Posted on 07/22/2013 10:14:41 AM PDT by RinaseaofDs
RE: What part of “we don’t need you to do that” equates to “advice”?
OK, if it isn’t a command or advice, what is it? a declaration?
The only mistake I think George Zimmerman made is that he didn’t consider his own safety. He needed to think things through.
He should have asked himself, “if I get out of my car and this person becomes violent, am I able to defend myself without lethal force?” The answer is clearly NO, ergo, he should have remained in his vehicle and waited for the police.
On a recent vanity thread, a FReeper pointed out that having a gun does not give one license to do things that he wouldn’t do without the gun. If you wouldn’t follow a suspicious looking person without the gun, you shouldn’t do it just because you have the gun.
RE: A JUROR SAID THAT ZIMMERMAN SHOULD HAVE STAYED IN HIS CAR!!
WHY DON’T I HEAR OR READ ABOUT ANYONE ( JUROR OR NOT ) SAYING “TRAYVON SHOULD HAVE GONE STRAIGHT HOME”?
Declaration is a decent description. It is a declaration that he is asking on his own and not part of their instructions, advice, etc.
Of course Zimmerman has the right to get out of his car, but, as a licensed concealed weapon carrier, he has a responsibility to execute good judgement.
I don’t think getting out of his car and following a suspicious looking person in the dark, by himself, was good judgement.
He was not advised to “Not Follow”.
I believe the comment from the dispatcher was more in passing and :
1. Not a lawful order, much less an order
2. Was said more to keep Zimm safe
3. they asked where he was at. Zimm didn’t know and got out of his vehicle to ascertain “A Named Location” and doesn’t appear to be in pursuit of Tray at this point but, rather trying to give a location to the dispatcher.
Did he not use common sense by getting out of his vehicle? I dunno. I take walks late at night and frequently find kids in the swimming pool and at the tool shed.
All these locations are locked and you physically have to climb a fence to get inside. Further, there is no one on site to assist these kids should they find themselves in trouble or drink too much and drown.
Just 3 weeks ago I assisted in recovering a kid who had autism. I was walking north and saw this kid go running by me, barefoot.
I know that street name but, I have no idea what the street names are where the pool is located. Where I asked the location I’d have to seek out the street signs and I’ve lived here 12 years!
Zimm was attacked after giving the location and as he was headed back to his truck.
Tray made a poor decision and the results were tragic.
What I keep reading almost everywhere is “What Zimmerman should have done”...
I want to read “What Trayvon should have done...”
Here’s my contribution :
Trayvon had over 4 minutes to walk a few hundred yards to his father’s house. If he just did that, there would be no incident and he would be alive today.
OMG!!
Wanna laugh on the one hand, on the other it is a sad commentary.
RE: they asked where he was at. Zimm didn’t know and got out of his vehicle to ascertain “A Named Location” and doesn’t appear to be in pursuit of Tray at this point but, rather trying to give a location to the dispatcher.
OK, I need an explanation, if Zimm was not following Trayvon, why did Trayvon tell his friend Rachel Jaentel that a “creepy assed cracker” was following him?
“but did he follow the Dispatcher’s advise not to follow Trayvon or not?”
the dispatcher never told GZ to not follow TM.
RE: I don’t think getting out of his car and following a suspicious looking person in the dark, by himself, was good judgement.
As per Jack Cashill, Zimmerman claimed that he was GOING BACK to his car.
The call ended four minutes and change after it started at 7:13:39. Zimmerman picked up the written narrative: “The dispatcher told me not to follow the suspect & that an officer was on the way. As I headed back to my vehicle the suspect emerged from the darkness and said, ‘You got a problem?’” When Zimmerman answered “No,” the suspect said, “You do now.”
The question is this — when did he follow Trayvon and when did he stop and get back to his car?
And if as Rachel Jaentel said, Trayvon told her that a “creepy assed cracker” was following him, when was that?
If Zimmerman is telling the truth, it looks like this :
* Zimmerman INITIALLY followed Trayvon.
* He stopped following Trayvon AFTER the Dispatcher told him he need not do it.
* He was going back to his car
* Trayvon then went BACK after Zimmerman and started the altercation by attacking him.
Any thoughts on the scenario I just painted?
I think Tray knew someone was watching him and he was just as aware of another person in his vicinity.
He tracked back to see who it was, while Zimm was already heading back to his truck.
Tragedy.
RE: the dispatcher never told GZ to not follow TM.
The Dispatcher said “We don’t need you to do that”.
So, after the Dispatcher said it and GZ said “OK”, what did GZ do?
According to his narrative, we was about to go back to his car.
Do you have any reason at all to believe anything she said?
She was coached what to say word for word and still was caught lying under oath several times.
RE: He tracked back to see who it was, while Zimm was already heading back to his truck.
Well, there ya go, so in the end, it was TRAYVON who followed GZ and not the other way around.
One was tracking and broke off
The other was headed home and decided a confrontation would make him feel good.
Testosterone...
Towards his car. The attack wasn’t near the truck.
About as absurd as comparing Zimmerman with Rosa Parks, or the recent comparison of Martin with Dred Scott.
RE: Towards his car. The attack wasn’t near the truck.
Well, if GZ was moving AWAY from Trayvon towards his truck, that means he STOPPED following him.
Therefore, in the end, IT WAS TRAYVON WHO FOLLOWED GZ !!
Who is the stalker here?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.