More importantly, though, it puts the poster in a different light. He concealed material facts in his summary, and on the face of it trying to hold on to a client's domain is shady. It makes me wonder what else he's hidden.
To be fair, his submission did link to the PDF of his actual complaint letter, which contained pretty much all of the details that he left out of the summary.
"Martin is dead for a number of reasons starting with Zimmerman ignoring the dispatcher. That's not in question."
Then neither in question is:
"Martin is dead for a number of reasons starting with him deciding to walk to the convenience store in the rain that night."
"Martin is dead for a number of reasons starting with him visiting relatives in Zimmerman's neighborhood."
"Martin is dead for a number of reasons starting with Zimmerman leaving his house that evening."
"Martin is dead for a number of reasons starting with his being born."
Since none of them were crimes, it's stupid and irrelevant to make any of those statements. Your statement is no better.
You can point to any number of events leading up to something. Any one of them being different may have prevented it. But you have to pick one that you will assign blame for, and normally, you assign blame when someone does something that's actually illegal.
Your view may change when your boss says "I'm either going to fire you and bring sexual harassment charges against you or you're going to quit" because she was intimidated by you professionally, or when a female coworker with office political sway starts making moves on you and you're damned if you do and damned if you don't, because either way nobody will believe your story over her's
My cell phone can record audio, and could do so from inside my pocket if necessary.
Martin was in his rights to defend himself if he was threatened by the unknown white man who was following him around on the dark street. That includes bashing the assailant's head into the ground.
No, it does not, you fucking jackass.
Following someone is NOT A CRIME.
Furthermore, it IS a crime to use excessive force on someone who clearly does not pose a threat and/or is already subdued. Hitting someone who is already on the ground and saying you're going to kill them is ATTEMPTED MURDER. It is IN NO WAY justifiable as ANY sort of self-defense.
What Martin did, EVEN if it was defense against a perceived threat from Zimmerman, is JUST as bad as if Zimmerman had tackled Martin from behind and then shot him execution-style in the back of the head.
Your double standard is astonishing. And the fact that you think that everyone else has the double standard - not astonishing, just sad.
But you're a fucking moron and I doubt that this gets through to you.
No matter how you twist it, you can't escape the fact that Zimmerman was the one who went after Martin, for no good reason, and created the situation in the first place.
No matter how you twist it, you can't escape the fact that what Zimmerman did was NOT a crime, and what Martin did WAS. You CANNOT just assault someone because they pissed you off.
If someone follows him around and then confronts him with a gun, doesn't he have the right to defend himself? For all he knows, the man with a gun may be about to shoot him.
The gun was concealed until the very point at which Zimmerman drew it and fired. There is no reason to believe otherwise. It was a gun which was designed to be carried concealed; there is no reason to believe that Martin would have known that Zimmerman was armed.
At the end of his conversation with his girlfriend, his words to Zimmerman do not sound like what you would say to someone who has cornered you with a gun. They sound like what you would say to a nosy guy who's been following you, before you beat his ass to teach him a lesson. Which is exactly what Martin then proceeded to attempt to do.
Furthermore, unless Zimmerman is a complete fucking moron, he knows that brandishing a gun is a crime unless use of deadly force is warranted. As he had a concealed carry weapons permit, he would have known this. And he would have known that he would lose the license the instant he did something foolish with his gun. Again: I have no reason to believe that the gun was not concealed during the entire confrontation, right up to the point where its use was deemed justified by Zimmerman.
Um, you do? It is downright PROVEN by the facts that (a) Zimmerman told the 911 operator that he had lost track of Martin, and (b) Martin's girlfriend's conversation where Martin can be heard starting a verbal confrontation with Zimmerman (AFTER Zimmerman had lost track of him).
So? What the fuck does that matter? Martin was WWB (Walking While Black). Zimmerman was NWW (Nosy While White). Neither warranted a physical altercation, but Martin chose to start one, and paid a dear price for it.
There is ABSOLUTELY no reason to say that Zimmerman was WRONG to confront Martin. He would be ENTIRELY in his rights to do so. And Martin was NOT justified in physically attacking him. Being nosy is NOT a crime.
But you claim that he was supposed to stay in his safe cozy vehicle while the suspicious black dude wandered around the neighborhood. You're a fucking idot.
Yes, it indicates a pattern of unfamiliar black people wandering suspiciously through a gated community that they don't live in.
If you can prove that Zimmerman had seen unfamiliar white people wandering through his neighborhood and didn't find them suspicious, then you might have found a racist pattern. As it stands, you have not.
According to "Stand your ground", confronting the dude and using force against him is completely within the limits of the law.
