What I don't get about the Trayvon Martin case

[EagleKeeper]

Yet if Zimmerman was intending on observing where Martin went; it would be legit.

So it boils down to what Zimmerman's intentions were.
To keep an eye on Martin for the LEO
or
To prevent Martin for leaving the development, by force is needed.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Yet if Zimmerman was intending on observing where Martin went; it would be legit.

Lots of things are legal, but stupid.

Again, I am not discussing whether what he did was legal, but whether what he did was smart or consistent with common NW guidelines.

 

[OCNewbie]

"Pursue" and "follow" are sufficiently synonymous that trying to differentiate them becomes a game of semantics. Whatever word you like, he got out of his car and went after Martin.

I disagree, especially in the context they are being used in this case. Look them up in the dictionary:

Pursue:
1. - to follow in order to overtake, capture, kill, etc.; chase.

Follow:
1. - to come after in sequence, order of time, etc.

Pursue implies an intent to capture: I pursued that woman's love; I followed that woman's love. They are not interchangeable.

Also, "went after" sounds like an intent to angrily pursue, or even engage with violence: "Bill said something rude about Jim's mother, so Jim went after Bill".

1. - Prior to GZ getting out of his car, what was he doing? -- He was observing the movements/actions of this unknown, "suspicious" individual and reporting them to the appropriate authorities.

2. - Once this unknown, suspicious person fled (which I think made him appear even more worthy of suspicion, and apparently GZ and the dispatcher did as well) behind houses, was GZ able to continue his observations in the same manner he was previously? -- No.

3. - What did GZ need to do in order to reacquire these observations? -- He needed to alter his vantage point, which required him to go to an area that his truck was not suited for, or capable of reaching. In other words, he had to get out of his vehicle to get there.

Why must his intentions have automatically transformed into a "pursuit", with intent to overtake, capture, or even catch up to (and confront), the instant he got out of his car?

I already discussed earlier how, had GZ been intent on a confrontation, he had a perfect opportunity to do so when TM was just outside of his vehicle. It appears that TM may have even tried to say something to GZ at that time, but it seems pretty clear that GZ did not want a personal interaction with this person.

Listen to this; it's a previously recorded call to the NEN about another suspicious person in the neighborhood. Listen to GZ specifically saying "I don't want to approach him, personally".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFwh5jcKgn4&t=2m13s

 

[OCNewbie]

(We can argue about what "taking action" means, but as soon as Zimmerman left his car to follow Martin, he stopped just "observing".)

Actually, no... what stopped GZ from "observing" was the result of TM's actions. TM ran/fled to an area where GZ was no longer able to see, or "observe" him, from the street, in his vehicle. By GZ getting out of his vehicle, he was able to reacquire that observational ability (in theory, anyway).

 

[Charles Kozierok]

The specific subject I was addressing here over the last few posts is what NW programs recommend. Can you find one that recommends people "follow" suspects, if not "pursue" them? If not, the slight difference between them is wholly irrelevant in this context.

 

[corwin]

(We can argue about what "taking action" means, but as soon as Zimmerman left his car to follow Martin, he stopped just "observing".)

How can you honestly say this? He left his car to continue his observations from the best vantage point there was, which was where he could still see the person...how is that not observing?

 

[EagleKeeper]

How can you honestly say this? He left his car to continue his observations from the best vantage point there was, which was where he could still see the person...how is that not observing?

The TM team (of wussies ) considers it follow/stalking/confronting instead of just being a good citizen.

Some even feel that the criminal has rights that you as an average citizen should not have and that one should, when confronted with a potential criminal; you are to hand over and do not resist.

 

[corwin]

The TM team (of wussies ) considers it follow/stalking/confronting instead of just being a good citizen.

Some even feel that the criminal has rights that you as an average citizen should not have and that one should, when confronted with a potential criminal; you are to hand over and do not resist.

Outside of all that I am genuinely curious how that statement is intellectually honest, I've gotten out of my vehicle on a number of occasions to see something better that I had no intentions of "following", "chasing" or "pursuing" in any manner whatsoever, not a person as in this situation but the concept remains the same, I got out to observe something from the best vantage point

 

[OCNewbie]

Charles, why did you edit my post above? I think you did that by mistake.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Charles, why did you edit my post above? I think you did that by mistake.

Crap. I have avoided doing that so far but just did it -- hit the wrong button.

I'm *really* sorry. I'll be more careful in the future.

