Jauronimo Posted February 28, 2013 Posted February 28, 2013 By his own admission, yes he did. Chase verb (used without object) 5. to follow in pursuit: to chase after someone. 6. to rush or hasten: We spent the weekend chasing around from one store to another. 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...!@#$ing [disputed/unintelligible] Dispatcher: Are you following him? Zimmerman: Yeah. Dispatcher: Okay, we don't need you to do that. Zimmerman: Okay. Dispatcher: All right, sir, what is your name? Zimmerman: George...He ran. Dispatcher: All right, George, what's your last name? Zimmerman: Zimmerman. Dispatcher: And George, what's the phone number you're calling from? Zimmerman: [redacted] Dispatcher: All right, George, we do have them on the way. Do you want to meet with the officer when they get out there? Zimmerman:: Yeah. Dispatcher: Alright, where you going to meet with them at? Zimmerman: If they come in through the gate, tell them to go straight past the club house, and uh, straight past the club house and make a left, and then they go past the mailboxes, that's my truck...[unintelligible] Dispatcher: What address are you parked in front of? Zimmerman: I don't know. It's a cut through so I don't know the address. Dispatcher: Okay. Do you live in the area? Zimmerman: Yeah, I...[unintelligible] I'm about to rise to the level of my Juror#8 ("Davis") namesake. To my knowledge there wasn't a single witness that said that Zimmerman's head was being thumped against the ground. Not the women who lived two stories above where the incident happened. Not Mary Cutcher. Not the dog walker. Not the man who took pictures of Zimmerman post incident. Not Selma Lamilla. Zimmerman said that Trayvon was doing ________. But the scratches/abrasions on Zimmerman's head are not consistent with being slammed against cement: http://timenewsfeed....05/rtr328bf.jpg Those are scratches consistent with getting his ass kicked, someone punching him in the face, and his head getting scratched up as he endeavored to avoid the punches or get up. That is not the type of laceration that you'd expect to see when skin is interacting violently with concrete. The vogue thing to do right now is to take Zimmerman at face value because he had a bloody nose, a busted lip, and some scratches on his head. Many kids throughout America on the football field, on the basetball court, and in fisticuffs on the playground at 3:00 after school experience worse EVERYDAY. They're not fearing for their life and they don't react the way Zimmerman did. Trayvon would have stood up, called Zimmerman a punk ass biatch, laughed, and went about his way. Zimmerman would have had a well whooped ass. But they both would have lived to fight another day. Except that Zimmerman couldn't take his ass whoopin, couldn't fight back, and instead escalated a situation that he precipitated, into some final judgment because he was salty. Not sure that that is fair. So an ass whoopin is a reasonable response to being followed? I would say the introduction of violence was the real escalation of an otherwise innocuous situation. Kids fighting on the playground is a very different situation. On basketball court, they're not fearing for their life because they know their opponent, know the nature of the dispute, and have similar intentions. Did Zimmerman know before hand that Trayvon was a cherubic 17 year old? Did Zimmerman know Trayvon's intentions? Also, fighting behind school at 3PM comes with 99% certainty that neither party will be shot. Getting jumped in a neighborhood which has witnessed increasing levels of crime comes with no such assurances or guarantees. You can romanticize your hood ethics all you'd like, but the bolded is pure speculation on your part. As for your definition of chase, "him" would be the object in your sentence. Your definition only applies in something like "for love of the chase", but you likely knew that. chase verb (used with object) 1. to pursue in order to seize, overtake, etc.: The police officer chased the thief. 2. to pursue with intent to capture or kill, as game; hunt: to chase deer. 3. to follow or devote one's attention to with the hope of attracting, winning, gaining, etc.: He chased her for three years before she consented to marry him. 4. to drive or expel by force, threat, or harassment: She chased the cat out of the room.
