Where there's smoke... why does George Zimmerman keep triggering 911 calls?

[ST3MOCON]

@explorer I think you are misunderstanding what @GoldDragon is trying to say. I agree with Gold Dragon and the conclusion the jury came to about George Zimmerman. If someone is poking around in my backyard I'm going to investigate. My neighborhood constantly gets random broken windshields up and down the street for example. I believe it was an unfortunate turn of events where Trayvon Martin attacked a man without assessing the situation properly.

I do think that most if not all of these allegations are George zimmermans fault. What I take from @GoldDragons response is George Zimmermans mental health has probably been compromised do to stress of the killing, trial and national opinion of him.

Also I don't think @golddragon is trying to say that these people who are the possible victims of George Zimmerman are the volatile ones.

Or maybe @GoldDragon is, then I would disagree.

Basically if George attacked Trayvon first then the outcome would have been different. This is why before you react to any situation you have to make a correct assessment and make a choice. Sometimes you don't have all the information you need. If you don't then make the best one that makes sense, head home call cops about a suspicious person stalking you.

 

[mrzakk]

just because you'r paronid... doesnt mean people are not out to get you!!!

 

[flint757]

@explorer I think you are misunderstanding what @GoldDragon is trying to say. I agree with Gold Dragon and the conclusion the jury came to about George Zimmerman. If someone is poking around in my backyard I'm going to investigate. My neighborhood constantly gets random broken windshields up and down the street for example. I believe it was an unfortunate turn of events where Trayvon Martin attacked a man without assessing the situation properly.

I do think that most if not all of these allegations are George zimmermans fault. What I take from @GoldDragons response is George Zimmermans mental health has probably been compromised do to stress of the killing, trial and national opinion of him.

Also I don't think @golddragon is trying to say that these people who are the possible victims of George Zimmerman are the volatile ones.

Or maybe @GoldDragon is, then I would disagree.

Basically if George attacked Trayvon first then the outcome would have been different. This is why before you react to any situation you have to make a correct assessment and make a choice. Sometimes you don't have all the information you need. If you don't then make the best one that makes sense, head home call cops about a suspicious person stalking you.

Only because of the way the law is written would I agree with this assessment. It's a moot point. Florida laws gave him the right to do what he did and there wasn't enough evidence to prove the contrary. However, I do disagree with George's thought process and actions. His behavior actually struck me like a police academy flunky more than a night watchman, but that's just one mans opinion. Stand your ground laws kind of give everyone the right to just kill whomever with little discretion as long as the scenario is set up right. I mean there are fewer ground rules for a civilian to kill someone than an officer or military personnel. It's a bit ridiculous.

 

[GoldDragon]

Here's a question:

A Florida man legally CCs a gun. He drives to a nice neighborhood, goes to the mall, catches a late movie and then goes back home without any conflicts or problems.

The next day, this same Florida man drives to a bad neighborhood, and after getting some pizza, is attacked when walking down a side street looking for the theatre. He draws his gun and kills his assailant.

Was the man culpable in the killing of his attacker? Was it his fault that he went to a "bad neighborhood" and walked down a side street?

If he didn't have the gun, he probably wouldn't have gone to this neighborhood. Does that mean he doesn't have the right to go down town to see an indie movie in a questionable neighborhood?

By carrying the gun, the man is asserting his right to go wherever he is legally entitled.

This is the same thing with the Trayvon shooting. As a neighborhood watchman, does he not have the right to walk down an apartment pathway to investigate a suspicious person?

People saying he didn't have this right, or made the wrong decision would probably say that the other man had no right to go down town and look for a theatre. They might even try to say that he went down town looking for trouble, that he was looking to kill someone.

Thats just plain wrong. People carry guns because they want to assert their right to go where they are entitled and don't want to be held prisoner by the bad people in the world.

 

[GoldDragon]

Also I don't think @golddragon is trying to say that these people who are the possible victims of George Zimmerman are the volatile ones.

A little bit of both. Crazy attracts crazy.

 

[Explorer]

As a neighborhood watchman, does he not have the right to walk down an apartment pathway to investigate a suspicious person?

You're conflating two different things.

Did Zimmerman have the right to carry a weapon at the time? Yes (though not at the moment, because of his acting crazy).

