Sanctuary being torn down. We need your help!!! - click here for details
You can also visit TheSanctuaryTaiwan.org - click here to go to their contact page

The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

IP is the place for boisterous political discussion, but please remember, the Rules still apply, especially with regards to Personal Attacks. These and other inappropriate posts will be removed without notification.

Moderators: Mick, TheGingerMan

Forum rules
IP is the place for boisterous political discussion, but please remember, the Rules still apply, especially with regards to Personal Attacks. These and other inappropriate posts will be removed without notification.

Re: The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

Postby Tigerman » 29 Apr 2012, 20:20

Tigerman wrote: Of course there was a reason to follow TM.


bob wrote:...this where you go off the rails. We know that he "says" MT looked like he was casing houses out, but we don't know that he really believed that, or that that was what MT was really doing or whether that was what he looked like he was doing.


There's a lot that we don't know. But, the fact remains, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ is guilty of 2nd degree murder. If the State cannot prove GZ's intent, it will be very difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ is guilty of the crime charged.

bob wrote:Correct me if I am wrong but following someone around for no reason (assuming he had no reason - maybe MT was casing places out) is against the law.


I don't believe that it is against the law, unless TM had a restraining order against GZ. GZ lived in that neighborhood and had every right to be there. What's to stop some thug from attacking a guy walking around his block in the evening and claiming that the guy was following him?

bob wrote:And as soon as the dispatch realized that he was following MT they told him to stop...


They didn't tell him to stop. They told him that it was not necessary for GZ to follow TM. The dispatcher's suggestion was not an order.

bob wrote:...leading to the conclusion that regular procedure would not involve following someone around because you thought they looked like they were thinking about commiting a crime, not even in an environment where a lot of crimes were being commited.

That would make sense.


I think they told GZ that he needn't follow TM because they feared for GZ's safety (in the event that TM was a dangerous burglar).
As it is, we seem to regard it as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has taken one side or the other. We regard it (in other words) as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has contrived to reach the object of his reasoning. We call a man a bigot or a slave of dogma because he is a thinker who has thought thoroughly and to a definite end.

From: All Things Considered - The Error of Impartiality
Forumosan avatar
Tigerman
Guan Yin (Guānyīn)
 
Posts: 17615
Joined: 17 Sep 2002, 12:09
257 Recommends(s)
186 Recognized(s)



Re: The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

Postby Tigerman » 29 Apr 2012, 20:29

Homey wrote:You keep stating that there was a reason for following Martin. What was it?


GZ was captain of a neighborhood watch. The dispatcher stated:

Let me know if he does anything, OK?
Just let me know if this guy does anything else.
Which way is he running?
OK, which entrance is that he’s headed towards?


I can imagine that those questions encouraged GZ to follow TM for a short period to see where TM was running to. Immediately after these questions, the dispatcher asked GZ if he was following TM, and GZ said that he was, and then the dispatcher said that they didn't need GZ to follow TM. GZ responded affirmatively with an "OK", and then he and the dispatchers begin discussing where GZ would meet the police when they arrived at the community.

Homey wrote:What crime was Martin committing?


Apparently none.

Homey wrote:Did he use those superhero powers to sense that Martin was about to assault him with a bag of skittles?


I don't think TM hit GZ with the skittles.
As it is, we seem to regard it as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has taken one side or the other. We regard it (in other words) as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has contrived to reach the object of his reasoning. We call a man a bigot or a slave of dogma because he is a thinker who has thought thoroughly and to a definite end.

From: All Things Considered - The Error of Impartiality
Forumosan avatar
Tigerman
Guan Yin (Guānyīn)
 
Posts: 17615
Joined: 17 Sep 2002, 12:09
257 Recommends(s)
186 Recognized(s)



Re: The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

Postby Tigerman » 29 Apr 2012, 20:33

bileduct wrote:Also, as there had been some robberies in the area recently that were committed by blacks, George pretty much started calling police every time he or his wife saw a black person in the neighbourhood that he didn't know.


Here's the transcript of the call to the dispatchers:

911 dispatcher:

OK, is he White, Black, or Hispanic?

Zimmerman:

He looks black.


Seems to me that when GZ made the call he was not sure what race TM was.
As it is, we seem to regard it as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has taken one side or the other. We regard it (in other words) as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has contrived to reach the object of his reasoning. We call a man a bigot or a slave of dogma because he is a thinker who has thought thoroughly and to a definite end.

From: All Things Considered - The Error of Impartiality
Forumosan avatar
Tigerman
Guan Yin (Guānyīn)
 
Posts: 17615
Joined: 17 Sep 2002, 12:09
257 Recommends(s)
186 Recognized(s)



Re: The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

Postby Mother Theresa » 29 Apr 2012, 20:40

JMcNeill wrote:
bob wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong but following someone around for no reason (assuming he had no reason - maybe MT was casing places out) is against the law.


You are wrong :)


Oh, really?