No, it is totally not. Zimmerman had committed no crime. Following someone is not a crime. If Martin thought that Zimmerman's behavior was suspicious, he should have dialled 911 to report the suspicious behavior. Exactly as Zimmerman did.
Assaulting someone is a crime, and Martin perpetrated a crime against someone who happened to have the means to defend himself from a violent attacker. Good for him.
Oh, and one more thing: Zimmerman wasn't in his van. He followed Martin on foot. You can hear that he's out of breath in his conversation with the 911 operator, which prompts her to ask if he's pursuing. He says yes, and she says "we don't need you to do that" (but doesn't actually tell him to stop).
As the 911 call mentioned in the article might not have come from Zimmerman
Zimmerman MADE a 911 call. It was recorded, like every other 911 call. His phone number (and likely GPS coordinates) were logged, like in every other 911 call.
The screams recorded were NOT in Zimmerman's 911 call. They were in a DIFFERENT 911 call. One of the neighbors (many of the neighbors, actually) also called 911. You can hear the screams in the background of THAT call. The neighbor comments that someone is screaming for help but doesn't want to go outside to see what's going on, since they'd fear for their own safety if they did so.
Furthermore, ALL 911 calls are recorded, and the caller ID number is logged. Somewhere I heard a collection of all of the 911 calls stemming from the incident (Zimmerman's, and a number of calls from neighbors before and after the shooting). Martin did NOT make a 911 call.
Why thank you, you're absolutely correct: this sickly twig of a football player would have probably snapped directly in two if anyone had hit him. What was he, the team mascot?
His parents and everyone at the school should be arrested for letting him anywhere near a football field.
Or perhaps you're wrong and he was a 6'3" athelete with 160 pounds of pure muscle, like I said before.
And troll? Really? It doesn't take much muscle to get some leverage and roll over. If that strikes you as troll, welcome to the real world.
According to Zimmerman's 911 call, he had apparently lost track of Martin and, unless Martin decided to come back and confront him, I see no possibility of a confrontation even occurring. Unless you are arguing that, out of blind luck, Z's walk home happened upon M. Therefore, I would put the probability that M started the altercation at about 95% or above.
And "he might well have called 911"? If he had called 911, we would know it. I listened to a tape of about a dozen 911 calls stemming from the incident. None of them were from Martin.
He didn't follow in a truck, you moron. He was on foot. He was out of breath (and out of shape); the 911 operator, sensing this, asked if he was pursuing. He answered that he was. She said they "didn't need him to do that" (i.e.: for your own safety, stand down and let the professionals handle this). He, having his concealed carry weapon permit, obviously weren't afeared of no punk and thought himself quite capable of handling this on par with the pros, decided to ignore her recommendation and continue pursuing. Was that wrong? Well, likely, but not criminally so.
If you listen to the 911 recordings, you hear Z state that he can't see Martin, doesn't know where he is. And shortly after the call ends, Martin reappears. Unless you are trying to say that Z was lying when he said that he'd lost Martin, you have no argument.
Oh wait, you mean he was unarmed. Well, you'd have been better served by your argument if he HAD no arms, because your bare arms and fists are a plenty deadly weapon, even if you've not been officially trained in their use.
Um, according to what I read and heard, Martin lost Zimm and then circled back to kick his ass and teach him a lesson on minding his own business.
On his 911 call you hear Zimmerman saying that he can't see Martin anymore, he doesn't know where Martin is... then, shortly after the call ends, Martin approaches Zimmerman to serve the beat-down to the nosy dude with the cellphone and the concealed weapon which Martin doesn't know about.
When the police asked him to not follow the person, they asked out of an interest for his safety, not because it was illegal for him to do so.
This, so much that it bears repeating: When the police asked him to not follow the person, they asked out of an interest for his safety, not because it was illegal for him to do so.
Most likely what happened is, this poor kid got scared and tried to defend himself and then the guy got scared and tried to defend himself. Since only one of them was carrying a gun and trigger happy, we all know how that worked out.
The problem was that, while Zimmerman's idea of "got scared" was to dial 911 and follow at a safe distance, the kid's idea of "got scared" was call your girlfriend and then give this white dude a beat-down to teach him a lesson. We all know how that worked out.
Slashdot Mirror
More importantly, though, it puts the poster in a different light. He concealed material facts in his summary, and on the face of it trying to hold on to a client's domain is shady. It makes me wonder what else he's hidden.
To be fair, his submission did link to the PDF of his actual complaint letter, which contained pretty much all of the details that he left out of the summary.
"Martin is dead for a number of reasons starting with Zimmerman ignoring the dispatcher. That's not in question."
