Don't click or your IP will be banned


Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band Forum
You are not logged in

< Last Thread   Next Thread >Ascending sortDescending sorting  
Author: Subject: Profiling.....

World Class Peach





Posts: 5470
(5469 all sites)
Registered: 9/9/2011
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/16/2013 at 01:25 PM
i haven't felt the need to weigh in on the zimmerman trial because i think both of them made very bad decisions that night, but i have noticed alot of comments about profiling.

most of the comments i'm not sure i understand. it seems some people think that neighborhood crime watches should be done away with or even made illegal. what about the guardian angles? what about store security? what about any type of non law enforcemnet security? there are other examples also

the same comments made about zimmerman and the neighborhood watch could be applyed to alot of similar situations.

maybe i've got my head up my azz but civilians trying to keep their neighborhoods safe is not a bad thing in general. but like anything, mistakes can be made without the proper training. the cost of providing proper training makes expecting perfection from the people who preform these tasks unrealistic.

 
Visit User's Homepage
Replies:

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 11683
(12126 all sites)
Registered: 1/8/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/16/2013 at 01:33 PM
Neighborhood watch programs are generally sponsored by the local law enforcement, and they generally provide training to the participants. For example, here is my local sheriff's web page dealing with neighborhood watch:

http://www.hendersoncountync.org/sheriff/community_watch.html

The Sanford Police Department sponsored the neighborhood watch program where Zimmerman lived. One of the first witnesses to testify was the officer who ran the program and trained Zimmerman and others in his neighborhood. It is far from a rogue gang of vigilantes.

 

____________________
We'd all like to vote for the best man, but he's never a candidate.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 69076
(69437 all sites)
Registered: 11/28/2001
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/16/2013 at 01:49 PM
The difference is groups like the Guardian Angels do not carry guns..............

 

____________________

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 11683
(12126 all sites)
Registered: 1/8/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/16/2013 at 01:58 PM
quote:
The difference is groups like the Guardian Angels do not carry guns..............

That's not the difference. Neighborhood watch programs do not carry guns. Zimmerman was carrying his as a citizen with a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Keep in mind, he was not out "on patrol". He was on his way to the store. I think the difference is that Guardian Angels are not sponsored by local law enforcement, are not generally looking out for their own residential community, and in fact often are patrolling in areas where they were not requested to be. I'm not trying to put down Guardian Angels, but the reason they are different from neighborhood watch programs is not because of guns.

[Edited on 7/16/2013 by bob1954]

 

____________________
We'd all like to vote for the best man, but he's never a candidate.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16027
(16019 all sites)
Registered: 10/13/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/16/2013 at 02:08 PM
I'm expecting some kind of reaction from the gay community based on the fact that Jenteal and Martin profiled Zimmerman as being a gay cracker before TM delivered the beating to Zimmerman. Wouldn't that qualify as a hate crime?

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/16/2013 at 02:13 PM
quote:
quote:
The difference is groups like the Guardian Angels do not carry guns..............

That's not the difference. Neighborhood watch programs do not carry guns. Zimmerman was carrying his as a citizen with a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Keep in mind, he was not out "on patrol". He was on his way to the store. I think the difference is that Guardian Angels are not sponsored by local law enforcement, are not generally looking out for their own residential community, and in fact often are patrolling in areas where they were not requested to be. I'm not trying to put down Guardian Angels, but the reason they are different from neighborhood watch programs is not because of guns.

[Edited on 7/16/2013 by bob1954]


I remember back in the 80's, the Guardian Angels mainly patrolled the subways and MAyor Koch and the police were not thrilled with them at all. The people loved them.

 

____________________

 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5470
(5469 all sites)
Registered: 9/9/2011
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/16/2013 at 02:27 PM
i guess my point was that everyone profiles people for various reasons. is it wrong to profile people? is it wrong to want to meet your daughters date...so you can profile him or her? is it wrong to want to meet your childs friends...so you can profile them? when you have to drive thru a bad part of town......do you mentally profile the area and the people in it? as part of a neighborhood watch or something similar aren't you supposed to see if someone fits a certain profile? now i'm not talking about the actions you take after you profile someone, just the act of profiling itself.
 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 14590
(14590 all sites)
Registered: 3/28/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/16/2013 at 02:32 PM
quote:
Neighborhood watch programs are generally sponsored by the local law enforcement, and they generally provide training to the participants. For example, here is my local sheriff's web page dealing with neighborhood watch:

http://www.hendersoncountync.org/sheriff/community_watch.html

The Sanford Police Department sponsored the neighborhood watch program where Zimmerman lived. One of the first witnesses to testify was the officer who ran the program and trained Zimmerman and others in his neighborhood. It is far from a rogue gang of vigilantes.


