(September 11, 2020 at 4:28 pm)Irreligious Atheist Wrote:

(September 11, 2020 at 2:51 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: Including one guy who looks a hell of a lot like Khem.

---

Also, the police never told Zimmerman to not follow him? Well, technically, it was the 911 dispatcher who told him to not follow him:

And as for the anti gun argument, it really shouldn’t be related to a single case, but more the fact that America has far more homicides than any developed nation, and the fact that, unlike most others, we have a bizarrely laissez-fairy attitude towards gun ownership which, at the very least, is not helping things.

The 911 dispatcher did not tell Zimmerman not to follow Martin. This is a myth that has been told so much that people started believing it was true. "We don't need you to do that" is not at all "don't you dare do that". One is not the other and it is dishonest to try to claim that these are the same things.

Horseshit.

Boru

(September 11, 2020 at 4:27 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(September 11, 2020 at 4:22 pm)Irreligious Atheist Wrote: What info do we have about the Zimmerman case that shows there was pre-meditation? I don't understand how you can call it pre-meditated.

His going on a hunting expedition is pretty persuasive, I think.

Boru

Hunting? The most likely scenario is he thought Trayvon was acting suspicious and could be involved in robberies, so he wanted to stay near him to point him out to the police when they got there. I wouldn't exactly call that hunting. I don't condone Zimmerman following him, but he broke no law in doing so.

---

(September 11, 2020 at 4:29 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(September 11, 2020 at 4:28 pm)Irreligious Atheist Wrote: The 911 dispatcher did not tell Zimmerman not to follow Martin. This is a myth that has been told so much that people started believing it was true. "We don't need you to do that" is not at all "don't you dare do that". One is not the other and it is dishonest to try to claim that these are the same things.

Horseshit.

Boru

Horseshit what? If it was against the law for Zimmerman to follow Martin, why didn't the dispatcher just tell him to not follow him straight up?

(September 11, 2020 at 4:33 pm)Irreligious Atheist Wrote:

(September 11, 2020 at 4:27 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: His going on a hunting expedition is pretty persuasive, I think.

Boru

Hunting? The most likely scenario is he thought Trayvon was acting suspicious and could be involved in robberies, so he wanted to stay near him to point him out to the police when they got there. I wouldn't exactly call that hunting. I don't condone Zimmerman following him, but he broke no law in doing so.

He followed Martin after being advised not to do so. He got out of his car after being advised not to do so. He precipitated a confrontation with Martin and did so while armed, the direct result of which was Martin’s death.

That’s not neighbourhood watch, that’s looking for someone to kill. 

Boru

(September 11, 2020 at 4:33 pm)Irreligious Atheist Wrote:

(September 11, 2020 at 4:27 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: His going on a hunting expedition is pretty persuasive, I think.

Boru

Hunting? The most likely scenario is he thought Trayvon was acting suspicious and could be involved in robberies, so he wanted to stay near him to point him out to the police when they got there. I wouldn't exactly call that hunting. I don't condone Zimmerman following him, but he broke no law in doing so.

---

(September 11, 2020 at 4:29 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Horseshit.

Boru

Horseshit what? If it was against the law for Zimmerman to follow Martin, why didn't the dispatcher just tell him to not follow him straight up?

Horseshit that you’re attempting to create a difference between ‘we don’t need you to do that’ and ‘don’t do that’.

Boru

(September 11, 2020 at 3:22 pm)SUNGULA Wrote:

Quote: I don't like how Zimmerman followed him either, but contrary to what has been said over and over, the police did not instruct Zimmerman not to follow Trayvon, he broke no laws in doing so, and he was allowed to be carrying a gun.

The 911 dispatcher told him not too and breaking no laws does not mean what he did was not wrong nor can any sane person call it self defense 

Quote: And as far as the anti-gun arguments go, that's pretty much out the window now that you have rioters on the street burning businesses down, rioters marching through rural neighbourhoods scaring children and screaming for people to get out of their homes and into the streets, breaking into gated communities and threatening to kill people and their dogs and burn their houses down, dragging random people out of their cars and beating them almost to death, mobs beating up trans women on the streets, BLM supporters shooting and killing black children for crossing barriers that they put up. The anti-gun argument has no leg to stand on any more.

Typical pro gun fox news level fear mongering . Nope this doesn't affect the argument in the least .

Sorry that I care about trans women, black children, black adults, children being woken up in their sleep by angry mobs, innocent people who did nothing wrong having their livelihoods taken from them when their businesses are burned down. How right wing of me. I'm sure the corporate media promoting this shit and billionaires funding BLM have the people's best interests at heart. I'm glad you put your trust in billionaires and the establishment when they propagate all of this just because they tell you "We're the ones that care about black lives and anyone that opposes our agenda are racist meanies."

---

(September 11, 2020 at 4:39 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(September 11, 2020 at 4:33 pm)Irreligious Atheist Wrote: Hunting? The most likely scenario is he thought Trayvon was acting suspicious and could be involved in robberies, so he wanted to stay near him to point him out to the police when they got there. I wouldn't exactly call that hunting. I don't condone Zimmerman following him, but he broke no law in doing so.