Then neither in question is:
"Martin is dead for a number of reasons starting with him deciding to walk to the convenience store in the rain that night."
"Martin is dead for a number of reasons starting with him visiting relatives in Zimmerman's neighborhood."
"Martin is dead for a number of reasons starting with Zimmerman leaving his house that evening."
"Martin is dead for a number of reasons starting with his being born."
Since none of them were crimes, it's stupid and irrelevant to make any of those statements. Your statement is no better.
You can point to any number of events leading up to something. Any one of them being different may have prevented it. But you have to pick one that you will assign blame for, and normally, you assign blame when someone does something that's actually illegal.
Your view may change when your boss says "I'm either going to fire you and bring sexual harassment charges against you or you're going to quit" because she was intimidated by you professionally, or when a female coworker with office political sway starts making moves on you and you're damned if you do and damned if you don't, because either way nobody will believe your story over her's
My cell phone can record audio, and could do so from inside my pocket if necessary.
(Clearly, Yahoo! has adopted a strategy of "if you cannot do, sue".)
What, who said anything about Google?
Oh, Yahoo!. Yahoo! is hardly an "online giant". More like an online joke. A wanna-be.
Martin was in his rights to defend himself if he was threatened by the unknown white man who was following him around on the dark street. That includes bashing the assailant's head into the ground.
No, it does not, you fucking jackass.
Following someone is NOT A CRIME.
Furthermore, it IS a crime to use excessive force on someone who clearly does not pose a threat and/or is already subdued. Hitting someone who is already on the ground and saying you're going to kill them is ATTEMPTED MURDER. It is IN NO WAY justifiable as ANY sort of self-defense.
What Martin did, EVEN if it was defense against a perceived threat from Zimmerman, is JUST as bad as if Zimmerman had tackled Martin from behind and then shot him execution-style in the back of the head.
Your double standard is astonishing. And the fact that you think that everyone else has the double standard - not astonishing, just sad.
But you're a fucking moron and I doubt that this gets through to you.
No matter how you twist it, you can't escape the fact that Zimmerman was the one who went after Martin, for no good reason, and created the situation in the first place.
No matter how you twist it, you can't escape the fact that what Zimmerman did was NOT a crime, and what Martin did WAS. You CANNOT just assault someone because they pissed you off.
If someone follows him around and then confronts him with a gun, doesn't he have the right to defend himself? For all he knows, the man with a gun may be about to shoot him.
The gun was concealed until the very point at which Zimmerman drew it and fired. There is no reason to believe otherwise. It was a gun which was designed to be carried concealed; there is no reason to believe that Martin would have known that Zimmerman was armed.
At the end of his conversation with his girlfriend, his words to Zimmerman do not sound like what you would say to someone who has cornered you with a gun. They sound like what you would say to a nosy guy who's been following you, before you beat his ass to teach him a lesson. Which is exactly what Martin then proceeded to attempt to do.
Furthermore, unless Zimmerman is a complete fucking moron, he knows that brandishing a gun is a crime unless use of deadly force is warranted. As he had a concealed carry weapons permit, he would have known this. And he would have known that he would lose the license the instant he did something foolish with his gun. Again: I have no reason to believe that the gun was not concealed during the entire confrontation, right up to the point where its use was deemed justified by Zimmerman.
Um, you do? It is downright PROVEN by the facts that (a) Zimmerman told the 911 operator that he had lost track of Martin, and (b) Martin's girlfriend's conversation where Martin can be heard starting a verbal confrontation with Zimmerman (AFTER Zimmerman had lost track of him).
So? What the fuck does that matter? Martin was WWB (Walking While Black). Zimmerman was NWW (Nosy While White). Neither warranted a physical altercation, but Martin chose to start one, and paid a dear price for it.
There is ABSOLUTELY no reason to say that Zimmerman was WRONG to confront Martin. He would be ENTIRELY in his rights to do so. And Martin was NOT justified in physically attacking him. Being nosy is NOT a crime.
But you claim that he was supposed to stay in his safe cozy vehicle while the suspicious black dude wandered around the neighborhood. You're a fucking idot.
Yes, it indicates a pattern of unfamiliar black people wandering suspiciously through a gated community that they don't live in.
If you can prove that Zimmerman had seen unfamiliar white people wandering through his neighborhood and didn't find them suspicious, then you might have found a racist pattern. As it stands, you have not.
According to "Stand your ground", confronting the dude and using force against him is completely within the limits of the law.
No, it is totally not. Zimmerman had committed no crime. Following someone is not a crime. If Martin thought that Zimmerman's behavior was suspicious, he should have dialled 911 to report the suspicious behavior. Exactly as Zimmerman did.
