Will Zimmerman get a fair trial in the Travon Martin case?

• Raw Dawgin' it

  

  Con_Alma;1477330 wrote:We disagree.
  
  Based on what had happen in the neighborhood in the past...I'm following you. You are an unknown person. I'm calling the police and following you and it's reasonable to do so.
  
  You don't have to be empowered to investigate or arrest to do so. A meter guy would be checking meters. If you are leisurely walking through houses in the rain...I'm following you.

  But only if he's not black, because otherwise you're a racist.
• BoatShoes

  ccrunner609;1477275 wrote:lol..............you really believe what you write?

  Perhaps you have a different standard for evaluating behavior that has been embedded in the common law since the 1830's?
• Con_Alma

  Raw Dawgin' it;1477331 wrote:But only if he's not black, because otherwise you're a racist.

  If I don't know you and my neighborhood had the recent history it did in this case...I'm noticing you and I'm following you. It's that simple.
• Con_Alma

  BoatShoes;1477333 wrote:Perhaps you have a different standard for evaluating behavior that has been embedded in the common law since the 1830's?

  Simply being present is enough for me.
• Raw Dawgin' it

  

  Con_Alma;1477335 wrote:If I don't know you and my neighborhood had the recent history it did in this case...I'm noticing you and I'm following you. It's that simple.

  Sorry, I forgot I was dealing with Mr. Literal. I was making a sarcastic joke.
• Con_Alma

  Raw Dawgin' it;1477337 wrote:Sorry, I forgot I was dealing with Mr. Literal. I was making a sarcastic joke.

  I understood that....I wasn't, however.
• iclfan2

  

  BoatShoes;1477327 wrote:No, it is not. It is a gambler's fallacy and not a method of reasoning employed by a reasonable, prudent person. Separate, independent break-ins do not affect the likelihood that TM walking around gives rise to a reasonable suspicion of crime. At best, GZ could have been justified for calling the police because of a suspicious person (Nevermind that TM was barely suspicious at best because he was meandering through yards). A cautious and prudent person who was not empowered by the people of Florida to investigate crimes and put the police power into effect in the form of an arrest was not reasonable in pursuing him.
  
  GZ wasn't going to be following a Meter guy he didn't recognize! He didn't follow TM simply because he "didn't know him". People don't call the police on strangers simply because they don't recognize them...and that is not reasonable behavior anyway. That is borderline paranoid. He called the police and pursued Martin after he apparently started running because he suspected (unreasonably) that he was up to something...because he was walking in between the houses leisurely in the rain, etc.

  Please seek professional help, your brain is broken. Anyway, if you'd ever lived in a neighborhood, it is not common for people to be cutting through yards, especially in the rain. In my parents allotment, the police would definitely be called if someone was doing so suspiciously. Some of the people I'm sure would follow the character while talking to police. That isn't abnormal. And all of your blabbering is pointless because had he not jumped Zimmerman he wouldn't be dead.
• BoatShoes

  Con_Alma;1477330 wrote:We disagree.
  
  Based on what had happen in the neighborhood in the past...I'm following you. You are an unknown person. I'm calling the police and following you and it's reasonable to do so.
  
  You don't have to be empowered to investigate or arrest to do so. A meter guy would be checking meters. If you are leisurely walking through houses in the rain...I'm following you.

  That isn't reasonable behavior. There is no indication that there is a serious risk of crime. You probably don't have good reason to call the police but they were in this scenario and arrived quickly. Just think through what your saying. That if you're driving through the neighborhood and you see someone you don't recognize, you're going to get out of your car and follow them. That is not normal behavior nor behavior that the unknown person should reasonably expect from fellow citizens in a civilized society.
  
  GZ couldn't even remember the name of the street in his neighborhood. Does he know and recognize with sufficient familiarity, everyone in the neighborhood? Based on your standard he should have followed just about anyone and that is absurd! There are 260 units in the gated community in the case...does GZ know and recognize every one of the inhabitants of 260 residential units??? GMAB! It could just as easily be a person meandering around by his own property (and probably more likely) that you don't recognize as a stranger that you should follow.
  
  It is a 260 unit community and it is implausible that you know the people and inhabitants sufficiently well enough to justify your claim that you would follow any person you didn't recognize.
• Con_Alma

  We disagree. Yes, he should have followed anyone and everyone he didn't knw based on the recent events in the neighborhood. That's the point..."anyone"...including Mr. Martin.
  