meazza Posted February 28, 2013 Posted February 28, 2013 By his own admission, yes he did. Chase verb (used without object) 5. to follow in pursuit: to chase after someone. 6. to rush or hasten: We spent the weekend chasing around from one store to another. 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...!@#$ing [disputed/unintelligible] Dispatcher: Are you following him? Zimmerman: Yeah. Dispatcher: Okay, we don't need you to do that. Zimmerman: Okay. Dispatcher: All right, sir, what is your name? Zimmerman: George...He ran. Dispatcher: All right, George, what's your last name? Zimmerman: Zimmerman. Dispatcher: And George, what's the phone number you're calling from? Zimmerman: [redacted] Dispatcher: All right, George, we do have them on the way. Do you want to meet with the officer when they get out there? Zimmerman:: Yeah. Dispatcher: Alright, where you going to meet with them at? Zimmerman: If they come in through the gate, tell them to go straight past the club house, and uh, straight past the club house and make a left, and then they go past the mailboxes, that's my truck...[unintelligible] Dispatcher: What address are you parked in front of? Zimmerman: I don't know. It's a cut through so I don't know the address. Dispatcher: Okay. Do you live in the area? Zimmerman: Yeah, I...[unintelligible] I'm about to rise to the level of my Juror#8 ("Davis") namesake. To my knowledge there wasn't a single witness that said that Zimmerman's head was being thumped against the ground. Not the women who lived two stories above where the incident happened. Not Mary Cutcher. Not the dog walker. Not the man who took pictures of Zimmerman post incident. Not Selma Lamilla. Zimmerman said that Trayvon was doing ________. But the scratches/abrasions on Zimmerman's head are not consistent with being slammed against cement: http://timenewsfeed....05/rtr328bf.jpg Those are scratches consistent with getting his ass kicked, someone punching him in the face, and his head getting scratched up as he endeavored to avoid the punches or get up. That is not the type of laceration that you'd expect to see when skin is interacting violently with concrete. The vogue thing to do right now is to take Zimmerman at face value because he had a bloody nose, a busted lip, and some scratches on his head. Many kids throughout America on the football field, on the basetball court, and in fisticuffs on the playground at 3:00 after school experience worse EVERYDAY. They're not fearing for their life and they don't react the way Zimmerman did. Trayvon would have stood up, called Zimmerman a punk ass biatch, laughed, and went about his way. Zimmerman would have had a well whooped ass. But they both would have lived to fight another day. Except that Zimmerman couldn't take his ass whoopin, couldn't fight back, and instead escalated a situation that he precipitated, into some final judgment because he was salty. Not sure that that is fair. Man the **** people will say to justify their opinions.
jjamie12 Posted February 28, 2013 Posted February 28, 2013 So an ass whoopin is a reasonable response to being followed? I would say the introduction of violence was the real escalation of an otherwise innocuous situation. I would love to know where you live that "being followed" by someone you don't know can be construed as an "innocuous situation" People have lost their minds over this case. Rush to judgment, followed by condemning the rush to judgment, followed by people digging their heels in, ignoring the reality of the situation and desperately trying to be "right" about their stupidly superficial initial thoughts about a kid you never knew or cared about being killed by a guy you never knew or cared about until the 'left' told you it was a racial killing and the 'right' told you that poor George Zimmerman was the real victim. It's really very easy. George Zimmerman deserves whatever he gets. He shot and killed an unarmed 16 year old. Trayvon Martin didn't get what he deserved, per se -- However, if you're going to go fight someone who's following you, you better damn well understand that that person might have a gun. He gambled, and he lost. I don't feel bad for either of them. Zim is still alive and he killed someone who was unarmed so he gets more share of the blame in my eyes. You can twist and turn words all around, but the end result is the same: The guy with the gun shot the guy who didn't have a gun. I'm supposed to feel bad for him?
B-Man Posted February 28, 2013 Posted February 28, 2013 I'm about to rise to the level of my Juror#8 ("Davis") namesake. They're not fearing for their life and they don't react the way Zimmerman did. Trayvon would have stood up, called Zimmerman a punk ass biatch, laughed, and went about his way. Zimmerman would have had a well whooped ass. But they both would have lived to fight another day. Except that Zimmerman couldn't take his ass whoopin, couldn't fight back, and instead escalated a situation that he precipitated, into some final judgment because he was salty. Not sure that that is fair. You should seriously consider changing your name to Juror #3..........................possibly even #10 .