It might be far from a rogue gang of vigilantes in a general sense. That doesn't mean everyone who is on neighborhood watch follow the training they get. Zimmerman's actions were more like a vigilante than a neighborhood watch person. Call the cops, give a description, stand down and wait for LAW ENFORCEMENT!

My 80 year old father works security at the local school district's bus garage. They have other younger security driving around patrolling from school to school. They have to be either police or ex police to get these jobs and even they are told not to follow or engage any suspicious behavior and to call local law enforcement, give them a description, and stand down and they are ex cops.

[Edited on 7/16/2013 by sixty8]

 

____________________
Pete

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16027
(16019 all sites)
Registered: 10/13/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/16/2013 at 02:36 PM
Profiling has been an invaluable law enforcement tool forever, but has been turned into a bad word by progressives. Much like "lobbyist" or "outsourcing" has. Not all lobbyists (or lobbying) is bad, not all "outsourcing" is bad (on the contrary) and the same goes for "profiling." Profiling is bad mainly because it might hurt someone's feelings.

 

____________________

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 14590
(14590 all sites)
Registered: 3/28/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/16/2013 at 02:42 PM
quote:
i guess my point was that everyone profiles people for various reasons. is it wrong to profile people? is it wrong to want to meet your daughters date...so you can profile him or her? is it wrong to want to meet your childs friends...so you can profile them? when you have to drive thru a bad part of town......do you mentally profile the area and the people in it? as part of a neighborhood watch or something similar aren't you supposed to see if someone fits a certain profile? now i'm not talking about the actions you take after you profile someone, just the act of profiling itself.


People should profile people by their actions, not their appearance. Walking up to cars and houses and looking in windows = suspicious. Walking up the road minding your own business = non suspicious normal everyday behavior. Martin should have never even had the cops called on him, period, end of story!!!! Even if Zimmerman didn't profile Martin because he was black he did profile him as one of those @ssholes who always get away. Martin was doing NOTHING to be profiled as one of those @ssholes who always get away. He wasn't robbing a house and he wasn't walking up to houses or cars looking in the windows, he was simply walking down the street. So yeah, profiling someone due to their actions is fine but that is not what Zimmerman did. He profiled him simply by his appearance, not his actions unless wearing a hoodie with the hood up in the rain means you are some kind of threat.

 

____________________
Pete

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20058
(20118 all sites)
Registered: 2/9/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/16/2013 at 03:00 PM
quote:
Neighborhood watch programs do not carry guns. ********* was carrying his as a citizen with a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Keep in mind, he was not out "on patrol". He was on his way to the store.


Try to imagine the driving force behind the image conjured up here.....

 

____________________

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4055
(4052 all sites)
Registered: 12/11/2001
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/16/2013 at 03:44 PM
The police regularly tell us in our City, single-family neighborhood "see something, say something." The remind us to not hesitate to call 911 if you see someone or something suspicious. Based on the call that Zimmerman made to the non-emergency police line, it seems to me that he he did feel that TM was doing more than just walking down the street.

CNN's Jeffrey Toobin didn't hide his bias about the case and his hope that Zimmerman would be prosecuted. He did write an interesting piece in the last day:

The Facts in the Zimmerman Trial:

"Here’s a hypothetical about the George Zimmerman trial. Imagine that all the evidence is unchanged, with one exception. Suppose there was a dog walker who came upon Zimmerman’s confrontation with Trayvon Martin, saw the whole thing, and testified before the jury. Who threw the first punch? Who was the aggressor? Which one of the two shouted for help? Presumably, all those mysteries would be solved. The facts wouldn’t change, but our understanding of them might be entirely different.

The facts matter, and trials are all about facts. Every time there is a high-profile trial, observers rush to draw conclusions about the American legal system—or even about American society—based on the results. But the idiosyncrasies of the trial process generally make such judgments unwise. A dog walker, a security camera, a clearer audio on a 911 tape—and we’d be having a very different conversation about the Zimmerman trial.

