Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Logo
Search Members FAQ Portal
  • Navigation
  • Our Hoosier Board
  • →
  • Other
  • →
  • Politics
  • →
  • George Zimmerman
Welcome to Our Hoosier Board!

Most of the posters here have been around for nearly a decade now. You'll find their knowledge and insight to be second to none. We have a really strong community and value everyone's opinions.

Feel free to jump into any thread and voice your opinion with conviction. We love heated debates and even some fanbase ribbing from time to time. We pride ourselves on the lack of moderation needed to make this board successful.

Please remember that we have been around many years and have an astute ability to tell the difference between an immature, childish, trash-talking troll and a passionate fan voicing his or her opinion. It is at the discretion of Jazen and myself whether any moderating actions should be taken at any given time. It's a very, very rare thing. In other words, no worries....you'll be fine!

Cheers,
sirbrianwilson

Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • …
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • …
  • 96
George Zimmerman ; Combined Threads
Tweet Topic Started: Apr 11 2012, 01:36 PM (8,533 Views)
dreachon Dec 6 2012, 10:27 AM Post #571
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
Mr Gray
Dec 6 2012, 10:19 AM
dreachon
Dec 6 2012, 10:11 AM
Mr Gray
Dec 6 2012, 09:26 AM
dreachon
Dec 6 2012, 09:22 AM
Mr Gray
Dec 6 2012, 09:17 AM
telling someone to do something or not to do something is, by definition, an "order" dreach. In the heat of that moment, if they did not want GZ to follow, they should have been very clear and direct. Saying that he didn't "need to" is neither, so it's sort of BS to continue to claim that he was told (or ordered) not to follow...it's simply not accurate.
Got it. So you are going with option #2. When the 911 operator told GZ he didn't need to follow, he meant that GZ could really continue following if he wanted to.
I'm not choosing any option...I don't think you can hold GZ accountable to interpreting what the operator meant vs what she actually said.
So you think it's possible the operator meant, "go ahead and follow him if you like"?
no, I personally think she meant exactly what she said. When we discussed this earlier in the year or whatever, I asked a good cop friend of mine who works dispatch quite often. She said that they would never recommend that someone follow a prospective perpetrator because of liabilty/safety issues, but they also wouldn't tell them not to. They would issue a statement such as "we don't recommend" or "we don't need you to do that" to cover their asses, and I asked her this with no context to the GZ case or pre-conceived notion as to why I was asking it. She thought I was asking for a potential situation at my home or something like that.
So for legal reasons they wouldn't issue an outright "order", but instead issue a statement that is mean to be interpreted in a way that causes the person not to continue their pursuit.
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Dec 6 2012, 10:54 AM Post #572
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
dreachon
Dec 6 2012, 10:27 AM
Mr Gray
Dec 6 2012, 10:19 AM
dreachon
Dec 6 2012, 10:11 AM
Mr Gray
Dec 6 2012, 09:26 AM
dreachon
Dec 6 2012, 09:22 AM
Mr Gray
Dec 6 2012, 09:17 AM
telling someone to do something or not to do something is, by definition, an "order" dreach. In the heat of that moment, if they did not want GZ to follow, they should have been very clear and direct. Saying that he didn't "need to" is neither, so it's sort of BS to continue to claim that he was told (or ordered) not to follow...it's simply not accurate.
Got it. So you are going with option #2. When the 911 operator told GZ he didn't need to follow, he meant that GZ could really continue following if he wanted to.
I'm not choosing any option...I don't think you can hold GZ accountable to interpreting what the operator meant vs what she actually said.
So you think it's possible the operator meant, "go ahead and follow him if you like"?
no, I personally think she meant exactly what she said. When we discussed this earlier in the year or whatever, I asked a good cop friend of mine who works dispatch quite often. She said that they would never recommend that someone follow a prospective perpetrator because of liabilty/safety issues, but they also wouldn't tell them not to. They would issue a statement such as "we don't recommend" or "we don't need you to do that" to cover their asses, and I asked her this with no context to the GZ case or pre-conceived notion as to why I was asking it. She thought I was asking for a potential situation at my home or something like that.
So for legal reasons they wouldn't issue an outright "order", but instead issue a statement that is mean to be interpreted in a way that causes the person not to continue their pursuit.
I didn't say that they wouldn't issue an order for legal reasons dreach.....why do you need to add to my statements? Are you and I in agreement that the police wouldn't recommend nor do they need people like GZ to pursue?
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon Dec 6 2012, 11:07 AM Post #573
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
Mr Gray
Dec 6 2012, 10:54 AM
dreachon
Dec 6 2012, 10:27 AM
Mr Gray
Dec 6 2012, 10:19 AM
dreachon
Dec 6 2012, 10:11 AM
Mr Gray
Dec 6 2012, 09:26 AM
dreachon
Dec 6 2012, 09:22 AM
Mr Gray
Dec 6 2012, 09:17 AM
telling someone to do something or not to do something is, by definition, an "order" dreach. In the heat of that moment, if they did not want GZ to follow, they should have been very clear and direct. Saying that he didn't "need to" is neither, so it's sort of BS to continue to claim that he was told (or ordered) not to follow...it's simply not accurate.
Got it. So you are going with option #2. When the 911 operator told GZ he didn't need to follow, he meant that GZ could really continue following if he wanted to.
I'm not choosing any option...I don't think you can hold GZ accountable to interpreting what the operator meant vs what she actually said.
So you think it's possible the operator meant, "go ahead and follow him if you like"?
no, I personally think she meant exactly what she said. When we discussed this earlier in the year or whatever, I asked a good cop friend of mine who works dispatch quite often. She said that they would never recommend that someone follow a prospective perpetrator because of liabilty/safety issues, but they also wouldn't tell them not to. They would issue a statement such as "we don't recommend" or "we don't need you to do that" to cover their asses, and I asked her this with no context to the GZ case or pre-conceived notion as to why I was asking it. She thought I was asking for a potential situation at my home or something like that.
So for legal reasons they wouldn't issue an outright "order", but instead issue a statement that is mean to be interpreted in a way that causes the person not to continue their pursuit.
I didn't say that they wouldn't issue an order for legal reasons dreach.....why do you need to add to my statements? Are you and I in agreement that the police wouldn't recommend nor do they need people like GZ to pursue?
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. Just trying to understand where you are coming from. When you said they don't give orders for liability reasons, that sounded like legal reasons to me. Is it not?