meazza Posted February 28, 2013 Posted February 28, 2013 I would love to know where you live that "being followed" by someone you don't know can be construed as an "innocuous situation" People have lost their minds over this case. Rush to judgment, followed by condemning the rush to judgment, followed by people digging their heels in, ignoring the reality of the situation and desperately trying to be "right" about their stupidly superficial initial thoughts about a kid you never knew or cared about being killed by a guy you never knew or cared about until the 'left' told you it was a racial killing and the 'right' told you that poor George Zimmerman was the real victim. It's really very easy. George Zimmerman deserves whatever he gets. He shot and killed an unarmed 16 year old. Trayvon Martin didn't get what he deserved, per se -- However, if you're going to go fight someone who's following you, you better damn well understand that that person might have a gun. He gambled, and he lost. I don't feel bad for either of them. Zim is still alive and he killed someone who was unarmed so he gets more share of the blame in my eyes. You can twist and turn words all around, but the end result is the same: The guy with the gun shot the guy who didn't have a gun. I'm supposed to feel bad for him? Ummm... do you know how to read?
Chef Jim Posted February 28, 2013 Posted February 28, 2013 I would love to know where you live that "being followed" by someone you don't know can be construed as an "innocuous situation" People have lost their minds over this case. Rush to judgment, followed by condemning the rush to judgment, followed by people digging their heels in, ignoring the reality of the situation and desperately trying to be "right" about their stupidly superficial initial thoughts about a kid you never knew or cared about being killed by a guy you never knew or cared about until the 'left' told you it was a racial killing and the 'right' told you that poor George Zimmerman was the real victim. It's really very easy. George Zimmerman deserves whatever he gets. He shot and killed an unarmed 16 year old. Trayvon Martin didn't get what he deserved, per se -- However, if you're going to go fight someone who's following you, you better damn well understand that that person might have a gun. He gambled, and he lost. I don't feel bad for either of them. Zim is still alive and he killed someone who was unarmed so he gets more share of the blame in my eyes. You can twist and turn words all around, but the end result is the same: The guy with the gun shot the guy who didn't have a gun. I'm supposed to feel bad for him? Why didn't you just post "I'm still a clueless idiot." Would have saved you a bunch of time and key strokes.
jjamie12 Posted February 28, 2013 Posted February 28, 2013 Ummm... do you know how to read? Yes. Do you? Why didn't you just post "I'm still a clueless idiot." Would have saved you a bunch of time and key strokes. Good one. Thanks for your contribution.
meazza Posted February 28, 2013 Posted February 28, 2013 Yes. Do you? Good one. Thanks for your contribution. You do? Re-read this sentence: I would love to know where you live that "being followed" by someone you don't know can be construed as an "innocuous situation"
jjamie12 Posted February 28, 2013 Posted February 28, 2013 (edited) You do? Re-read this sentence: [/background][/font][/color] OK. I just did. I must be missing something... What am I missing? Edit: Maybe I don't know what innocuous means? Let me go look it up. Edit2: Nope. It means exactly what I thought it did. Edited February 28, 2013 by jjamie12
meazza Posted February 28, 2013 Posted February 28, 2013 OK. I just did. I must be missing something... What am I missing? Edit: Maybe I don't know what innocuous means? Let me go look it up. My guess is Jauronimo is saying that following someone isn't grounds to get an ass whoopin which means you effectively both agree with each other?
