hell, Martin could have stood there and called Zimmerman a racist profiling spick and nothing illegal would have been done. The first crime that was committed was when Martin decided to punch Zimmerman. That would have ended up being a misdemeanor charge. But when he decided to keep pummeling his head into the concrete, it would have escalated the charge to Assault and Battery; a felony. Then, according to Zimmerman, Martin saw Zimmerman's gun on his hip and said "You're going to die tonight motherfucker." This statement right there ups the charge to Attempted Murder.

It seems that most of the people disagreeing with this verdict simply don't understand self-defense laws and, honestly, haven't watched but a fraction of the trial, if at all. Most of the people rioting and protesting are just sheep being corralled by the race baiting of the media. A media that presented Martin as a 12 year old boy while they flashed Zimmerman's booking photos. A media that deliberately edited Zimmerman's 911 call to make him sound racist even though the ONLY time Zimmerman mentioned Martin's race was when the dispatcher asked for one and gave him options...A media that continuously injects white vs black racism into the issue when Zimmerman is obviously more hispanic than he is white.
I'm not accusing you of this because I don't know how much of the trial you watched. I watched almost every bit of it. I sat here at work with it live streaming on the computer. I watched it at home. I probably missed a few hours of it here and there. Also, being a CHL holder myself I was originally under the impression that Zimmerman was guilty; based on the reports by the media of course. However, after watching the trial, seeing the evidence, listening to witnesses, etc... I changed my mind.

Actually, the first crime was when Zimmerman left his vehicle and followed Trayvon up into the backyards of the complex.

Sorry...............but he'd followed Trayvon for quite a while, as well as quite a ways up the backyards.

If Zimmerman lived on that row, I may be able to see a connection, but if he didn't, he's nothing more than a wanna be cop who fucked up and killed an innocent teen.

"Followed Trayvon...for quite a while.."? 30 seconds and no more than 100 yards? Get real. If you think that's a crime, anywhere, you are totally delusional as to what the law is (What you WISH it is, doesn't matter) !

As for that idea you have about hitting someone just for following you, without any clear verbal or physical threat...good luck with that. Try it, and I hope ALL you get is an assault charge and a night in jail! If you're lucky, that's all that WILL happen; it's not all that CAN happen, though! A number of people who have thought that way, are no longer around to discuss the matter. Trayvon Martin at least had the excuse of being an adolescent with adolescent emotions and judgement; you're an adult, and should know better.

 

[Politico]

Let's just send them all to Eqypt. That's how they do it.

 

[Esmeralda]

5'11" my ass. I see picture after picture with him towering over people. The 6'3" reports are more accurate. More corruption from the state to list him at 5'11"

The problem is, his autopsy report has him at five foot eleven inches. Do you argue with the autopsy report? You actually believe that is inaccurate?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Mark O'Mara didn't mince words in his condemnation of the Zimmerman prosecutors.

He was regarding the violation of the Brady rule: which requires the defense to turn over evidence. The prosecution had attempted to withhold evidence in Trayvon's phone. And O'Mara even noted that Angela Corey had fired the mother of a three-month-old baby who had complied with the law.

And as you'll see in the video below: O'Mara slammed Corey for unethically calling Zimmerman a murder after the verdict.

Zimmerman's lawyer calls prosecutors 'disgrace' to profession

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_zNKihbbQA]Mark O'Mara slams Angela Corey for her calling George Zimmerman a murderer in HLN interview - YouTube[/ame]

 

[JQPublic1]

Why didn't Trayvon get off the phone with his friend and call 911 if someone was stalking him? I know I would.

He couldn't, GZ had the line tied up...

Seriously, TM only lived there for several days so if he came from another state or town the 911 function on his cell phone wouldn't work at the new zipcode or locale. I know MY cell phone doesn't!

 

[S.J.]

Angela Corey should go to jail for withholding exculpatory evidence.