Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyRandy
Here's the thing: the "cops" never gave Zimmerman a direct order. A civilian police dispatcher told him "we don't need you to do that" when Zimmerman said he was going to follow him. Guess what? If Zimmerman said I see a house burning, there may be people inside, I'm going in to check, the dispatcher would say the same thing: "we don't need you to do that". And the reason is liability. If the dispatcher says, "yes, by all means, investigate" and something goes wrong, let the lawsuits begin.
Of course Martin had the right to walk in the rain. Nothing illegal about that. And Zimmerman had the right to question a person walking in the rain, who didn't live there. Nothing illegal about that, either. You can go up to anyone, anywhere and ask them a question. I get homeless people coming up to me asking for a handout. It's not illegal, though I'd rather it not happen. And sometimes they follow me down the block. My response, however, has never been to punch one in the face and break their nose. Because that would be illegal.
|
So your argument in the first point is that what the dispatcher said is not what she actually meant? Ah, I see, a code. Well you got me there. I can't win that one dude. I guess my mistake is interpreting the words as per their definitions.
Glad you agree that T.Martin had that right. I agree that GZ did as well. And yes you can go up to someone and ask them what they are doing here. However if you were in a place you were allowed to be how would you respond? You may not hit them, fine, but don't tell me you wouldn't be put off by it and cop an attitude.
So now you have a keyed up dude with a gun. He wanted to be cop. (fact) and he was following someone who wasn't' doing anything wrong and was told to disengage by the authorities. The fact that he didn't disengage means that GZ thinks of him self pretty highly.
Trayvon does seem like a bit of a thug, however 17 year old boys tend to be a bit over aggressive and troublesome.
Now you have keyed up GZ thinking he is approaching a criminal and a pumped up Trayvon who has no idea who this dude is.
The problem is nobody knows how the rest really went down. Do you really think it was as neat as the guy who lived and was on trial said? I don't but what he said isn't acceptable. So the slight slide of his version to the truth means to me that GZ had NO RIGHT to do what he did.
Your homeless comment is a terrible analogy. The desire and state of the homeless person is pretty obvious.