Juror#8 Posted February 28, 2013 Posted February 28, 2013 (edited) So an ass whoopin is a reasonable response to being followed? I would say the introduction of violence was the real escalation of an otherwise innocuous situation. An "ass whoopin" may be a reasonable response to someone following, antagonizing, making statements, hollering after, or whichever the case may be. I said clearly that I didn't know what happened in the intervening time between George getting off the phone and the altercation happening. But since Trayvon didn't bother George, and George approached, followed, chased, Trayvon, then it's not a stretch of the imagination to believe that there was something about Zimmerman's activities that led to the struggle. Because by Zimmerman's own admission, when he was in his vehicle, Trayvon was either standing aloofly or blithely walking through the community. That was the status quo ante before Zimmerman decided to intercede - blithely walking through the community or standing/staring aloofly. Kids fighting on the playground is a very different situation. On basketball court, they're not fearing for their life because they know their opponent, know the nature of the dispute, and have similar intentions. Did Zimmerman know before hand that Trayvon was a cherubic 17 year old? Did Zimmerman know Trayvon's intentions? Also, fighting behind school at 3PM comes with 99% certainty that neither party will be shot. Getting jumped in a neighborhood which has witnessed increasing levels of crime comes with no such assurances or guarantees. Fighting on the playground is not different. It's two dudes throwing them thangs. And you missed the point - no reasonable person should think that a (comparatively) smaller and spindly boy (and he looks, even in his recent pics, like a boy), fighting ONLY with his fists, is going to pose threat to a larger man's life and limb SUCH THAT THE LARGER MAN CAN ONLY USE DEADLY FORCE TO REPEL THE THREAT OF FISTS FLYING AT HIS FACE. Zimmerman, at the time of arrest was about 190 lbs. Trayvon, from best that I can determine, was about 150lbs. That is a 40 pound weight difference (give or take 5 lbs.). You can romanticize your "black people must be life sucking aggressors" theme all you want. It doesn't alter the reality of fact. You can romanticize your hood ethics all you'd like, but the bolded is pure speculation on your part. What is "hood ethics"? Is that something that we black people understand instinctively OR since we all grow up in the "hood" does it just stick to our tabula rasa at some point between when our mother's are smoking crack and scamming welfare checks and when our dad's are pimping "hoes," stealing cable, and having illegitimate children? Get back to me on that one. And yes, the bolded point was speculation - as evidenced by the use of the word "probably." As for your definition of chase, "him" would be the object in your sentence. Your definition only applies in something like "for love of the chase", but you likely knew that. No I didn't. I just cut and pasted really quickly the definition. But since it fits within you and DC Tom's overall narrative of "have to be rightism," then we'll go with it. chase verb (used with object) 1. to pursue in order to seize, overtake, etc.: The police officer chased the thief. 2. to pursue with intent to capture or kill, as game; hunt: to chase deer. 3. to follow or devote one's attention to with the hope of attracting, winning, gaining, etc.: He chased her for three years before she consented to marry him. 4. to drive or expel by force, threat, or harassment: She chased the cat out of the room. But you do realize that your definition makes my point, right? Or how about this one: Chase 1 a : to follow rapidly : pursue b : hunt c : to follow regularly or persistently with the intention of attracting or alluring 2 obsolete : harass 3 : to seek out —often used with down <detectives chasing down clues> 4 : to cause to depart or flee : drive <chase the dog out of the garden> 5 : to cause the removal of (a baseball pitcher) by a batting rally 6 : to swing at (a baseball pitched out of the strike zone Edited February 28, 2013 by Juror#8
Chef Jim Posted February 28, 2013 Posted February 28, 2013 Good one. Thanks for your contribution. Wish I could say the same for yours. OK. I just did. I must be missing something... What am I missing? Edit: Maybe I don't know what innocuous means? Let me go look it up. Edit2: Nope. It means exactly what I thought it did. Or you don't live in a place where people walk behind you.
Juror#8 Posted February 28, 2013 Posted February 28, 2013 Man the **** people will say to justify their opinions. What was the opinion and what was said to justify it? Just want to make sure that we're discussing the same points. Because based on your statement, it appears that you just wanted to contribute and there is nothing that you can precisely refute with facts.
meazza Posted February 28, 2013 Posted February 28, 2013 What was the opinion and what was said to justify it? Just want to make sure that we're discussing the same points. Because based on your statement, it appears that you just wanted to contribute and there is nothing that you can precisely refute with facts. Your opinion that Trayvon is the victim?