Assaulting someone is a crime, and Martin perpetrated a crime against someone who happened to have the means to defend himself from a violent attacker. Good for him.
Because the safe distance wasn't so safe when the guy he followed decided to close the distance and pick a fight.
Oh, and one more thing: Zimmerman wasn't in his van. He followed Martin on foot. You can hear that he's out of breath in his conversation with the 911 operator, which prompts her to ask if he's pursuing. He says yes, and she says "we don't need you to do that" (but doesn't actually tell him to stop).
As the 911 call mentioned in the article might not have come from Zimmerman
Zimmerman MADE a 911 call. It was recorded, like every other 911 call. His phone number (and likely GPS coordinates) were logged, like in every other 911 call.
The screams recorded were NOT in Zimmerman's 911 call. They were in a DIFFERENT 911 call. One of the neighbors (many of the neighbors, actually) also called 911. You can hear the screams in the background of THAT call. The neighbor comments that someone is screaming for help but doesn't want to go outside to see what's going on, since they'd fear for their own safety if they did so.
Furthermore, ALL 911 calls are recorded, and the caller ID number is logged. Somewhere I heard a collection of all of the 911 calls stemming from the incident (Zimmerman's, and a number of calls from neighbors before and after the shooting). Martin did NOT make a 911 call.
Why thank you, you're absolutely correct: this sickly twig of a football player would have probably snapped directly in two if anyone had hit him. What was he, the team mascot?
His parents and everyone at the school should be arrested for letting him anywhere near a football field.
Or perhaps you're wrong and he was a 6'3" athelete with 160 pounds of pure muscle, like I said before.
And troll? Really? It doesn't take much muscle to get some leverage and roll over. If that strikes you as troll, welcome to the real world.
Deaf.
If you truly think that you'll serve your civic duty if you're ever selected for jury duty, then you're a fucking saint.
Thank you.
Protip: you don't push the guy off. If you're a 6'3" athlete with 160 lbs. of pure muscle: you leverage and roll, and then you're on top.
Fucking idiot.
According to Zimmerman's 911 call, he had apparently lost track of Martin and, unless Martin decided to come back and confront him, I see no possibility of a confrontation even occurring. Unless you are arguing that, out of blind luck, Z's walk home happened upon M. Therefore, I would put the probability that M started the altercation at about 95% or above.
And "he might well have called 911"? If he had called 911, we would know it. I listened to a tape of about a dozen 911 calls stemming from the incident. None of them were from Martin.
Z's idea of "fight" was dial 911 and follow at a safe distance.
M's idea of "fight" was confront the dude and teach him a lesson on courtesy.
The dude had a gun. We all know how that played out.
He didn't follow in a truck, you moron. He was on foot. He was out of breath (and out of shape); the 911 operator, sensing this, asked if he was pursuing. He answered that he was. She said they "didn't need him to do that" (i.e.: for your own safety, stand down and let the professionals handle this). He, having his concealed carry weapon permit, obviously weren't afeared of no punk and thought himself quite capable of handling this on par with the pros, decided to ignore her recommendation and continue pursuing. Was that wrong? Well, likely, but not criminally so.
If you listen to the 911 recordings, you hear Z state that he can't see Martin, doesn't know where he is. And shortly after the call ends, Martin reappears. Unless you are trying to say that Z was lying when he said that he'd lost Martin, you have no argument.
HOLD THE FUCKING PHONE, THE KID HAD NO ARMS!
Oh wait, you mean he was unarmed. Well, you'd have been better served by your argument if he HAD no arms, because your bare arms and fists are a plenty deadly weapon, even if you've not been officially trained in their use.
Um, according to what I read and heard, Martin lost Zimm and then circled back to kick his ass and teach him a lesson on minding his own business.
On his 911 call you hear Zimmerman saying that he can't see Martin anymore, he doesn't know where Martin is... then, shortly after the call ends, Martin approaches Zimmerman to serve the beat-down to the nosy dude with the cellphone and the concealed weapon which Martin doesn't know about.
When the police asked him to not follow the person, they asked out of an interest for his safety, not because it was illegal for him to do so.
This, so much that it bears repeating: When the police asked him to not follow the person, they asked out of an interest for his safety, not because it was illegal for him to do so.
Most likely what happened is, this poor kid got scared and tried to defend himself and then the guy got scared and tried to defend himself. Since only one of them was carrying a gun and trigger happy, we all know how that worked out.
The problem was that, while Zimmerman's idea of "got scared" was to dial 911 and follow at a safe distance, the kid's idea of "got scared" was call your girlfriend and then give this white dude a beat-down to teach him a lesson. We all know how that worked out.