Yes, we are in agreement that police wouldn't recommend nor would they need people like GZ to pursue. So the question becomes, how does the statement "we don't need you to do that" make it OK for GZ to pursue? Because to me, it sounds plainly obvious that statement indicates the 911 operator doesn't want GZ to pursue.
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon Dec 6 2012, 11:07 AM Post #574
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
nt
Edited by dreachon, Dec 6 2012, 11:07 AM.
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Dec 6 2012, 04:02 PM Post #575
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
dreachon
Dec 6 2012, 11:07 AM
Mr Gray
Dec 6 2012, 10:54 AM
dreachon
Dec 6 2012, 10:27 AM
Mr Gray
Dec 6 2012, 10:19 AM
dreachon
Dec 6 2012, 10:11 AM
Mr Gray
Dec 6 2012, 09:26 AM
dreachon
Dec 6 2012, 09:22 AM
Mr Gray
Dec 6 2012, 09:17 AM
telling someone to do something or not to do something is, by definition, an "order" dreach. In the heat of that moment, if they did not want GZ to follow, they should have been very clear and direct. Saying that he didn't "need to" is neither, so it's sort of BS to continue to claim that he was told (or ordered) not to follow...it's simply not accurate.
Got it. So you are going with option #2. When the 911 operator told GZ he didn't need to follow, he meant that GZ could really continue following if he wanted to.
I'm not choosing any option...I don't think you can hold GZ accountable to interpreting what the operator meant vs what she actually said.
So you think it's possible the operator meant, "go ahead and follow him if you like"?
no, I personally think she meant exactly what she said. When we discussed this earlier in the year or whatever, I asked a good cop friend of mine who works dispatch quite often. She said that they would never recommend that someone follow a prospective perpetrator because of liabilty/safety issues, but they also wouldn't tell them not to. They would issue a statement such as "we don't recommend" or "we don't need you to do that" to cover their asses, and I asked her this with no context to the GZ case or pre-conceived notion as to why I was asking it. She thought I was asking for a potential situation at my home or something like that.
So for legal reasons they wouldn't issue an outright "order", but instead issue a statement that is mean to be interpreted in a way that causes the person not to continue their pursuit.
I didn't say that they wouldn't issue an order for legal reasons dreach.....why do you need to add to my statements? Are you and I in agreement that the police wouldn't recommend nor do they need people like GZ to pursue?
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. Just trying to understand where you are coming from. When you said they don't give orders for liability reasons, that sounded like legal reasons to me. Is it not?