The conclusions almost tell more about the observers than about the underlying facts. Consider, for example, one of the critical pieces of evidence in the case—Zimmerman’s call reporting his sighting of Trayvon Martin. It turns out that the call is open to a variety of interpretations.

On the night of February 26, 2012, Zimmerman was patrolling the Retreat at Twin Lakes, a town-house development in Sanford, Florida. At 7:09 P.M., Zimmerman called the non-emergency police-response line. (He did not call 911.) Was he inside or outside of his car at that point? It’s not clear. The range of his observations suggests that he was outside, but he also says that it’s raining. Since you can’t hear any rain on the call, it might mean that he’s still inside the vehicle. (A sound that might be a door chime raises the possibility that he got out of the car during the call.) The fact of the call alone presents different avenues for interpretation. Zimmerman was conducting a neighborhood watch. Does that mean he was a frustrated, wannabe cop? Or does that mean he was a good citizen trying to help a community that was beset by break-ins?

The call begins with Zimmerman reporting a suspicious person walking around in the rain. Zimmerman says, “We’ve had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there’s a real suspicious guy.” He describes an unknown male “just walking around looking about” in the rain and says, “This guy looks like he is up to no good or he is on drugs or something.” Almost immediately, the dispatcher asks (Zimmerman does not volunteer the information) the subject’s race, and Zimmerman answers, “Black.” In a later observation during the call, Zimmerman confirms that the person is black. Zimmerman reports that the person has his hand in his waistband and is walking around looking at homes. Zimmerman says, further, “These **** s, they always get away.”

The dispatcher appears at first to be asking Zimmerman to keep an eye on the person. “Just let me know if this guy does anything else,” he says. A little later, Zimmerman says, “He’s running.” (Does the fact that Martin was running suggest that he was up to no good, or does it suggest that the young man was running away from Zimmerman?) The dispatcher asks, “He’s running? Which way is he running?” Again, this is an important point. It’s the dispatcher asking (for a second time) Zimmerman to watch the person.

At this point, Zimmerman follows Martin, eventually losing sight of him. The dispatcher asks, “Are you following him?” When Zimmerman answers, “Yeah,” the dispatcher says, “We don’t need you to do that.” Zimmerman responds, “O.K.” This is probably the best-known part of the exchange. The dispatcher says don’t follow him, one theory goes, Zimmerman does anyway, and that causes the fatal confrontation. But this view of the facts obscures the earlier part of the call—when the dispatcher appears to be asking Zimmerman to follow and report the person’s movements. The call ends when Zimmerman gives the dispatcher information about how the police should find him (Zimmerman, that is) in the complex. Zimmerman asks that the police call him upon their arrival so he can provide his location. Zimmerman ends the call at 7:13 P.M. The first police officer arrived on the scene at 7:17 P.M., by which time Trayvon Martin was already dead.

We’ll probably never know with absolute certainty what happened during those four (or so) critical minutes. But how people see the evidence of what happened—then and elsewhere, in this case and others—probably says more about them than about the evidence itself."

 

____________________
Tim L.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 17361
(17416 all sites)
Registered: 9/9/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/16/2013 at 05:07 PM
Good read, and point. Thanks Tim.

 

____________________
Ask not for whom the bell tolls

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/16/2013 at 07:22 PM
quote:
The police regularly tell us in our City, single-family neighborhood "see something, say something." The remind us to not hesitate to call 911 if you see someone or something suspicious. Based on the call that Zimmerman made to the non-emergency police line, it seems to me that he he did feel that TM was doing more than just walking down the street.

CNN's Jeffrey Toobin didn't hide his bias about the case and his hope that Zimmerman would be prosecuted. He did write an interesting piece in the last day:

The Facts in the Zimmerman Trial:

"Here’s a hypothetical about the George Zimmerman trial. Imagine that all the evidence is unchanged, with one exception. Suppose there was a dog walker who came upon Zimmerman’s confrontation with Trayvon Martin, saw the whole thing, and testified before the jury. Who threw the first punch? Who was the aggressor? Which one of the two shouted for help? Presumably, all those mysteries would be solved. The facts wouldn’t change, but our understanding of them might be entirely different.