  He may not knw everyone in the community...that's why he should follow them.
• BoatShoes

  iclfan2;1477340 wrote:Please seek professional help, your brain is broken. Anyway, if you'd ever lived in a neighborhood, it is not common for people to be cutting through yards, especially in the rain. In my parents allotment, the police would definitely be called if someone was doing so suspiciously. Some of the people I'm sure would follow the character while talking to police. That isn't abnormal. And all of your blabbering is pointless because had he not jumped Zimmerman he wouldn't be dead.

  Very kind of you to include the insult but your claim is not grounded in very strong evidence. It is neither common or uncommon and probably depends on particular facts and circumstances of particular neighborhoods and we can't properly generalize as it is an invalid inference. But, even if we accept your proposition that this is uncommon behavior warranting suspicion, it at best justifies calling the police. It does not create a scenario with sufficient serious risk of harm to warrant a non-police officer to pursue the alleged suspicion when the police are in route. If "Some people" would follow, that is certainly true...but those people are not reasonable, cautious or prudent. It falls below the standard of care that is expected of the average citizen.
  
  I can just as easily say, had Zimmerman not gotten out of the car he wouldn't be dead. TM was the intervening cause that deserves culpability for his own death because he assaulted Zimmerman when he should've just put up with it. But, again, the point is that Zimmerman was not a wholly innocent party as the GZ apologists are making him out to be (weirdly IMHO).
• justincredible

  

  Not sure if this link has been posted yet.
  
  http://www.dlas.org/questions-zimmerman-verdict/
• BoatShoes

  Con_Alma;1477348 wrote:We disagree. Yes, he should have followed anyone and everyone he didn't knw based on the recent events in the neighborhood. That's the point..."anyone"...including Mr. Martin.
  
  He may not knw everyone in the community...that's why he should follow them.

  Zimmerman had been calling the police concerning incidents in the neighborhood for 6 months prior to the altercation. I'm sure he was totally coherent in his reasoning and following all the people he didn't recognize. :thumbup: In reality, on 5 other calls to the police regarding suspicious individuals he didn't recognize them, he did not follow them. So, I guess he was wrong those times based on your reasoning.
• Con_Alma

  BoatShoes;1477358 wrote:Zimmerman had been calling the police concerning incidents in the neighborhood for 6 months prior to the altercation. I'm sure he was totally coherent in his reasoning and following all the people he didn't recognize. :thumbup: In reality, on 5 other calls to the police regarding suspicious individuals he didn't recognize them, he did not follow them. So, I guess he was wrong those times based on your reasoning.

  He was wrong about what?...that he didn't recognize an individual?
  
  I've never suggested that all people unknown to Mr. Zimmerman were engaging in unscrupulous activity. None of them may have been. That doesn't mean in light of the recent events in the neighborhood he wouldn't be wise to follow them. I would.
• BoatShoes

  Con_Alma;1477335 wrote:If I don't know you and my neighborhood had the recent history it did in this case...I'm noticing you and I'm following you. It's that simple.

  So in the 5 other instances that GZ called the police because of a suspicious person he was incorrect not to pursue the allegedly suspicious individual? He was wrong not to rely on the police and choose not to follow the other individuals he reported as peering into windows?
• Con_Alma

  BoatShoes;1477363 wrote:So in the 5 other instances that GZ called the police because of a suspicious person he was incorrect not to pursue the allegedly suspicious individual? He was wrong not to rely on the police and choose not to follow the other individuals he reported as peering into windows?

  Inccorrect? Not necessarily. It's not binary. It's not follow or don't. Neither is incorrect.
• BoatShoes

  Con_Alma;1477362 wrote:He was wrong about what?...that he didn't recognize an individual?
  
  I've never suggested that all people unknown to Mr. Zimmerman were engaging in unscrupulous activity. None of them may have been. That doesn't mean in light of the recent events in the neighborhood he wouldn't be wise to follow them. I would.

  In the other instances he did not recognize individuals he simply called the police and reported suspicious activity. He did not follow them. You suggested that; "If I don't know you and you're suspicious, I am following you"
  
  You wrote this:
  

  Yes, he should have followed anyone and everyone he didn't knw based on the recent events in the neighborhood. That's the point..."anyone"...including Mr. Martin.

  ^You make the normative claim that GZ should have followed anyone and everyone he didn't know. You also suggest you would do this.
  
  However, Zimmerman didn't follow other young men he reported in other separate incidents.
  
  And I'm sorry, but this imaginary world where Con_Alma follows all these suspicious people on pure, hard-line reason that you ought to follow all suspicious people because of attempted break ins, is a fantasy and not reasonable behavior.
• BoatShoes

  Con_Alma;1477366 wrote:Inccorrect? Not necessarily. It's not binary. It's not follow or don't. Neither is incorrect.