Yes, we are in agreement that police wouldn't recommend nor would they need people like GZ to pursue. So the question becomes, how does the statement "we don't need you to do that" make it OK for GZ to pursue? Because to me, it sounds plainly obvious that statement indicates the 911 operator doesn't want GZ to pursue.
I didn't say that they don't give orders for liability reasons...I think you read that wrong. I said that they wouldn't recommend that someone pursue due to liability reasons. The original claim that started this discussion was that 911 ordered GZ not to pursue, which is the opposite of what I said...anyway,

I don't know what makes it "right" for him to pursue...I don't know the law well enough to know when the line is crossed between observation and harassment. I am on record saying that he shouldn't have approached TM. I just get tired of hearing people say that the cops told him not to pursue in order to add to their case against GZ, but that isn't accurate. If you agree that the police would not need him to pursue, then why do you find it hard to believe that when they said those exact words, that is exactly what they meant?
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheBliver Dec 6 2012, 04:09 PM Post #576
Member Avatar
All-Star
Posts:
1,499
Group:
Members
Member
#89
Joined:
February 7, 2008
what the hell...the dispatcher asked the question...

Are you following him? that's a question right???

GZ reponded, Yes...there's the answer right???

so the dispatcher said, ok, WE DON'T NEED YOU TO DO THAT!!!

what the hell do you think he meant, not to eat donuts while running???

Posted Image

"Keep close to Nature's heart... and break clear away, once in awhile, and climb a mountain or spend a week in the woods. Wash your spirit clean."
John Muir

"Swift or smooth, broad as the Hudson or narrow enough to scrape your gunwales, every river is a world of its own, unique in pattern and personality. Each mile on a river will take you further from home than a hundred miles on a road."
Bob Marshall
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon Dec 6 2012, 04:25 PM Post #577
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
Aaron, I hear what you are saying but I just can't buy that explanation. You're saying the 911 operator told GZ "we don't need you to do that" and that statement isn't to interpreted any further than the simple fact that the police don't need people to pursue for them. I just can't see that. It seems plainly clear to me from the conversation in the 911 call that the operator did not want GZ to pursue TM.

Notice the operator's statement is in the plural, "we". As in the police. Don't need "you" as in GZ to pursue Martin. AKA, "don't pursue Martin". I simply don't believe there is another logical way to interpret the operator's statement.
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Dec 6 2012, 04:26 PM Post #578
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
TheBliver
Dec 6 2012, 04:09 PM
what the hell...the dispatcher asked the question...

Are you following him? that's a question right???

GZ reponded, Yes...there's the answer right???

so the dispatcher said, ok, WE DON'T NEED YOU TO DO THAT!!!

what the hell do you think he meant, not to eat donuts while running???

I think he meant that they don't need him to do that
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Dec 6 2012, 04:28 PM Post #579
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
dreachon
Dec 6 2012, 04:25 PM
Aaron, I hear what you are saying but I just can't buy that explanation. You're saying the 911 operator told GZ "we don't need you to do that" and that statement isn't to interpreted any further than the simple fact that the police don't need people to pursue for them. I just can't see that. It seems plainly clear to me from the conversation in the 911 call that the operator did not want GZ to pursue TM.

Notice the operator's statement is in the plural, "we". As in the police. Don't need "you" as in GZ to pursue Martin. AKA, "don't pursue Martin". I simply don't believe there is another logical way to interpret the operator's statement.
I find it amazing that you can't take the operator's statement to be exactly what he/she said. Telling someone that they don't need to do something is not the same as DON'T DO IT. That may very well be what he/she meant by it....we simply don't know, but to keep saying that GZ was told not to pursue is misleading at best.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon Dec 6 2012, 04:51 PM Post #580
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
Mr Gray
Dec 6 2012, 04:28 PM
dreachon
Dec 6 2012, 04:25 PM
Aaron, I hear what you are saying but I just can't buy that explanation. You're saying the 911 operator told GZ "we don't need you to do that" and that statement isn't to interpreted any further than the simple fact that the police don't need people to pursue for them. I just can't see that. It seems plainly clear to me from the conversation in the 911 call that the operator did not want GZ to pursue TM.

Notice the operator's statement is in the plural, "we". As in the police. Don't need "you" as in GZ to pursue Martin. AKA, "don't pursue Martin". I simply don't believe there is another logical way to interpret the operator's statement.
I find it amazing that you can't take the operator's statement to be exactly what he/she said. Telling someone that they don't need to do something is not the same as DON'T DO IT. That may very well be what he/she meant by it....we simply don't know, but to keep saying that GZ was told not to pursue is misleading at best.
I disagree it's misleading because I believe he was really told not to follow, but for the purposes of this discussion I suppose I can say "I believe" GZ was told not to follow.
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Dec 6 2012, 05:04 PM Post #581
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
dreachon
Dec 6 2012, 04:51 PM
Mr Gray
Dec 6 2012, 04:28 PM
dreachon
Dec 6 2012, 04:25 PM
Aaron, I hear what you are saying but I just can't buy that explanation. You're saying the 911 operator told GZ "we don't need you to do that" and that statement isn't to interpreted any further than the simple fact that the police don't need people to pursue for them. I just can't see that. It seems plainly clear to me from the conversation in the 911 call that the operator did not want GZ to pursue TM.