The facts matter, and trials are all about facts. Every time there is a high-profile trial, observers rush to draw conclusions about the American legal system—or even about American society—based on the results. But the idiosyncrasies of the trial process generally make such judgments unwise. A dog walker, a security camera, a clearer audio on a 911 tape—and we’d be having a very different conversation about the Zimmerman trial.

The conclusions almost tell more about the observers than about the underlying facts. Consider, for example, one of the critical pieces of evidence in the case—Zimmerman’s call reporting his sighting of Trayvon Martin. It turns out that the call is open to a variety of interpretations.

On the night of February 26, 2012, Zimmerman was patrolling the Retreat at Twin Lakes, a town-house development in Sanford, Florida. At 7:09 P.M., Zimmerman called the non-emergency police-response line. (He did not call 911.) Was he inside or outside of his car at that point? It’s not clear. The range of his observations suggests that he was outside, but he also says that it’s raining. Since you can’t hear any rain on the call, it might mean that he’s still inside the vehicle. (A sound that might be a door chime raises the possibility that he got out of the car during the call.) The fact of the call alone presents different avenues for interpretation. Zimmerman was conducting a neighborhood watch. Does that mean he was a frustrated, wannabe cop? Or does that mean he was a good citizen trying to help a community that was beset by break-ins?

The call begins with Zimmerman reporting a suspicious person walking around in the rain. Zimmerman says, “We’ve had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there’s a real suspicious guy.” He describes an unknown male “just walking around looking about” in the rain and says, “This guy looks like he is up to no good or he is on drugs or something.” Almost immediately, the dispatcher asks (Zimmerman does not volunteer the information) the subject’s race, and Zimmerman answers, “Black.” In a later observation during the call, Zimmerman confirms that the person is black. Zimmerman reports that the person has his hand in his waistband and is walking around looking at homes. Zimmerman says, further, “These **** s, they always get away.”

The dispatcher appears at first to be asking Zimmerman to keep an eye on the person. “Just let me know if this guy does anything else,” he says. A little later, Zimmerman says, “He’s running.” (Does the fact that Martin was running suggest that he was up to no good, or does it suggest that the young man was running away from Zimmerman?) The dispatcher asks, “He’s running? Which way is he running?” Again, this is an important point. It’s the dispatcher asking (for a second time) Zimmerman to watch the person.

At this point, Zimmerman follows Martin, eventually losing sight of him. The dispatcher asks, “Are you following him?” When Zimmerman answers, “Yeah,” the dispatcher says, “We don’t need you to do that.” Zimmerman responds, “O.K.” This is probably the best-known part of the exchange. The dispatcher says don’t follow him, one theory goes, Zimmerman does anyway, and that causes the fatal confrontation. But this view of the facts obscures the earlier part of the call—when the dispatcher appears to be asking Zimmerman to follow and report the person’s movements. The call ends when Zimmerman gives the dispatcher information about how the police should find him (Zimmerman, that is) in the complex. Zimmerman asks that the police call him upon their arrival so he can provide his location. Zimmerman ends the call at 7:13 P.M. The first police officer arrived on the scene at 7:17 P.M., by which time Trayvon Martin was already dead.

We’ll probably never know with absolute certainty what happened during those four (or so) critical minutes. But how people see the evidence of what happened—then and elsewhere, in this case and others—probably says more about them than about the evidence itself."




The thing totally ignored is that the dispatcher, who clearly assumed at that point that the person might very well have been a criminal, said it was not necessary for Zimmerman to follow the individual most likely for Zimmerman's OWN safety.

Also another falsehood he repeats is that Zimmerman was on patrol. There is no patrol. He was on his way to a store and saw something suspicious and of course it was based on Martin's actions which to Zimmerman seemed reminiscent of someone casing the neighborhood as others had done before robbing it.

 

____________________

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 14590
(14590 all sites)
Registered: 3/28/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/16/2013 at 07:36 PM
quote:
quote:
The police regularly tell us in our City, single-family neighborhood "see something, say something." The remind us to not hesitate to call 911 if you see someone or something suspicious. Based on the call that Zimmerman made to the non-emergency police line, it seems to me that he he did feel that TM was doing more than just walking down the street.

