Suggesting that other posters have raised arguments that settle the issue implies that the multiplicity of responses somehow "settles" the issue. That reeks of "appeal to popularity". Ditto.
"Dispatcher: Are you following him?" "Zimmerman: Yeah" "Dispatcher: We don't need you to do that." "Zimmerman: OKAY" Why not include all the pertinent parts instead of what only supports the phony narrative? Are you NBC?
GZ remained in his truck until TM ran. Up until then he was observing from the truck. When TM ran, GZ lost sight. If you listen to the recording, at this time you hear the open door ring when he opens the door to get out of the truck. "Let me know if he does anything else" was said to GZ. That's that's when he followed behind but not in sight yet.
The Martin supporters leave out convenient facts that conflict with their false narrative. Then they fill in the blanks as they see fit. This has been the case from the start. I doubt you get a response.
I made no assertion that a majority of posters made the point, all I said was that the point was already addressed, and you were nailed to the cross. Learn your fallacies, or refrain from replying to me. - - - Updated - - - Address the channel, not the source. Molyuex is fantastic.
Fantastic to you, maybe. He's a vlogger, or whatever they call video blogs. It's not a court transcript; it's not a live performance. It's a highly edited personal opinion. /that's all.
I agree he initially followed in his truck, then followed on foot. So what? This doesn't change that a teenager who is being followed home by a stranger at night has reason to fear for his safety.
Didn't have to follow in truck. TM was lingering by building. All GZ had to do was put it in park when he saw TM. Then called 911. He wasn't following. He was observing when TM put his hand in his waistband then walked toward GZ in the truck as if to intimidate. Then ran out of sight.
TM indicated to his girlfriend that he took shelter momentarily from the rain. Based on GZ's testimony and TM's path, it was probably at the awning over the mailboxes at the clubhouse. Not sure why that sparked a 911 call unless GZ was extremely paranoid... In order to get to the "cut through" (which includes a paved walkway) that GZ mentioned to police, TM would have had to walk right past the spot where GZ said his truck was parked. Walking this way does not mean he was trying to intimidate anyone, nor does making eye contact with GZ (who was looking at him for some time while talking on the phone). Once again, GZ sounds paranoid. Most people walking in the rain put their head down and hands in their pockets (or front pockets of a hooded sweatshirt...). GZ mentioned that TM had his hands near his waistband, but didn't indicate he moved them there when TM spotted GZ. Once again, GZ sounds paranoid. So why would GZ have been paranoid? Maybe it's because of the Temazepam (also known as Restoril) that GZ was on - which causes aggression and anxiety... BTW, running from GZ was probably the smartest thing TM ever did. I don't know whether he stopped running because his teen ego got the better of him, or whether he was worried about leading GZ back to his home, but "standing his ground" against someone he had every reason to believe was a threat to his safety was the wrong move.
I know how you interpret "stand your ground". But if you tell police that you just used lethal force against someone for "following" you, and you were just standing your ground, you will find your self arrested, the media will demonize you, you will spend countless dollars on attorney fees, and you will be imprisoned until your court date. Then you most likely will be convicted. To make a decision about the potential threat of someone following you requires an assumption. Just try to tell the grand jury that you assumed someone was a threat just because he was following you. You will receive an indictment for your assumption. To successfully use the stand your ground defense, the assailant must make an overt gesture. I know you want to read the law and take it literally, but I'm telling you how this law is practically applied in court. I give lectures to CCW students about this so I've studied many cases.
Did you study any of these? http://www.tampabay.com/news/public...s-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133
Good luck getting through on this with him, you'll find a plethora of minor examples in an attempt to support a losing position in-spite of the mind numbing times someone has been persecuted for exactly what you are trying to explain. You'll find a constant circular argument without ever acknowledging the real legal applications of the law. I find a couple times of pointing out his flaws quite enough to expose his lack of knowledge on the topic. Good luck though
Interesting that you feel justified in cherry picking which instances are "exceptions" and which make up "the rule"... Have you every heard of a "special pleading" fallacy?
their agenda: "Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed." Sara Brady Chairman, Handgun Control Inc, to Senator Howard Metzenbaum The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3. but this is what matters: "On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - Thomas Jefferson They will lie, skew, and do a literal rewrite of the laws just to suit their argument in here.
Are you suggesting that everyone who believes in any level of gun control supports a total ban? Hasty generalization much? Speaking of rewriting of laws and the original intent of those laws, what do you suppose the original intent of the 2A was considering that the founding fathers did not believe in having a standing military during times of peace, that they clearly described what a "well regulated militia" looked like in the original Militia Act, and that the 2A clearly references the "security of a free state"...? Lawful citizens were supposed to be trained and organized in such a way as to defend the nation against invaders. Of course, modern technology has made this improbable given that an invading force would have weapon systems that make uncle Jebediah's shotgun collection laughable, we do have a standing military during times of peace (that conservatives claim to support...), and the lack of training and organization of modern gun owners would make them incapable of anything greater than token pockets of momentary resistance to any military force.