Alaska
A person commits the crime of stalking in the second degree if the person knowingly engages in a course of conduct that recklessly places another person in fear of death or physical injury, or in fear of the death or physical injury of a family member.

Arizona
A person commits stalking if the person intentionally or knowingly engages in a course of conduct that is directed toward another person and if that conduct . . . Would cause a reasonable person to fear for the person's safety . . . and that person in fact fears for their safety. ...

Colorado
A person commits harassment if, with intent to harass, annoy, or alarm another person, he or she:
(a) . . . ; or
(b) . . . ; or
(c) Follows a person in or about a public place. . .

Delaware
Any person who intentionally engages in a course of conduct directed at a specific person which would cause a reasonable person to fear physical injury to him or herself. .. and whose conduct induces such fear in such person, is guilty of the crime of stalking

Florida
Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury, commits the offense of aggravated stalking

Indiana
"stalk" means a knowing or an intentional course of conduct involving repeated or continuing harassment of another person that would cause a reasonable person to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, or threatened

Minnesota
A person who harasses another by committing any of the following acts is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. . . (2) stalks, follows, or pursues another;

Nevada
A person who, without lawful authority, willfully or maliciously engages in a course of conduct that would cause a reasonable person to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated or harassed, and that actually causes the victim to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated or harassed, commits the crime of stalking

New Jersey
A person is guilty of stalking, a crime of the fourth degree, if he purposefully or knowingly engages in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that would cause a reasonable person to fear bodily injury to himself

Ohio
No person shall knowingly cause another to believe that the offender will cause serious physical harm to the person or property of such other person...

Pennsylvania
A person commits the crime of harassment when, with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person. . . (1) he strikes, shoves, kicks . . .; or (2) he follows a person in or about a public place or places


http://www.esia.net/State_Stalking_Laws.htm
"The internet is a monster over which we have no control. We can’t even turn it off." Jeremy Clarkson
Forumosan avatar
Mother Theresa
Maitreya Buddha (Mílèfó)
 
Posts: 12159
Joined: 13 Sep 2002, 07:53
Location: Taipei
14 Recommends(s)
45 Recognized(s)



Re: The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

Postby bileduct » 29 Apr 2012, 21:00

Tigerman wrote:
bileduct wrote:Also, as there had been some robberies in the area recently that were committed by blacks, George pretty much started calling police every time he or his wife saw a black person in the neighbourhood that he didn't know.


Here's the transcript of the call to the dispatchers:

911 dispatcher:

OK, is he White, Black, or Hispanic?

Zimmerman:

He looks black.


Seems to me that when GZ made the call he was not sure what race TM was.

He knew the correct answer when asked, didn't he?

In every audio recording of Zimmerman reporting suspicious persons in the neighbourhood the person is black.
bileduct
Càiniǎo
Càiniǎo
 
Posts: 31
Joined: 27 Apr 2012, 13:13



Re: The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

Postby Tigerman » 29 Apr 2012, 21:10

bileduct wrote:He knew the correct answer when asked, didn't he?


As it turns out with respect to TM? Yes.

bileduct wrote:In every audio recording of Zimmerman reporting suspicious persons in the neighbourhood the person is black.


So what?
As it is, we seem to regard it as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has taken one side or the other. We regard it (in other words) as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has contrived to reach the object of his reasoning. We call a man a bigot or a slave of dogma because he is a thinker who has thought thoroughly and to a definite end.

From: All Things Considered - The Error of Impartiality
Forumosan avatar
Tigerman
Guan Yin (Guānyīn)
 
Posts: 17615
Joined: 17 Sep 2002, 12:09
257 Recommends(s)
186 Recognized(s)



Re: The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

Postby bob » 29 Apr 2012, 21:16

Thanks MT.

Tigerman: They may not have actually said "Stop following him," but their tone certainly implied that they DIDN"T want him to continue, or to put it another way, they wanted him to stop.

I've got no dog in this fight by the way. I hope they figure out what happened, protect the public however that may be neccessary, and give GM the psychiatric treatment he pretty obviously needs either way.

What I definitely do take issue with though is the way the police seemed to be so eager to let go a person who's story was so lousy. He saw TM approaching him while fumbling in his pocket for something, and he remains on the phone talking quite calmly and didn't get his gun out immediately? It's nonsense.

You do seem to have a bias here. If you didn't you wouldn't keep saying that he had injuries consistent with having his head pounded on the concrete when actually what he appeared to have is scratches. Scratches that (as far as we know) he didn't even seek medical treatment for.

This is no fun if people just keep repeating statements that have already been quite successfully challenged.
bob
Golden Lotus (huángjīn liánhuā)
Golden Lotus (huángjīn liánhuā)
 
Posts: 8626
Joined: 14 May 2004, 14:11
Location: sunk
21 Recognized(s)



Re: The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

Postby bileduct » 29 Apr 2012, 21:16

Something interesting I just noticed on one of the other phone calls that George makes to the police.