CNN's Jeffrey Toobin didn't hide his bias about the case and his hope that Zimmerman would be prosecuted. He did write an interesting piece in the last day:

The Facts in the Zimmerman Trial:

"Here’s a hypothetical about the George Zimmerman trial. Imagine that all the evidence is unchanged, with one exception. Suppose there was a dog walker who came upon Zimmerman’s confrontation with Trayvon Martin, saw the whole thing, and testified before the jury. Who threw the first punch? Who was the aggressor? Which one of the two shouted for help? Presumably, all those mysteries would be solved. The facts wouldn’t change, but our understanding of them might be entirely different.

The facts matter, and trials are all about facts. Every time there is a high-profile trial, observers rush to draw conclusions about the American legal system—or even about American society—based on the results. But the idiosyncrasies of the trial process generally make such judgments unwise. A dog walker, a security camera, a clearer audio on a 911 tape—and we’d be having a very different conversation about the Zimmerman trial.

The conclusions almost tell more about the observers than about the underlying facts. Consider, for example, one of the critical pieces of evidence in the case—Zimmerman’s call reporting his sighting of Trayvon Martin. It turns out that the call is open to a variety of interpretations.

On the night of February 26, 2012, Zimmerman was patrolling the Retreat at Twin Lakes, a town-house development in Sanford, Florida. At 7:09 P.M., Zimmerman called the non-emergency police-response line. (He did not call 911.) Was he inside or outside of his car at that point? It’s not clear. The range of his observations suggests that he was outside, but he also says that it’s raining. Since you can’t hear any rain on the call, it might mean that he’s still inside the vehicle. (A sound that might be a door chime raises the possibility that he got out of the car during the call.) The fact of the call alone presents different avenues for interpretation. Zimmerman was conducting a neighborhood watch. Does that mean he was a frustrated, wannabe cop? Or does that mean he was a good citizen trying to help a community that was beset by break-ins?

The call begins with Zimmerman reporting a suspicious person walking around in the rain. Zimmerman says, “We’ve had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there’s a real suspicious guy.” He describes an unknown male “just walking around looking about” in the rain and says, “This guy looks like he is up to no good or he is on drugs or something.” Almost immediately, the dispatcher asks (Zimmerman does not volunteer the information) the subject’s race, and Zimmerman answers, “Black.” In a later observation during the call, Zimmerman confirms that the person is black. Zimmerman reports that the person has his hand in his waistband and is walking around looking at homes. Zimmerman says, further, “These **** s, they always get away.”

The dispatcher appears at first to be asking Zimmerman to keep an eye on the person. “Just let me know if this guy does anything else,” he says. A little later, Zimmerman says, “He’s running.” (Does the fact that Martin was running suggest that he was up to no good, or does it suggest that the young man was running away from Zimmerman?) The dispatcher asks, “He’s running? Which way is he running?” Again, this is an important point. It’s the dispatcher asking (for a second time) Zimmerman to watch the person.

At this point, Zimmerman follows Martin, eventually losing sight of him. The dispatcher asks, “Are you following him?” When Zimmerman answers, “Yeah,” the dispatcher says, “We don’t need you to do that.” Zimmerman responds, “O.K.” This is probably the best-known part of the exchange. The dispatcher says don’t follow him, one theory goes, Zimmerman does anyway, and that causes the fatal confrontation. But this view of the facts obscures the earlier part of the call—when the dispatcher appears to be asking Zimmerman to follow and report the person’s movements. The call ends when Zimmerman gives the dispatcher information about how the police should find him (Zimmerman, that is) in the complex. Zimmerman asks that the police call him upon their arrival so he can provide his location. Zimmerman ends the call at 7:13 P.M. The first police officer arrived on the scene at 7:17 P.M., by which time Trayvon Martin was already dead.

We’ll probably never know with absolute certainty what happened during those four (or so) critical minutes. But how people see the evidence of what happened—then and elsewhere, in this case and others—probably says more about them than about the evidence itself."




The thing totally ignored is that the dispatcher, who clearly assumed at that point that the person might very well have been a criminal, said it was not necessary for Zimmerman to follow the individual most likely for Zimmerman's OWN safety.

Also another falsehood he repeats is that Zimmerman was on patrol. There is no patrol. He was on his way to a store and saw something suspicious and of course it was based on Martin's actions which to Zimmerman seemed reminiscent of someone casing the neighborhood as others had done before robbing it.


