Trayvon Martin was Caught with Women's Jewelry and a "Burglary Tool" in Earlier Suspension

[DerailingDaTrain]

So If a police dispatcher tells me "we don't need you to do something", I tell them I'm going to do, and I do it, I've committed a crime! Good Lord you people are insane.

Hypothetical: I observe a man in a suit on a ledge and call in a suicide attempt. I tell the dispatcher I'm going out on the ledge to talk him in. The dispatcher tells me, "we don't need you to do that." I say, ok, but think the guy is about to jump so I go out and talk him in to coming back in. According to you, I'm a criminal.

If you aren't intelligent enough to discern the precise meaning of words, if you lack the understanding of the law or the critical reasoning skills to negotiate a topic such as this, you are really better off just not participating.

That situation isn't even remotely similar and yes he should have done nothing because in the end the kid hadn't committed any crime and was unarmed. The police would have handled it much better than an armed community watch member.

Zimmerman was attaxcked returning to his SUV, and that is per witness account. What part are you having trouble with?

His story doesn't match the facts and a witness heard a young person screaming for help, a gunshot, then no screaming.

Cutcher and her roommate told CNN journalist Anderson Cooper that their own account of the incident to the police did not agree with Zimmerman's, and that they had demanded that the police retract that incorrect statement. They also said, about the police's attitude at the scene, that "they were siding with him [Zimmerman] from the start" and that they heard the pair in their backyard and a "very young voice" whining, with no sounds of a fight. They heard a gunshot; the crying stopped immediately, and they saw Zimmerman on his knees pinning Martin down on the ground

Also, according to the police: Martin was unarmed, and was carrying a bag of Skittles candy and a can of Arizona brand iced tea.

"Carrying" means that he was holding them right? (Unless they mean they found them near his body). Do they mean to imply that he was beating Zimmerman with an can of iced tea in one hand a bag of skittles in the other?

 

[RonPaulMall]

That situation isn't even remotely similar and yes he should have done nothing because the kid was unarmed. The police would have handled it much better than an armed community watch member.

No, it isn't similar, but you've made the contention that a police dispatcher telling you he doesn't need you to do a particular thing makes it illegal for one to do so. That is your contention. So answer the question. Did the person in my hypothetical commit a crime or not. And if not, why? I'm not busting just busting your balls here. Thinking through questions like this will instruct you as to why your assertions are incorrect, and you thinking it through and understanding why you are wrong is a much better teaching tool than me just telling you why you are wrong. That's why most law professors utilize the Socratic Method almost exculsively.

 

[DerailingDaTrain]

No, it isn't similar, but you've made the contention that a police dispatcher telling you he doesn't need you to do a particular thing makes it illegal for one to do so. That is your contention. So answer the question. Did the person in my hypothetical commit a crime or not. And if not, why? I'm not busting just busting your balls here. Thinking through questions like this will instruct you as to why your assertions are incorrect, and you thinking it through and understanding why you are wrong is a much better teaching tool than me just telling you why you are wrong. That's why most law professors utilize the Socratic Method almost exculsively.

Saving the life of a person about to jump off of a building isn't the same as ending one of a unarmed innocent civilian and I'm sure that in today's legal system you could even end up getting charged for trying to talk the guy down from the building if he ended up jumping anyway.

 

[coastie]

No, it isn't similar, but you've made the contention that a police dispatcher telling you he doesn't need you to do a particular thing makes it illegal for one to do so. That is your contention. So answer the question. Did the person in my hypothetical commit a crime or not. And if not, why? I'm not busting just busting your balls here. Thinking through questions like this will instruct you as to why your assertions are incorrect, and you thinking it through and understanding why you are wrong is a much better teaching tool than me just telling you why you are wrong. That's why most law professors utilize the Socratic Method almost exculsively.

Regardless if they could have "legally" told him that or not-it was sound advice in this case, was it not?

Do you agree that something like this happening is EXACTLY why they told him they didn't need him to follow him?

 

[angelatc]

I have been called a troll so much it doesn't really bother me anymore[/QUOTE

Everybody who joined after I did is a troll. Unless (as rare as it is) they agree with me.

 

[DerailingDaTrain]

I have been called a troll so much it doesn't really bother me anymore[/QUOTE

Everybody who joined after I did is a troll. Unless (as rare as it is) they agree with me.

Hmmm...

I agree

 

[cajuncocoa]

I have been called a troll so much it doesn't really bother me anymore

Everybody who joined after I did is a troll. Unless (as rare as it is) they agree with me.

LOL!!

 

[UtahApocalypse]

Zimmerman was attaxcked returning to his SUV, and that is per witness account. What part are you having trouble with?

wrong.

the witness saw Trayvon on top of him. He never saw the beginning of the incident.

 

[RonPaulMall]

Regardless if they could have "legally" told him that or not-it was sound advice in this case, was it not?

Do you agree that something like this happening is EXACTLY why they told him they didn't need him to follow him?