Did Zimmerman have the right as a citizen to follow someone? Yes, but it's a little stalk-y. That's why the motorist called the cops when Zimmerman showed up the next day.

Lastly, and the point you're missing: Do neighborhood watch programs have rules which have watch members observing and not attempting to confront potential suspects? Yes.

Does someone have the ability to violate the rules of a neighborhood watch program with impunity and remain a member of such a watch? No.

----

I'm not sure why you're so bent on others like the stalked motorist bringing the craziness to the situation. However, I do appreciate that you acknowledge that Zimmerman is crazy, becasuse he is definitely off the rails.

 

[Eliguy666]

Zimmerman isn't off the rails, he hasn't got wheels. There are few political figures that are as insane as he is while maintaining such devoted support.

 

[Explorer]

What's the name of the guy who was refusing to pay his rent, squatting on property which wasn't his, and had huge support until he spoke aloud what a huge segment of his supporters couldn't allow themselves to be tied to publicly? You know, that negroes were better off as slaves than as free people?

Okay, I looked it up, and it was Clive Bundy. Another nut case beloved by the political right and gun nuts until he got too public about the dark underbelly of those groups.

There just comes a point where groups, news companies and politicians need plausible deniability with that stuff....

 

[UnderTheSign]

Nobody here knows him personally.

Nobody knows exactly what happened at any of these incidents, they're just accusations.

NEVER assume ANYTHING.
Everybody is innocent. Until proven BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

Leave the guy alone.

The same goes for Trayvon but hey, he's dead now and that's what we do know.

 

[ElRay]

What's your take on this scenario:

1. Your daughter's walking home in your neighborhood at night
2. An unknown male is following her in a car
3. She tries to get away by ducking down an alley
4. She tells a friend that she thinks they only way to get out of the situation is to defend herself
5. The unknown male starts to follow her on foot
6. When presented the opportunity, she kicks him in the groin and/or pepper sprays him
7. He legally shoots her under the "Stand Your Ground" premise because she's the aggressor

Is this now not acceptable because the victim is female?

 

[flint757]

It's unacceptable across the board (the shooter, not the person going home). Even if you didn't throw the first punch if you attempt to start a confrontation with someone you are the aggressor. Stalking someone because you think they are a criminal despite being told not to sounds a lot more offensive than defensive to me.

 

[Explorer]

There were two things which weren't clear in an earlier story I was reading on Zimmerman's most recent behavior.

According to the AP, the police officers actually heard glass shattering and then saw the ex-girlfriend pull out of the driveway. They pulled her over a few streets over because she hadn't turned on her lights. It's not like the ex concocted a story and then went to find a cop.

I also hadn't realized that the current charges are based on Zimmerman smashing the ex-girlfriend's cellphone. If this is true, I guess Zimmerman has learned his lesson about how cops can go back over the tapes of 911 calls.

In the previous incident with the ex-wife, the one where he is audible on the 911 call goading her to approach him while he was brandishing a firearm in what appears to be a transparent attempt to justify a "stand your ground" shooting, Zimmerman also supposedly smashed the ex-wife's iPad.

Zimmerman against technology!

At this point, it's known that Zimmerman lied during the Martin proceedings. He schemed with his then-wife to hide the more than $100,000 in donations from the court. He lied when he stated that he had no knowledge of the Florida "stand your ground" law when it was established that he did. Zimmerman stated that Martin jumped out of the bushes at him... but there were no bushes in that area.

And I see that list of lies in black and white, and I have to shake my head and think about those who still embrace the possible innocence and honesty of this man. If someone can be okay with someone being so deceitful, it's safe to assume that any such defenders also lack more than a passing acquaintance with being honest.

----

Anyway, I just found it interesting that this new situation actually had police involvement earlier than I had previously thought.

Oh, let me add some clarifications from one of Zimmerman's defenders on this topic:

Posting on the internet is not being mindful, unless posting/debating/arguing on the internet is what you really want to be doing.

In my personal case, I am not being mindful when I am posting on the internet.

With that admission of P&CE trolling, I'm not expecting anything worthwhile from GoldDragon on this topic.

 

[flint757]

I know this is kind of off topic, but I don't feel it warrants its own thread. So apparently someone saw a guy with a holstered gun in Walmart and tackled him to the ground. So what do people seem to think about this? Well, first many people think he's an idiot, but secondly almost every single comment I have read on the topic basically says that the guy should have stabbed or shot him and how dare he try to play the hero. Does anyone else find all of that highly ironic.