Walking up the street is not reminiscent of someone casing the neighborhood, it is reminiscent of someone walking up the street as Martin was obviously doing. Looking into cars or looking into windows of a house would be reminiscent of someone casing a neighborhood. According to your and other's logic then every and any person walking in Zimmerman's neighborhood wearing a hoodie should have the cops called on them and be followed even when if he is advised not to. Guess I'll go do some neighborhood watching and call the cops on every person I see with a hoodie on walking up my street.

 

____________________
Pete

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 14590
(14590 all sites)
Registered: 3/28/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/16/2013 at 07:42 PM
Zimmerman says he wasn't on patrol. He also claimed that he didn't know the name of the street when there are only a couple of streets in his neighborhood. Highly unlikely that he didn't know what street he was on. He claimed that that was why he got out of his car. Well, if that was the reason then why didn't he get back in the car after he found out which street it was and why did he even need to get out of the car to find out the street???? Couldn't drive up to the next street sign??? Also couldn't have just driven up while in the car and ask Martin what he was doing there which could have avoided any physical confrontation??? This guy was just an over zealous idiot who made mistake after mistake that led to this mess. Poster boy for who should never get a gun permit and who shouldn't be allowed on neighborhood watch.

 

____________________
Pete

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 7/16/2013 at 09:36 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
The police regularly tell us in our City, single-family neighborhood "see something, say something." The remind us to not hesitate to call 911 if you see someone or something suspicious. Based on the call that Zimmerman made to the non-emergency police line, it seems to me that he he did feel that TM was doing more than just walking down the street.

CNN's Jeffrey Toobin didn't hide his bias about the case and his hope that Zimmerman would be prosecuted. He did write an interesting piece in the last day:

The Facts in the Zimmerman Trial:

"Here’s a hypothetical about the George Zimmerman trial. Imagine that all the evidence is unchanged, with one exception. Suppose there was a dog walker who came upon Zimmerman’s confrontation with Trayvon Martin, saw the whole thing, and testified before the jury. Who threw the first punch? Who was the aggressor? Which one of the two shouted for help? Presumably, all those mysteries would be solved. The facts wouldn’t change, but our understanding of them might be entirely different.

The facts matter, and trials are all about facts. Every time there is a high-profile trial, observers rush to draw conclusions about the American legal system—or even about American society—based on the results. But the idiosyncrasies of the trial process generally make such judgments unwise. A dog walker, a security camera, a clearer audio on a 911 tape—and we’d be having a very different conversation about the Zimmerman trial.

The conclusions almost tell more about the observers than about the underlying facts. Consider, for example, one of the critical pieces of evidence in the case—Zimmerman’s call reporting his sighting of Trayvon Martin. It turns out that the call is open to a variety of interpretations.

On the night of February 26, 2012, Zimmerman was patrolling the Retreat at Twin Lakes, a town-house development in Sanford, Florida. At 7:09 P.M., Zimmerman called the non-emergency police-response line. (He did not call 911.) Was he inside or outside of his car at that point? It’s not clear. The range of his observations suggests that he was outside, but he also says that it’s raining. Since you can’t hear any rain on the call, it might mean that he’s still inside the vehicle. (A sound that might be a door chime raises the possibility that he got out of the car during the call.) The fact of the call alone presents different avenues for interpretation. Zimmerman was conducting a neighborhood watch. Does that mean he was a frustrated, wannabe cop? Or does that mean he was a good citizen trying to help a community that was beset by break-ins?

The call begins with Zimmerman reporting a suspicious person walking around in the rain. Zimmerman says, “We’ve had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there’s a real suspicious guy.” He describes an unknown male “just walking around looking about” in the rain and says, “This guy looks like he is up to no good or he is on drugs or something.” Almost immediately, the dispatcher asks (Zimmerman does not volunteer the information) the subject’s race, and Zimmerman answers, “Black.” In a later observation during the call, Zimmerman confirms that the person is black. Zimmerman reports that the person has his hand in his waistband and is walking around looking at homes. Zimmerman says, further, “These **** s, they always get away.”