Notice the operator's statement is in the plural, "we". As in the police. Don't need "you" as in GZ to pursue Martin. AKA, "don't pursue Martin". I simply don't believe there is another logical way to interpret the operator's statement.
I find it amazing that you can't take the operator's statement to be exactly what he/she said. Telling someone that they don't need to do something is not the same as DON'T DO IT. That may very well be what he/she meant by it....we simply don't know, but to keep saying that GZ was told not to pursue is misleading at best.
I disagree it's misleading because I believe he was really told not to follow, but for the purposes of this discussion I suppose I can say "I believe" GZ was told not to follow.
You believe he was really told not to follow even though we have audio evidence to the contrary? Do you think there is a hidden tape out there dreach?
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheBliver Dec 6 2012, 05:07 PM Post #582
Member Avatar
All-Star
Posts:
1,499
Group:
Members
Member
#89
Joined:
February 7, 2008
what's the evidence you're talking about again??? because the actual 911 makes it pretty clear...
Posted Image

"Keep close to Nature's heart... and break clear away, once in awhile, and climb a mountain or spend a week in the woods. Wash your spirit clean."
John Muir

"Swift or smooth, broad as the Hudson or narrow enough to scrape your gunwales, every river is a world of its own, unique in pattern and personality. Each mile on a river will take you further from home than a hundred miles on a road."
Bob Marshall
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon Dec 6 2012, 05:38 PM Post #583
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
Mr Gray
Dec 6 2012, 05:04 PM
dreachon
Dec 6 2012, 04:51 PM
Mr Gray
Dec 6 2012, 04:28 PM
dreachon
Dec 6 2012, 04:25 PM
Aaron, I hear what you are saying but I just can't buy that explanation. You're saying the 911 operator told GZ "we don't need you to do that" and that statement isn't to interpreted any further than the simple fact that the police don't need people to pursue for them. I just can't see that. It seems plainly clear to me from the conversation in the 911 call that the operator did not want GZ to pursue TM.

Notice the operator's statement is in the plural, "we". As in the police. Don't need "you" as in GZ to pursue Martin. AKA, "don't pursue Martin". I simply don't believe there is another logical way to interpret the operator's statement.
I find it amazing that you can't take the operator's statement to be exactly what he/she said. Telling someone that they don't need to do something is not the same as DON'T DO IT. That may very well be what he/she meant by it....we simply don't know, but to keep saying that GZ was told not to pursue is misleading at best.
I disagree it's misleading because I believe he was really told not to follow, but for the purposes of this discussion I suppose I can say "I believe" GZ was told not to follow.
You believe he was really told not to follow even though we have audio evidence to the contrary? Do you think there is a hidden tape out there dreach?
I don't separate out the specific line and look at it in a vacuum. I take the line as part of the conversation as a whole in the context that it was meant.

GZ gets out of the car and starts running (breathing heavily).
The 911 operator asks if he is following.
GZ says yes.
The operator says they don't need him to do that.

When taken in the full context, I think the only way to interpret that quote is that the operator was telling GZ not to follow. Just my opinion.
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Dec 6 2012, 07:43 PM Post #584
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
TheBliver
Dec 6 2012, 05:07 PM
what's the evidence you're talking about again??? because the actual 911 makes it pretty clear...
I agree
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Dec 6 2012, 08:08 PM Post #585
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
dreachon
Dec 6 2012, 09:11 AM
"Ok we don't need you to do that" can really only be interpreted 2 ways.

1) Please don't do that
2) You don't have to do that, but if you'd like to, then by all means please continue to do so

Are you really going with option 2? The 911 operator said GZ didn't have to follow, but if we wanted to then he should?
I agree with Aaron on this one.

"Ok we don't need you to do that" does NOT mean "Please don't do that"

I don't know why most people here are making that translation.

In fact, it's common for someone to say "you don't need to do that" out of politeness, and means, "thanks for doing that, but it really isn't necessary."
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • …
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • …
  • 96

Track Topic · E-mail Topic Time: 7:55 PM Jul 10
Hosted for free by ZetaBoards · Privacy Policy