Zimmerman Trial

Chamber of Debate Challenges
21 
 Smears:  the kid may have provoked a man already on edge, maybe he was hassled by his mother in law or whatever that morning, and road raged on his way to work, the boss may have ticked him off, he may have had gastritis and constipation, so when the kid comes on the scene, the guy goes berserk , and tries to indicate to the kid that he is on his last limb, and at this point the kid goes berserk and gives him the finger, throws rocks, whatever, so he goes after the kid because he just simply can't face his mother in law as a shlump again. He goes after the kid, but not intending to do him harm but to teach him a lesson.

What about this scenario?

22

In that case, you’ve got a grown man who can’t control his emotions who is killing kids in the street because he can’t deal with his own life.

If Martin had been stealing something, or had been vandalizing something, or had been known to have been wanted for a crime, then it’d be a whole different story.

But he wasn’t. He was a 17 year old kid walking home who got harassed. When he stood up for himself, he got killed.

23

Agree. The whole system was gamed against justice for Trayvon from day one of the incident. Not only that, but the case is now being distorted and propagandized so that the truth has become completely pretzelized. Trayvon was just a normal kid, unarmed, walking home from the store; a kid who was profiled and stalked and killed by a crazed racist vigilante with a gun. Even the National Bar Association has come out to say that Trayvon did not receive justice.

24

Smears and Jonquil, it’s one thing if you want to insist that generally speaking the sentiment of the non-emergency responder was that Zimmerman shouldn’t have gotten out of his car, but I assume neither of you intend on having a debate based on the evidence when you continue to assume the non-emergency dispatcher was a 911 operator despite that I politely mentioned otherwise.

I want to say as I did elsewhere that I don’t normally speak about court trials, I generally don’t speak on current events at all, but I’d like to think that when I do I have a reasonable amount of knowledge of what’s going on. If I don’t, I’m not afraid to say I have no opinion and in the past I’ve admitted to being out of my depth on aspects of debates I’ve been in.

Someone only needs to show me what evidence there is that clearly implies his guilt and I will change my opinion, after all I haven’t watched the entire trial and I have no in-depth knowledge of law.

25

Stuart…why do you think ZImmerman got our of his car?

26

To follow Martin.

27

I dunno if she stated that wished for him to keep him in sight, but I think she asked if he could still see him.

So what if you were 17 and a man started following you home? What would you do?

28

From the transcripts of the 911 call:

Zimmerman: Somethings wrong with him. Yup, he’s coming to check me out, he’s got something in his hands, I don’t know what his deal is.
Dispatcher: Just let me know if he does anything ok
Zimmerman: How long until you get an officer over here?
Dispatcher: Yeah we’ve got someone on the way, just let me know if this guy does anything else.
Zimmerman: Okay. These assholes they always get away. When you come to the clubhouse you come straight in and make a left. Actually you would go past the clubhouse.
Dispatcher: So it’s on the lefthand side from the clubhouse?
Zimmerman: No you go in straight through the entrance and then you make a left…uh you go straight in, don’t turn, and make a left. Shit he’s running.
Dispatcher: He’s running? Which way is he running?
Zimmerman: Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood.
Dispatcher: Which entrance is that that he’s heading towards?
Zimmerman: The back entrance…fucking [unintelligible]
Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah
Dispatcher: Ok, we don’t need you to do that

29

Two key points:

Zimmerman presumes Martin to be a criminal (“These assholes always get away”), and follows him despite the dispatcher telling him not to.

30

It’s so obvious it’s scary.

31

Thank you UPF, so after Zimmerman said, ‘Somethings wrong with him’ the non-emergency dispatcher told him to, ‘Just let me know if he does anything’ and ‘Just let me know if this guy does anything else’, before, ‘Ok, we don’t need you to do that’.

Just speaking to that situation not to how it affects the case as a whole; that Zimmerman said there was something wrong with Martin seems to imply that he saw something notable in Martin’s actions not just his appearance. Then the dispatcher said in a very straight forward way to let him know if he does anything. Basically, if one wants to say that ‘everyone knows to listen to the dispatcher’ then Zimmerman was being told to do something that may not have been his intention. I’m not saying that it was likely, but the possibility seems to be there. Then the dispatcher only said, ‘Ok, we don’t need you to do that.’

Why couldn’t he have just used the same straight forward manner as before and said ‘Don’t do that’? While I realize that may have been his implication there seems to be the possibility that it wasn’t. The dispatcher may have realized that his previous words may have been perceived to imply Zimmerman should follow him and so to avoid liability he told him that he didn’t have to.

I would argue that people know the difference between a direct request and an ambiguous one. Does anyone know the difference between talking to someone who they know isn’t being clear and earnest and talking to someone who is being as straight forwards as can be?

The dispatcher didn’t make a direct request as to Zimmerman not following Martin. It’s the difference between someone saying they are going to key my friend’s car, in which case I’ll say something to the affect of, ‘No absolutely not, don’t even think about it’, and someone saying they are going to key a strangers car, in which case I’ll say, ‘You shouldn’t do that,’ or maybe even, ‘You don’t need to do that.’ But, you see the apathy, because I don’t really care one way or another about a stranger’s car.

So if someone can take nothing more from the dispatcher’s ambiguity is seems one must take that he didn’t care as much about about whether or not Zimmerman followed Martin, whom he didn’t know at all, than he would have if he knew and liked the person being followed.