Dispatcher's always have to be careful about liability. Following a suspicious person can be dangerous, I agree. The dispatcher made clear the police didn't need him to follow the suspicious guy because he if Zimmerman ended up getting shot, he didn't want some plaintiff's attorney suing the department saying they encouraged Zimmerman to risk his life.

Following a suspicious person can be dangerous, yes. But it certainly isn't unlawful. And as it is not unlawful, what the dispatcher said, and what Zimmerman did up until the point Zimmerman and Martin finally came face to face, have nothing to do with whether a crime was committed by Zimmerman. This is an important step. I'm glad you guys are finally starting to grasp the essential facts. Unwise/Unsound/Unsafe does not equal Unlawful. The former may have relevance in a civil lawsuit, but they can never be used to justify criminal charges.

 

[RonPaulMall]

Saving the life of a person about to jump off of a building isn't the same as ending one of a unarmed innocent civilian and I'm sure that in today's legal system you could even end up getting charged for trying to talk the guy down from the building if he ended up jumping anyway.

Really? Tell me Mr. Legal Eagle, what criminal charges could result from encouraging someone to not jump off a building. And you entirely missed the point of my hypothetical. You made the assertion that doing something that a police dispatcher tells you he doesn't "need you to do" is criminal. Are you now backing away from that assertion? Either it is a crime or it is not. If it is, then the guy who saved the jumper's life is a criminal. If it is not, then stop using it as an argument in the Zimmerman case. I eagerly await your answer.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Okay so apparently a previous event makes it okay for the crime watch captain to kill Trayvon when Trayvon was just walking around with no weapon and a bottle of tea and skittles in hand? Hah

 

[dannno]

And that's why we have these things called "trials". What you and every other Zimmerman defender keep glossing over is that the whole argument isn't over whether or not Zimmerman should be convicted, but whether or not he should have a trial.

Well I haven't seen anybody say he shouldn't go to trial, just a lot of hypothesizing on whether he should or will be convicted, whether Trayvon attacked him first or whether he "hunted down" and killed Trayvon just because "he was black". I see no reason why he shouldn't go to trial since there is a question over whether it was self defense.

I'm just concerned because the media seems to be slanting this story to create racial tension and some people here who normally don't seem to be buying the "official" story so to speak.

 

[webaform]

Ugh, I can't believe I got caught up in the madness of crowds. I'm not going to read or respond to anything about this case. It doesn't really concern me, and I don't know these guys. I'm glad that I got no response. I'd hate to perpetuate the madness.

 

[specsaregood]

Well I haven't seen anybody say he shouldn't go to trial, just a lot of hypothesizing on whether he should or will be convicted

You must be speaking of somewhere else then; because that has been the primary POV (that there should be a jury trial or at least be heard by a grand jury). in every single thread here on RPFs.

 

[dannno]

Okay so apparently a previous event makes it okay for the crime watch captain to kill Trayvon when Trayvon was just walking around with no weapon and a bottle of tea and skittles in hand? Hah

No, apparently Trayvon came up behind Zimmerman and said, "Hey, do you have a problem?!" and Zimmerman said, "No" and Trayvon said, "Well you do now!" and decked him, got him on the ground and started punching him in the head.

Fists are a deadly weapon, and apparently Trayvon was the first to break out a deadly weapon.

 

[dannno]

You must be speaking of somewhere else then; because that has been the primary POV (that there should be a jury trial or at least be heard by a grand jury). in every single thread here on RPFs.

Ya, re-read what I said, I think for the most part everybody here agrees there should be a trial.

 

[specsaregood]

Ya, re-read what I said, I think for the most part everybody here agrees there should be a trial.

Ok, i was a bit surprised. darn my weary eyes.

 

[RonPaulMall]

Ya, re-read what I said, I think for the most part everybody here agrees there should be a trial.

Actually, under Florida Law there should not be a trial. The confusions arises because a lot of people live in jurisdictions where all killings are illegal, and self defense is only an affirmative defense you can raise at trial. That is not the law in Florida. If the events occurred the way George Zimmerman described, then the shooting was a lawful killing. Probable Cause for an arrest does not exist.

 

[iGGz]

[[]]

 

[DerailingDaTrain]

Really? Tell me Mr. Legal Eagle, what criminal charges could result from encouraging someone to not jump off a building. And you entirely missed the point of my hypothetical. You made the assertion that doing something that a police dispatcher tells you he doesn't "need you to do" is criminal. Are you now backing away from that assertion? Either it is a crime or it is not. If it is, then the guy who saved the jumper's life is a criminal. If it is not, then stop using it as an argument in the Zimmerman case. I eagerly await your answer.

I tried to end the conversation and you bring it back up. Notice I said "In today's legal system he could probably be charged if he jumped". What I'm implying is that in today's fucked up legal system his family could sue you because you gave terrible advice and he jumped because you aren't an actual hostage negotiator and they told you to wait for an actual one. Zimmerman was told not to do something. I am saying that if they tell you not to then you shouldn't. I have never changed my opinion in this entire conversation.