Almalieque wrote:
No, it doesn't. It only constitutes that Martin's actions were suspicious to Zimmerman.
Which justifies Zimmerman's decision to call the police. I'm honestly unsure what you're arguing here.
Quote:
Likewise with Martin. There's nothing wrong with Zimmerman calling the police, but unless you can provide facts that support that Martin was actually maliciously looking at houses as opposed to just looking around while on the phone, the fact is just a fact. It doesn't support any malicious activity.
Unless I can provide those facts, what? What the hell does that last part mean? It's circular. If I can't prove that Martin was maliciously looking at houses, then I can't prove that he was maliciously looking at houses? Who cares?
If we both agree that Zimmerman's belief that Martin's behavior was suspicious is sufficient justification for him to call the police, then what the hell are you arguing about? That's all he did in response to what Martin was doing at that time.
Quote:
YOU ARE NOT ZIMMERMAN. His suspicion is not in question. YOUR CLAIM is. Knowing all of the facts NOW, do you believe that Martin was mentally ill and/or on drugs at the time? If not, then you don't agree with Zimmerman's assessment. That doesn't mean Zimmerman was wrong for the call.
Why does this matter? All that matters is that Zimmerman was not wrong for making the call.
Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
Whether he was actually planning on doing anything wrong at that point is irrelevant.
So, you are no longer alluding that Martin was maybe perhaps thinking about doing something wrong or not innocently walking home?
What I believe Martin was or was not planning to do has zero relevance as to the legitimacy of Zimmerman's actions. How can you not get this?
Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
How about you quote it now, since clearly I have no freaking clue what you are talking about.
Is that a deal or not?
What deal? You are insisting that you answered a question I asked. I'm asking you to repeat the answer. There's no deal on the table here. You're free to refuse to provide an answer, but that will only confirm that you don't have one. It's your choice.
Quote:
You ignored half of my post before. I'm clearly going back, point by point in chronological order. We agreed to the following:
1. Zimmerman was suspicious of Martin.
2. Zimmerman called the police.
3. Martin became suspicious of Zimmerman.
4. Zimmeman's description of Martin to the police was inaccurate, but not intentionally
I'm leading up to the point of Martin running.
Stop saying "we agreed". My problem with what you're doing is that you're constantly changing the exact words you use to describe each step, but insisting that I must "agree" with your entire timeline of events before you move on. Meanwhile, it's the part past this that I care about. You're demanding that I accept your version of events, using your language to describe things, despite that I've repeatedly told you that I don't agree with the words you're using.
One and two are fine. They're clearly established in the phone call. Three is speculation on your part (and questionable word choice). He could have run because he was scared, or high, or angry, or sad, or he realized he left the iron on at home. We can speculate about why he ran (and that's the question I'm asking about), but that's the point of contention. Insisting that I must agree with your speculation that Martin was suspicious of Zimmerman before you'll discuss the question of why he ran is pretty ridiculous.
And four is not only a complete point of contention it's also irrelevant to the question at hand: Why did Martin run? Whether Zimmerman's description of Martin was 100% accurate or not really doesn't matter much to that question. So why include it in the list of things I must agree to before you'll answer the question?
Just answer the damn question: Why do you think Martin ran? You're free to include any other details, facts, suppositions, or wild speculations you want. But if you want to argue that my speculation about why he ran is wrong, you need to provide an alternative explanation. You still have not done this.
Edited, Aug 7th 2013 6:18pm by gbaji