  If that is true then this normative statement of yours is false.
  

  Yes, he should have followed anyone and everyone he didn't knw based on the recent events in the neighborhood.

  You begun saying that following is the correct and rational choice and are now equivocating to say that it is correct or incorrect.
• Con_Alma

  BoatShoes;1477370 wrote:If that is true then this normative statement of yours is false.
  
  
  
  You begun saying that following is the correct and rational choice and are now equivocating to say that it is correct or incorrect.

  It is correct to follow....because it is correct to do either. Neither one is an abnormal decision.
  
  I would follow.
• Con_Alma

  BoatShoes;1477368 wrote:In the other instances he did not recognize individuals he simply called the police and reported suspicious activity. He did not follow them. You suggested that; "If I don't know you and you're suspicious, I am following you"
  
  You wrote this:
  
  
  
  ^You make the normative claim that GZ should have followed anyone and everyone he didn't know. You also suggest you would do this.
  
  However, Zimmerman didn't follow other young men he reported in other separate incidents.
  
  And I'm sorry, but this imaginary world where Con_Alma follows all these suspicious people on pure, hard-line reason that you ought to follow all suspicious people because of attempted break ins, is a fantasy and not reasonable behavior.

  I don't think I said to follow "suspicious" people. Nor did I say that you "ought" to. I'm saying in light of the recent activities in the neighborhood it is not unreasonable to follow someone, anyone whom you do not know. I would.
• Gblock

  ccrunner609;1477278 wrote:I saw this on tv and he was spot on. The destruction of the black family is what drives all the problems in the black community. Not racism, poverty, education. spot on Bill.

  You agree then it was wrong to confront Martin as the first sentence states? Cuz that was my only point and u scolded me
• Raw Dawgin' it

  

  Gblock;1477449 wrote:You agree then it was wrong to confront Martin as the first sentence states? Cuz that was my only point and u scolded me

  they both should have minded their own business, but they didn't. Still, neither did anything illegal until the punch was thrown.
• Raw Dawgin' it

  

  Two weeks after the last burglary, Zimmerman saw Travyon Martin walking through the gated community. Zimmerman has said that he didn't recongnize Martin as a resident (Martin was visiting from out of town). Zimmerman then called the police saying:
  
  
  "Hey, we've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a real suspicious guy [near] Retreat View Circle. This guy looks like he's up to no good or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's walking around, looking about...He was just staring...He's just walking around the area looking at all the houses...Something's wrong with him."
• BoatShoes

  Con_Alma;1477335 wrote:If I don't know you and my neighborhood had the recent history it did in this case...I'm noticing you and I'm following you. It's that simple.

  Con_Alma;1477376 wrote:I don't think I said to follow "suspicious" people. Nor did I say that you "ought" to. I'm saying in light of the recent activities in the neighborhood it is not unreasonable to follow someone, anyone whom you do not know. I would.

  I am directly quoting you.
  

  Yes, he should have followed anyone and everyone he didn't knw based on the recent events in the neighborhood.

  Should means the same as ought in this context. It is a normative claim. And indeed, it is still unreasonable (being based on tenuous evidence at best), imprudent and demonstrative of a lack of caution to follow person fitting this description:
  

  "Hey, we've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a real suspicious guy [near] Retreat View Circle. This guy looks like he's up to no good or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's walking around, looking about...He was just staring...He's just walking around the area looking at all the houses...Something's wrong with him."

  when police are in route. You are not a police officer empowered by the people of Florida to protect the health, safety and welfare of Floridians. There was no obvious or known risk that would necessitate the use of emergency police powers by a citizen.
• Raw Dawgin' it

  

  BoatShoes;1477471 wrote:when police are in route. You are not a police officer empowered by the people of Florida to protect the health, safety and welfare of Floridians. There was no obvious or known risk that would necessitate the use of emergency police powers by a citizen.

  Next time you get attacked, you should not defend yourself, lay there, and take your beating until it's over.
• gut

  I still think the whole issue of "following" has been blown way out of proportion. You have Zimmerman saying he went a few hundred feet to see which way TM went down the street, and then you have Jenteal's account (who has a variety of credibility issues, especially after her disclosures to Piers Morgan that might border on her having committed perjury).
  
  So we don't know. But some people are acting like Zimmerman was stalking TM when reality might be something that barely qualifies as "following" (i.e. 15 seconds, and stopping after the dispatcher told him to).