Though, I can tell you that when ever it’s my job to in part concern myself with the safety of others, I am never ambiguous. I take whatever job I’m doing seriously enough to say exactly what I think, but then I guess that’s why I never went anywhere career wise.

I have one more question: if a dispatcher in a similar situation were to tell someone in no uncertain terms not to follow the person they claim to suspect and they listen and don’t follow, then the person that was suspected goes and commits a major crime, what do you think the consequences might be for that dispatcher when the person who was on the phone goes and tells the police how much he was inclined to follow the person, but didn’t out of respect for the dispatcher’s direct request?

32

It would depend on the circumstance.

This has nothing to do with the case, but let me just explain since you asked. I was a very easily scared kid, but by time I was 17 I don’t recall ever being afraid over anything. Then that fearlessness wore away in four or five years, honestly, I miss the state of mind I had back then.

33

Stuart, 911 operators are always speaking in earnest by virtue of their position. It’s an emergency line. In some places, it’s a crime to call 911 if you’re not being serious. I’d say most places probably.

Did you know that ZImmerman had a history of calling 911 on just about every black kid that walked down the street?

Something like 8 or so recent calls about “suspicious black kids”. None of whom turned out to be guilty of anything.

Just like Martin wasn’t guilty of anything.

34

I did know that Zimmerman had reported people in the past, I think one could use that fact as easily in his defense. I assumed they were mostly, if not all, non-emergency calls as well, but it doesn’t hurt his case if they weren’t. Because as you say it can be a crime to call 911 without a good reason. The fact then that he didn’t get in legal trouble for his previous calls could possibly show that the police didn’t find them to be unserious.

You didn’t address any of my arguments as to why the dispatcher wasn’t speaking in earnest and you continue to call him a 911 operator, ok then I’m just going to have to assume that you mean 911 operator and non-emergency dispatcher to be the same thing. And being that your incline to equivocate things that seem to be worthy of a distinction I’m going to assume you equivocate ill intent with friendly intent, and with that said, I guess we no longer have anything to argue.

35

Stuart it doesn’t follow from him not getting in trouble that his 911 calls were serious. You have to understand some things about how laws are selectively enforced.

Nothing ever came of those calls. They were not serious.

So what it actually shows, is an overzealous wannabe cop who happens to think that every black man walking down the street is a criminal. I think it speaks volumes about his state of mind.

Stuart, I said that by the nature of the 911 service, all communications from the operators are assumed by most reasonable people to be in earnest. So I dunno what you’re saying about me not addressing that.

I mean…are you saying that it’s the 911 operator’s fault that this man got out of his car and chased an innocent kid down and shot him?

Can we put that bitch on trial for being verbally imprecise?

36

No, we can’t put him, the non-emergency dispatcher, on trial for being imprecise where imprecision is necessary due to the fact that he didn’t know the situation as well as Zimmerman and thereby couldn’t give a definitive recommendation as to what Zimmerman’s actions should be.

Are you not aware of how legal language is used? Take a legal contract for employment; let’s say in it it says what the person under contract must do and what they must not do. If for the things that the person must not do the contract said, ‘the person under this contract doesn’t have to do ______’ and then the person were to do some of those things and be sued for breach of contract, that person would win, because the contract said ‘doesn’t have to’, where it should have said, ‘must not’.

I imagine some contracts would actually use language such as ‘doesn’t have to’ purposefully. Say the contract is for a stunt man in a movie, it may say, ‘the stunt man doesn’t have to risk injury if the conditions seem to be more hazardous than he expected.’ What the writers of the contract would be saying is that they don’t necessarily have a problem with the stunt man risking injury, but they want to make it clear that he can’t sue them if he does.

37

Hey man, I took legal writing, and I know about how contracts work, and how it’s so important to say things with great precision.

So when the 911 operator first told the guy not to follow, I think he shoulda not followed. You’re not gonna trap me in some loophole man.

There’s just no getting around the fact that the entire confrontation was a result of Zimmerman’s actions, and not of Martin’s.

38

Smears, you win, I have to admit that I’m wrong in all regards. You accomplished a monumental task in dissuading me. It must have been because you took each argument I made and addressed them clearly and specifically. I have nothing more to say to you on this subject lest you should make a fool of me again.

39

In fairness, that could be interpreted differently. The dispatcher said, “We don’t need you to do that,” not, “No, don’t follow him.”

I had something vaguely similar happen in September on my way home from work at 3:00a.m.

Dispatch: 911, Where’s your emergency?

Me: I don’t have one, suspected drunk driver on Interstate, (Number) he doesn’t have his lights on and he is all over the place.

Dispatch: What exit?

Me: How do you mean, most recent exit passed or next one coming up?

Dispatch: Next one.

Me: Okay, (Exit Number) shit, he is exiting! I’m going to pursue.

Dispatch: Do not pursue.

Me: Bullshit. We’ve had two people killed by drunk drivers just last month, I’m fucking pursuing. What’s the ETA of the nearest deputy?

Dispatch: Two minutes, do not pursue.

Me: What are the legal ramifications?

Dispatch: There aren’t any, but it could be dangerous.

Me: Being a goddamn pedestrian and getting hit by a drunk driver is dangerous, left onto East Main.

Dispatch: Okay. I guess I can’t stop you.

(The dispatcher remained on the line, but nothing further was said until I saw the cop pull up behind me, the guy made no other turns.)

40

Pavlovian, you are now one of my favorite people.