Juror#8 Posted February 28, 2013 Posted February 28, 2013 (edited) My guess is Jauronimo is saying that following someone isn't grounds to get an ass whoopin which means you effectively both agree with each other? Do you know what happened after Zimmerman followed Trayvon? Intereresting, neither do I. But we do know that there was a status quo ante point of Zimmerman in his zone, Trayvon in his zone, and no altercations between them. We also know that Zimmerman broke that unsteady peace. We know further that SOMETHING about Zimmerman's activity (leaving his vehicle to pursue Travon) led to an altercation. You're willing to give the person who left his vehicle in pursuit the benefit of the doubt but not the person who at one point in time,was standing around minding his own business. I wonder why... Your opinion that Trayvon is the victim? Did you gather that from me saying that Trayvon whooped Zimmerman's ass? How "victim-like" does that sound to you? Oh you must be coming down with a case of "ifsomeoneisnotavictimtheyshouldbeshot." It appears as if you just ascribed an argument point to me and decided to debate it. Otherwise tell me where I said Trayvon was a victim. If you can't, do the stand up thing and PM me with a "my bad." Edited February 28, 2013 by Juror#8
jjamie12 Posted February 28, 2013 Posted February 28, 2013 My guess is Jauronimo is saying that following someone isn't grounds to get an ass whoopin which means you effectively both agree with each other? Pretty sure you've got it twisted. I don't think I commented on whether or not following someone was "grounds to get an ass whoopin". If you'll take a look at the very large fonted quote of mine from your post, you'll see that it was a reaction to the idea that 'being followed' is an innocuous situation. I would suggest that 'being followed' is anything BUT harmless. After that, I explained my thoughts on why anyone defending either of these two was mental, as well as my thoughts on why I think that defending either one of them was silly.
meazza Posted February 28, 2013 Posted February 28, 2013 Do you know what happened after Zimmerman followed Trayvon? Intereresting, neither do I. But we do know that there was a status quo ante point of Zimmerman in his zone, Trayvon in his zone, and no altercations between them. We also know that Zimmerman broke that unsteady peace. We know further that SOMETHING about Zimmerman's activity (leaving his vehicle to pursue Travon) led to an altercation. You're willing to give the person who left his vehicle in pursuit the benefit of the doubt but not the person who at one point in time,was standing around minding his own business. I wonder why... Actually if you were to read back on the 74 + pages in this thread, you'll see that I don't really have that much of an opinion because there is obviously much conflicting information as well as obvious biased media with an agenda (see MSNBC). That being said, if Zimmerman followed Trayvon, Trayvon confronted him and instigated the attack, then Zimmerman has a right to defend himself with lethal force. It should be clear that if someone follows me, chances are I would confront him as well and maybe **** would hit the fan but that wouldn't necessarily mean I was correct in the eyes of the law. I wonder why... Because I favor Jewish Mexicans? Pretty sure you've got it twisted. I don't think I commented on whether or not following someone was "grounds to get an ass whoopin". If you'll take a look at the very large fonted quote of mine from your post, you'll see that it was a reaction to the idea that 'being followed' is an innocuous situation. I would suggest that 'being followed' is anything BUT harmless. After that, I explained my thoughts on why anyone defending either of these two was mental, as well as my thoughts on why I think that defending either one of them was silly. Ok misunderstanding.
Chef Jim Posted February 28, 2013 Posted February 28, 2013 Do you know what happened after Zimmerman followed Trayvon? Yeah, Zimmerman got his nose broken and his head bashed in.
jjamie12 Posted February 28, 2013 Posted February 28, 2013 Wish I could say the same for yours. Or you don't live in a place where people walk behind you. Really? That's what you've got? Slap your forehead all you want, people 'walking behind you' isn't the same as 'being followed'. I suspect you know that already, though.
Juror#8 Posted February 28, 2013 Posted February 28, 2013 (edited) You should seriously consider changing your name to Juror #3..........................possibly even #10 No. My name makes sense. But because I like games as much as the next guy, tell me how my arguments here substantiates that request for a name change. I've emphasized facts. BUT acknowledged when I wasn't sure about something. AND Made clear when I was opining. But this is coming from the guy who, like MEAZZA, hasn't called one person out for the "thumping/slamming" head against concrete narrative that is inconsistent with every post-incident photo. Why? Meazza? Anyone? Can you link me to where you called those assertions out? Thoughts? Meazza? Anyone? DCTom? But I guess that is just me needing to be right. Edited February 28, 2013 by Juror#8
Recommended Posts