Now compare this to public opinion on the Zimmerman trial. Zimmerman behaves in an aggressive manner and shoots someone under largely questionable circumstances. These likely same people would say it was his right to kill Trayvon and that Zimmerman didn't do much of anything wrong.

Now lets compare the scenarios. Does anyone feel that if one applied their logic from the first to the second that they'd actually be against Zimmerman, not for him? Really the only actual similarity is that in both cases the one with the gun is the only one ever justified and as such also justified (always) to kill the other party apparently (as far as public opinion goes). Sounds a bit trigger happy to me personally. And people wonder why people accuse some gun owners of simply trying to be intimidating. The mere thought process I hear from people in person and online doesn't leave me feeling 'safer' in the least, especially since their thoughts usually lead directly to comments like libtard and so on. So basically if you aren't 'with them', you're against them and are an acceptable casualty (because being subjectively labeled as dumb is apparently worthy of a death sentence). Obviously most people never act on this, but that is some scary thought process when someone in a state like Florida or Texas have the legal right to murder anyone under the right circumstances. That's completely aside from the fact that most gun owners are probably not good tactical shooters either (so even under the right circumstances I still wouldn't feel safer ).

While writing this I was also reminded of a bomb threat that happened at a local Walmart last Easter. Again everyone being proactively trigger happy they were all mostly saying that Walmart shouldn't have shuffled everyone away from the scene and that they should have let some Texas justice handle it. Here's the part that makes these people not that bright, the guy had a dead mans switch (and even if that wasn't known he could have or someone could have shot the bomb itself as like I said tactical training isn't a requirement for gun ownership). So if they had in fact implemented their justice they could have caused a shit ton of damage to the area and likely killed/harmed tons of innocent people in the process. The comments back then only got dumber though, as people here seem to lack any basic schooling (the blast radius, which is why Walmart pushed them away from the scene ).

<Disclaimer 1: Obviously this doesn't apply to everyone or all gun owners/enthusiasts.>

<Disclaimer 2: I'm not arguing legality, but the thought process behind peoples behavior and actions.>

<Disclaimer 3: I've got no problem with people owning guns and using them to defend themselves or even playing the 'hero' if trained for such a thing. I just don't have patience for stupid people and it's a little scary how many stupid people own guns and legally carry them with them everywhere.>

<Disclaimer 4: I'm not calling all gun owners stupid in disclaimer 3. >

 

[ThatCanadianGuy]

Maybe he was a little messed up about the death threats he got for being labelled a racist by people who couldn't realize he was a minority.

Or maybe it was the fact that the majority of a nation wanted him dead for defending himself against someone who was in better physical shape than him.

Take your pick.

 

[vilk]

^Are you like, trying to imply that minorities can't be racist?

 

[ThatCanadianGuy]

I'm trying to imply that George Zimmerman isn't the guy he was portrayed as on MSNBC.

 

[Explorer]

Maybe he was a little messed up about the death threats he got for being labelled a racist by people who couldn't realize he was a minority.

Or maybe it was the fact that the majority of a nation wanted him dead for defending himself against someone who was in better physical shape than him.

Take your pick.

I'm trying to imply that George Zimmerman isn't the guy he was portrayed as on MSNBC.

In that case, I'm glad I didn't watch the MSNBC coverage, and instead just used the written accounts of the facts of the various circumstances leading to so many unrelated people being assaulted by George Zimmerman.

Also, I wasn't aware that the majority of the nation was calling for Zimmerman to be killed.

 

[ThatCanadianGuy]

In that case, I'm glad I didn't watch the MSNBC coverage, and instead just used the written accounts of the facts of the various circumstances leading to so many unrelated people being assaulted by George Zimmerman.

Also, I wasn't aware that the majority of the nation was calling for Zimmerman to be killed.

Do you write for the Huffington post? For some reason you keep claiming expertise on issues you also claim to have little knowledge of the details to.

 

[Explorer]

I actually provided links to the stories I read earlier in the topic.

Wow, though... you tried to get personal with a veiled "liberal press" insult.

Eric?

 

[flint757]

Because insulting people totally adds more validity to ones point, as well as sarcasm.