The dispatcher appears at first to be asking Zimmerman to keep an eye on the person. “Just let me know if this guy does anything else,” he says. A little later, Zimmerman says, “He’s running.” (Does the fact that Martin was running suggest that he was up to no good, or does it suggest that the young man was running away from Zimmerman?) The dispatcher asks, “He’s running? Which way is he running?” Again, this is an important point. It’s the dispatcher asking (for a second time) Zimmerman to watch the person.

At this point, Zimmerman follows Martin, eventually losing sight of him. The dispatcher asks, “Are you following him?” When Zimmerman answers, “Yeah,” the dispatcher says, “We don’t need you to do that.” Zimmerman responds, “O.K.” This is probably the best-known part of the exchange. The dispatcher says don’t follow him, one theory goes, Zimmerman does anyway, and that causes the fatal confrontation. But this view of the facts obscures the earlier part of the call—when the dispatcher appears to be asking Zimmerman to follow and report the person’s movements. The call ends when Zimmerman gives the dispatcher information about how the police should find him (Zimmerman, that is) in the complex. Zimmerman asks that the police call him upon their arrival so he can provide his location. Zimmerman ends the call at 7:13 P.M. The first police officer arrived on the scene at 7:17 P.M., by which time Trayvon Martin was already dead.

We’ll probably never know with absolute certainty what happened during those four (or so) critical minutes. But how people see the evidence of what happened—then and elsewhere, in this case and others—probably says more about them than about the evidence itself."




Listen to his description. According to what Zimmerman said he was not just walking down the street. That does not mean he was doing anything wrong. But he was not just walking down the street in an ordinary way. You choose to believe this with absolutely no evidence at all. You have bought into the original narrative that Zimmerman was a white cracker red neck who didn't like black people in his neighborhood so called the cops on him. That has been THOROUGHLY debunked. The bottom line is that because of your own pre-conceived notions you have chosen to view every possibility that Zimmerman is lying, no matter how unlikely, as true and you have chosen to ignore any logic or inference from circumstance or other evidence that tends to say that he was telling the truth. I am not even talking about whether he was right to shoot him or not under the circumstances of what happened.But I cannot understand why you believe that he made up the entire story and lied about almost everything. It makes no sense. I will leave it at that because we can go around and around forever. If Martin were simply walking back to his house, Zimmerman would not have called the police and said a guy looks like he's up to no good, looks like he's on drugs or something. This is not to say Martin was doing anything that would have gotten him in trouble at all. But there is no reason to believe Zimmerman was lying to the dispatcher when he described what happened. No reason at all and this is a big part of the reason the jury found he was not.

The thing totally ignored is that the dispatcher, who clearly assumed at that point that the person might very well have been a criminal, said it was not necessary for Zimmerman to follow the individual most likely for Zimmerman's OWN safety.

Also another falsehood he repeats is that Zimmerman was on patrol. There is no patrol. He was on his way to a store and saw something suspicious and of course it was based on Martin's actions which to Zimmerman seemed reminiscent of someone casing the neighborhood as others had done before robbing it.


Walking up the street is not reminiscent of someone casing the neighborhood, it is reminiscent of someone walking up the street as Martin was obviously doing. Looking into cars or looking into windows of a house would be reminiscent of someone casing a neighborhood. According to your and other's logic then every and any person walking in Zimmerman's neighborhood wearing a hoodie should have the cops called on them and be followed even when if he is advised not to. Guess I'll go do some neighborhood watching and call the cops on every person I see with a hoodie on walking up my street.

 

____________________

 
 


Powered by XForum 1.81.1 by Trollix Software

Privacy | Terms of Service | Report Infringement | Personal Data Management | Contact Us
The ALLMAN BROTHERS BAND name, The ALLMAN BROTHERS name, likenesses, logos, mushroom design and peach truck are all registered trademarks of THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. whose rights are specifically reserved. Any artwork, visual, or audio representations used on this web site CONTAINING ANY REGISTERED TRADEMARKS are under license from The ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. A REVOCABLE, GRATIS LICENSE IS GRANTED TO ALL REGISTERED PEACH CORP MEMBERS FOR The DOWNLOADING OF ONE COPY FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY. ANY DISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION OF THE TRADEMARKS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE PROHIBITED AND ARE SPECIFICALLY RESERVED BY THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO.,INC.
site by Hittin' the Web Group with www.experiencewasabi3d.com