I removed my words from your post; they are below. I'll try to see if I can find what you initially wrote and restore it.

--

(We can argue about what "taking action" means, but as soon as Zimmerman left his car to follow Martin, he stopped just "observing".)

Actually, no... what stopped GZ from "observing" was the result of TM's actions. TM ran/fled to an area where GZ was no longer able to see, or "observe" him, from the street, in his vehicle. By GZ getting out of his vehicle, he was able to reacquire that observational ability (in theory, anyway).

Actually, no... what stopped GZ from "observing" was the result of TM's actions. TM ran/fled to an area where GZ was no longer able to see, or "observe" him, from the street, in his vehicle. By GZ getting out of his vehicle, he was able to reacquire that observational ability (in theory, anyway).

Well, that's his story, anyway. Regardless, I *still* believe you would not find *any* police department or NW coordinator that would approve of what he did. Period.

If someone is suspicious enough to warrant reporting to the police, they are potentially dangerous enough that you shouldn't be following them.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Outside of all that I am genuinely curious how that statement is intellectually honest, I've gotten out of my vehicle on a number of occasions to see something better that I had no intentions of "following", "chasing" or "pursuing" in any manner whatsoever, not a person as in this situation but the concept remains the same, I got out to observe something from the best vantage point

From the 911 transcript:

911 dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah.

 

[corwin]

From the 911 transcript:

So following to observe then, not "chasing" or "pursuing"...he was trying to observe where the person went to so as to relate it to them. Chasing or pursuing someone implies intent to catch up with or apprehend, neither of which is implied in any way whatsoever yet you continue to do so.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

So following to observe then, not "chasing" or "pursuing"...he was trying to observe where the person went to so as to relate it to them. Chasing or pursuing someone implies intent to catch up with or apprehend, neither of which is implied in any way whatsoever yet you continue to do so.

Which is exactly what the prosecution is alleging he did... even using that exact word.

He says he didn't.

That's why there will be a trial.

 

[corwin]

Which is exactly what the prosecution is alleging he did... even using that exact word.

He says he didn't.

That's why there will be a trial.

No if they were just alleging he was observing TM then they wouldn't (and don't btw) have a case...he was observing where TM went plain and simple, he wasn't "pursuing" or "chasing" him which are what they are alleging. And I still feel it's highly unlikely there will be a trial, but the racial outrage may be just enough to push it there with no basis in reality.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

No if they were just alleging he was observing TM then they wouldn't (and don't btw) have a case...he was observing where TM went plain and simple, he wasn't "pursuing" or "chasing" him which are what they are alleging.

Fine, so you buy Zimmerman's version of events. That's your right.

It doesn't mean that someone who doesn't buy his version, or is uncomitted, is being intellectually dishonest.

 

[corwin]

Fine, so you buy Zimmerman's version of events. That's your right.

It doesn't mean that someone who doesn't buy his version, or is uncomitted, is being intellectually dishonest.

Trying to imply the simple act of getting out of your vehicle to observe where someone went is instantly "chasing" or "pursuing" them with intent is what I find intellectually dishonest. The act in and of itself does not imply intent as you said...that's the only point I was making. I don't entirely buy his version either but I believe it fits with the physical evidence much closer than anything else out there, that he may have omitted a detail or two (intentionally or not) is entirely possible, but the basics entirely fit within what has been shown to us as far as hard evidence goes.

 

[OCNewbie]

And I still feel it's highly unlikely there will be a trial, but the racial outrage may be just enough to push it there with no basis in reality.

I'm pretty sure MOM recently announced that they were foregoing a pre-trial hearing, so it appears there will almost definitely be a trial.

 

[corwin]

I'm pretty sure MOM recently announced that they were foregoing a pre-trial hearing, so it appears there will almost definitely be a trial.

I haven't had much time to keep up with things lately due to school (astronomy kinda sucks) so I didn't hear that, doesn't really make sense to me but IANAL so I guess there has to be a reason.

 

[OCNewbie]

I haven't had much time to keep up with things lately due to school (astronomy kinda sucks) so I didn't hear that, doesn't really make sense to me but IANAL so I guess there has to be a reason.

The prosecution basically admitted that witness 8, Dee Dee, lied about being in the hospital as the reason she wasn't at TM's funeral. The defense asked for hospital records and the prosecution said there were none, because she never went there. That's been the other huge turn of events. Turns out Dee Dee, the prosecution's star witness, now qualifies for "known liar" status, just like people had been repeating ad nauseum about GZ.