He is calling to report that he and his wife are currently watching a suspicious person in the neighbourhood whom he believes was responsible for an earlier crime.

At one point his wife can be heard in the background saying that the person has disappeared between the houses and George responds "shoot". There is a pause, and then there is this exchange:

George: "I'm gonna..."

Wife: (unintelligble)

George: "Why not?"

Wife: "No, don't go out there"

George: *sigh*

The call then ends shortly after.
bileduct
Càiniǎo
Càiniǎo
 
Posts: 31
Joined: 27 Apr 2012, 13:13



Re: The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

Postby bileduct » 29 Apr 2012, 21:29

Tigerman wrote:
bileduct wrote:He knew the correct answer when asked, didn't he?


As it turns out with respect to TM? Yes.

Oh, I get it. You want me to believe that Zimmerman had no awareness of Trayvon's skin colour until he was asked, even though he was able to immediately respond that Trayvon looked black.

Uh huh :bravo: :bravo: :bravo:
bileduct wrote:In every audio recording of Zimmerman reporting suspicious persons in the neighbourhood the person is black.

So what?

Seems to be a bit of a recurring theme... Black guy, Zimmerman doesn't know who it is, calls police....
bileduct
Càiniǎo
Càiniǎo
 
Posts: 31
Joined: 27 Apr 2012, 13:13



Re: The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

Postby Tigerman » 29 Apr 2012, 21:43

bob wrote:They may not have actually said "Stop following him," but their tone certainly implied that they DIDN"T want him to continue, or to put it another way, they wanted him to stop.


And? Is there evidence that he continued to follow after that?

bob wrote:You do seem to have a bias here, however.


I do. We all have a bias. You do, too. My bias is that I like the idea that the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged. I love the presumption of innocence!

bob wrote:For example you keep saying that he had injuries consistent with having his head pounded on the concrete when actually what he appeared to have is scratches. Scratches that as far (as we know) he didn't even seek medical treatment for.


I don't think the photo of his bloody head looks like a few scratches. I've scratched my self many times and never bled like that... and I take aspirin, which thins my blood and retards coagulation.

Another thing that some seem to be forgetting or simply not understanding... One is not required to wait until on is actually seriously injured or dead before using force in defense of one's self.

bob wrote:What I definitely do take issue with though is the way the police seemed to be so eager to let go a person who's story was so lousy. He saw TM approaching him while fumbling in his pocket for something, and he remains on the phone talking quite calmly and didn't get his gun out immediately? It's nonsense.


That's not GZ's fault.

bob wrote:This is no fun if people just keep repeating statements that have already been quite successfully challenged.


There's the rub, though, no? I don't think some have made their case satisfactorily, just as some don't think my arguments are sound.

For the record:

Florida stalking law:

FLORIDA

Section 784.048. STALKING; DEFINITIONS; PENALTIES. 1997.


(1) As used in this section, the term:

(a) "Harass" means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose.

(b) "Course of conduct" means a pattern a conduct composed of series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "course of conduct." Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests.

(c) "Credible threat" means a threat made with the intent to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety. The threat must be against the life of, or a threat to cause bodily injury to, a person.

(2) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

(3) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury, commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(4) Any person who, after an injunction for protection against repeat violence pursuant to s. 784.046, or an injunction for protection against domestic violence pursuant to s. 741.30, or after any other court-imposed prohibition of conduct toward the subject person that person's property, knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(5) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses a minor under 16 years of age commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, so. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(6) Any law enforcement officer may arrest, without a warrant, any person he or she has probable cause to believe has violated the provisions of this section.


I don't think GZ was stalking TM.
As it is, we seem to regard it as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has taken one side or the other. We regard it (in other words) as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has contrived to reach the object of his reasoning. We call a man a bigot or a slave of dogma because he is a thinker who has thought thoroughly and to a definite end.

From: All Things Considered - The Error of Impartiality
Forumosan avatar
Tigerman
Guan Yin (Guānyīn)
 
Posts: 17615
Joined: 17 Sep 2002, 12:09
257 Recommends(s)
186 Recognized(s)



FRIENDLY REMINDER
   Please remember that Forumosa is not responsible for the content that appears on the other side of links that Forumosans post on our forums. As a discussion website, we encourage open and frank debate. We have learned that the most effective way to address questionable claims or accusations on Forumosa is by engaging in a sincere and constructive conversation. To make this website work, we must all feel safe in expressing our opinions, this also means backing up any claims with hard facts, including links to other websites.
   Please also remember that one should not believe everything one reads on the Internet, particularly from websites whose content cannot be easily verified or substantiated. Use your common sense and do not hesitate to ask for proof.
PreviousNext




Proceed to International Politics



Who is online

Forumosans browsing this forum: No Forumosans and 7 visitors

Love is the condition in which the happiness of another person is essential to your own -- ROBERT HEINLEIN