---

Horseshit what? If it was against the law for Zimmerman to follow Martin, why didn't the dispatcher just tell him to not follow him straight up?

Horseshit that you’re attempting to create a difference between ‘we don’t need you to do that’ and ‘don’t do that’.

Boru

There is a big difference, and maybe that's because he was not doing anything illegal by following him. Maybe that's why they didn't tell him not to follow.

I'm not the one being dishonest because I'm saying exactly what the dispatcher said. I don't need to switch a bunch of words around to try to make the false claim that he was told not to follow, because he was never told that.

(September 11, 2020 at 4:42 pm)Irreligious Atheist Wrote:

(September 11, 2020 at 3:22 pm)SUNGULA Wrote: The 911 dispatcher told him not too and breaking no laws does not mean what he did was not wrong nor can any sane person call it self defense 

Typical pro gun fox news level fear mongering . Nope this doesn't affect the argument in the least .

Sorry that I care about trans women, black children, black adults, children being woken up in their sleep by angry mobs, innocent people who did nothing wrong having their livelihoods taken from them when their businesses are burned down. How right wing of me. I'm sure the corporate media promoting this shit and billionaires funding BLM have the people's best interests at heart. I'm glad you put your trust in billionaires and the establishment when they propagate all of this just because they tell you "We're the ones that care about black lives and anyone that opposes our agenda are racist meanies."

Ah yes the faux outrage essentially lifted from a Fox News talking head mixed with absurd conspiracy tripe and calls to "wake up sheeple . Sorry i became immune to "Anti Establishment Larping " in 2008 .You might want to update the script as it's gotten stale by this point .

---

Quote:Hunting? The most likely scenario is he thought Trayvon was acting suspicious and could be involved in robberies, so he wanted to stay near him to point him out to the police when they got there. I wouldn't exactly call that hunting. I don't condone Zimmerman following him, but he broke no law in doing so.

Nah the likely scenario is Zimmerman's a paranoid creep and he had reason to follow him and whether he broke any laws is irrelevant 

Quote:The 911 dispatcher did not tell Zimmerman not to follow Martin. This is a myth that has been told so much that people started believing it was true. "We don't need you to do that" is not at all "don't you dare do that". One is not the other and it is dishonest to try to claim that these are the same things.

He doesn't need to say "don't you dare do that". "We don't need you to do that"  is a strong enough indication they don't want you following them . And no it's dishonest to pretend this isn't explicit hint to back the fuck off and let the cops handle it . That Zimmerman being i moron didn't pick up on apparently .

---

(September 11, 2020 at 4:37 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(September 11, 2020 at 4:33 pm)Irreligious Atheist Wrote: Hunting? The most likely scenario is he thought Trayvon was acting suspicious and could be involved in robberies, so he wanted to stay near him to point him out to the police when they got there. I wouldn't exactly call that hunting. I don't condone Zimmerman following him, but he broke no law in doing so.

He followed Martin after being advised not to do so. He got out if his car after being advised  to do so. He precipitated a confrontation with Martin and did so while armed, the direct result of which was Martin’s death.

That’s not neighbourhood watch, that’s looking for someone to kill. 

Boru

True

---

(September 11, 2020 at 4:39 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(September 11, 2020 at 4:33 pm)Irreligious Atheist Wrote: Hunting? The most likely scenario is he thought Trayvon was acting suspicious and could be involved in robberies, so he wanted to stay near him to point him out to the police when they got there. I wouldn't exactly call that hunting. I don't condone Zimmerman following him, but he broke no law in doing so.

---

Horseshit what? If it was against the law for Zimmerman to follow Martin, why didn't the dispatcher just tell him to not follow him straight up?

Horseshit that you’re attempting to create a difference between ‘we don’t need you to do that’ and ‘don’t do that’.

Boru

True

I’d say that, while there are differences between saying “we don’t need you to do that” and “don’t you dare do that,” the message still remains the same: don’t do it. The most salient difference is that one’s more forceful than the other, and I suspect that in cases like this, the dispatcher would be more inclined to use less forceful language.

(September 11, 2020 at 5:16 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: I’d say that, while there are differences between saying “we don’t need you to do that” and “don’t you dare do that,” the message still remains the same: don’t do it. The most salient difference is that one’s more forceful than the other, and I suspect that in cases like this, the dispatcher would be more inclined to use less forceful language.

I know it's hair splitting at it's finest

(September 11, 2020 at 5:16 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: the dispatcher would be more inclined to use less forceful language.

-the alternative being to aggresively yell at an armed man who just told you he was out wabbit hunting.

Saying we don't need you to is basically saying "We'd prefer you not. We have it under control." The claim often made though is that Zimmerman ignored instruction or a command. Whether it's splitting hairs or not, the fact remains that Zimmerman did not ignore any instruction or command. That's the simple point I was making, and it's a factual point. I'm aware that they didn't want Zimmerman to follow Martin, and I also said that I don't like that Zimmerman followed him. I understand that Zimmerman is a bad guy and has many personality issues. The law is the law though, and it could not be proven that Zimmerman broke any law. Even if Zimmerman was a sociopathic Klan member, that does not make him a murderer. We have to stick to the evidence that we have.