 

[corwin]

The prosecution basically admitted that witness 8, Dee Dee, lied about being in the hospital as the reason she wasn't at TM's funeral. The defense asked for hospital records and the prosecution said there were none, because she never went there. That's been the other huge turn of events. Turns out Dee Dee now qualifies for "known liar" status, just like people had been repeating ad nauseum about GZ.

Kind of like how she went from "underage girlfriend" to "underage friend" to adult "friend" Her "stories" were always a bit fishy...wonder if they've even confirmed she was on the phone with him at the time?

Maybe he was her pimp:hmm:

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Trying to imply the simple act of getting out of your vehicle to observe where someone went is instantly "chasing" or "pursuing" them with intent is what I find intellectually dishonest.

The statement I made is that once you decide to start following someone, you are doing more than observing. I don't see how it's "intellectually dishonest". It's just a difference of opinion about what he did and what it implies.

The act in and of itself does not imply intent as you said...that's the only point I was making.

Well, I'm not trying to imply intent to the extent of suggesting that because he got out of his car to follow Martin, that this means he meant to confront or harm or kill him. I just think that some of you folks are really downplaying Zimmerman's actions a bit.

Observing someone from a car is not the same as getting out of your car to follow him.

PS: OCNewbie, I believe I have restored the correct version of your post. Sorry again.

 

[corwin]

The statement I made is that once you decide to start following someone, you are doing more than observing. I don't see how it's "intellectually dishonest". It's just a difference of opinion about what he did and what it implies.

I get the difference of opinion but you are in fact attaching more meaning to his observation than there was, observing is simply watching someone, if to do so you have to change your physical location to one better suited to observe them in no way changes that you are just "observing" them. If you want to believe that he started the confrontation in some manner not detectable then that's another story, but his getting out to observe a person he found suspicious changes nothing and it's intellectually dishonest to say it does.

Well, I'm not trying to imply intent to the extent of suggesting that because he got out of his car to follow Martin, that this means he meant to confront or harm or kill him. I just think that some of you folks are really downplaying Zimmerman's actions a bit.

So what exactly are you implying then if not that his intention was to confront and not just follow to observe? And what part of following to observe should be discouraged for anyone watching out for their crime ridden neighborhood?

PS: Just wanted to say I appreciate the discussion here soo much better than before...

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I get the difference of opinion but you are in fact attaching more meaning to his observation than there was, observing is simply watching someone, if to do so you have to change your physical location to one better suited to observe them in no way changes that you are just "observing" them. If you want to believe that he started the confrontation in some manner not detectable then that's another story, but his getting out to observe a person he found suspicious changes nothing and it's intellectually dishonest to say it does.

I think you're misapplying the term "intellectually dishonest" here. That implies that I'm being duplicitous in some way that I don't think I have been.

He started out "just observing", and then he started "following and observing". You're entitled to think there's no difference, but I think there is.

To take a different example.. if I'm sitting in my car and a group of teenaged girls walks by and I happen to look at them, that's rather different than if I get out of my car and start walking behind them so I can keep looking at them.

So what exactly are you implying then if not that his intention was to confront and not just follow to observe? And what part of following to observe should be discouraged for anyone watching out for their crime ridden neighborhood?

The only way I can believe that Zimmerman did nothing wrong here is if I believe that he was just peacefully watching from a distance, and Martin suddenly, unprovoked, ran up and threw him to the ground and started wailing away at him. Now that's possible, but I simply don't see it as very likely.

And yes, I think "following to observe" should be discouraged. So do neighborhood watch programs.

PS: Just wanted to say I appreciate the discussion here soo much better than before...

 

[OCNewbie]

And yes, I think "following to observe" should be discouraged. So do neighborhood watch programs.

What do you base the underlined on?

 

[OCNewbie]

To take a different example.. if I'm sitting in my car and a group of teenaged girls walks by and I happen to look at them, that's rather different than if I get out of my car and start walking behind them so I can keep looking at them.

I don't think you can give a justified reason why you'd "need" to keep an eye on a group of teenaged girls though.

The only way I can believe that Zimmerman did nothing wrong here is if I believe that he was just peacefully watching from a distance, and Martin suddenly, unprovoked, ran up and threw him to the ground and started wailing away at him.

How about if GZ wasn't watching TM at all at the time TM approached GZ, who then asks GZ a rhetorical question, decks him, then starts wailing on him?