17 yo Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #32

[Adrienne37]

When Alan Dershowitz takes a ride to Florida to check out all the evidence that the prosecution has against Zimmerman, then I'll believe what he says. Otherwise it's pure speculation on his part and just as I said earlier, DRIVEL.


~jmo~

 

[HiHater]

I don't understand the relevance of this point at all.

Even if the dispatcher told him unambiguously not to follow, GZ was under no obligation to comply. He was on private property and, as far as I know, he could go anywhere he wanted to go. Just because you call the police department does not mean you are subject to their orders.

But, anyway, yeah, "we don't need you to do that" was clear only with respect to conveying that the police department was not asking GZ to follow. The dispatcher had no authority to order GZ to not follow.

BBM

Then why in the world would you call? They didn't call him and ask for his help...it was vice versa.

MOO

 

[Aedrys]

Dershowitz claims it's not just thin, it could be perjurious.

“If she in fact knew about ABC News’ pictures of the bloody head of Zimmerman and failed to include that in the affidavit, this affidavit is not the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth,” Dershowitz said. “It’s a perjurious affidavit.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/2...overreached-with-murder-charge/#ixzz1t5jKwaxk

How could she know when a random person took that picture? It was not an LE photo. Unless that random person actually hands the picture to LE, they are not going to know about it, and neither is Corey. Good Lord, now LE and the prosecution are expected to be psychic and know when random people take pictures? And I bet anything that person went straight to ABC and did not tell LE or Corey anything about this picture. Dershowitz doesn't know what he's talking about here. I love how people like him stick issues into things that don't have issues. Good grief!

 

[Kimberlyd125]

Dispatchers dispatch. It's what they do.
IMO GZ wanted LE to come. So, he called dispatch.

That's why he called them.

 

[saguaro]

Dershowitz claims it's not just thin, it could be perjurious.

“If she in fact knew about ABC News’ pictures of the bloody head of Zimmerman and failed to include that in the affidavit, this affidavit is not the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth,” Dershowitz said. “It’s a perjurious affidavit.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/2...overreached-with-murder-charge/#ixzz1t5jKwaxk

Jenny,

Thanks so much for posting this. I really enjoy listening to him.

:gthanks:

 

[Aedrys]

Dispatchers dispatch. It's what they do.
IMO GZ wanted LE to come. So, he called dispatch.

That's why he called them.

So if he wanted LE to come so badly, why he did not wait for them? Why even call dispatch if he was going to handle this himself? Calling dispatch means he thought the situation was more than he could handle, yet he continued to follow Trayvon. It doesn't make any sense. If he needed LE so bad, he should have stopped and waited for them.

 

[Etilema]

I believe evidence shows that GZ followed TM with the INTENT to detain him. That itself is unlawful. If they encounter each other while GZ is attempting to do something unlawful he cannot avail himself of SYG. I believe that is the picture they will paint. And it's utterly believable and consistent wiht the facts.

GZ was obessed with ciminals and crimes in his neighborhood, he immediately determines TM is such a criminal and calls 911 about this dangerous, suspicious guy and asks for an officer to be dispatched poste haste to detain him. Job done. Then, he realizes TM is still walking..."getting away" and he says how he's sick of these a$%holes getting away. That, combined with his disregard of the instruction to not follow show a whole lotta intent to detain to me and I would think to many other rational people who would probably think, "Why else would you go after somene with a gun when you've already called 911 and the person isn't actually doing anything criminal?" Not a lot of other good reasons. I know, I know, looking for an address...please...

I agree with your conclusions. However, he *could* say he was following Trayvon in order to be able to tell police his location so they could check him out.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Adrienne37]

Dispatchers dispatch. It's what they do.
IMO GZ wanted LE to come. So, he called dispatch.

That's why he called them.

So if a person is choking and you call 911, you wouldn't do what they said even if it would save a life because they are only dispatch? What about a person who calls 911 when their house is on fire, if they told you to get out of the house, you wouldn't listen because they were only a dispatcher?


Hmmm, I think I've got it now.



~jmo~

 

[Adrienne37]

I agree with your conclusions. However, he *could* say he was following Trayvon in order to be able to tell police his location so they could check him out.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

It doesn't matter. He had absolutely no business following Trayvon to begin with. He was doing nothing wrong or was he doing anything suspicious.



~jmo~

 

[Ninety5rpm]

I completely understand what your saying and appreciate your opinion, but I don't agree it all boils down to the last 60 seconds. I still think GZ is the aggressor even if TM had thrown the first punch. TM was scared, didn't know why he was being followed by some guy who was not in any kind of uniform and I'm sure TM thought he was going to be mugged. I'd fight back too with all my might! TM had every right to throw a punch if you ask me. If I were walking and someone who wouldn't identify themself and was following me for no apparent reason I would have my hand on my mace and if he got in my face he would get a face full of mace.

It's like if you drive without a license and you get in an accident it's your fault because you shouldn't have been on the road anyway. GZ had no business carrying a gun and using it, it was not part of his NW duty even stated by the 911 operator. If GZ didn't have a gun on him Trayvon would be alive today.

Finding someone to be suspicious for dubious reasons is not being an aggressor.
Getting out of your vehicle to follow someone is not being an aggressor.
Following someone despite a police dispatcher saying that's not needed, is not being an aggressor.
Approaching someone is not being an aggressor.
If all GZ did was follow TM, then TM did not have the right to punch him. I'm pretty sure the laws against battery don't have exceptions for people being followed. If TM did have such a right, then Hollywood stars would have free reign on the paparazzi, LOL.

1) If GZ approached TM and pulled out his gun when he approached, that would be being an aggressor.

2) If TM approached GZ, and GZ responded (right away or after some words were exchanged) with a punch or pulling out his gun, then GZ would be the aggressor.

3) If TM approached GZ, words were exchanged, and TM threw the first punch, then TM would be the aggressor.

As far as I can tell, we don't know which of these three scenarios occurred.

 

[Dr.Fessel]

It's an extremely common last name.

I think it goes past the odds with 3 people from one department, probably one shift, working on the same case named Smith.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

So if he wanted LE to come so badly, why he did not wait for them? Why even call dispatch if he was going to handle this himself? Calling dispatch means he thought the situation was more than he could handle, yet he continued to follow Trayvon. It doesn't make any sense. If he needed LE so bad, he should have stopped and waited for them.

He called dispatch to get LE to come.
I don't know how badly. But that would be why someone would call dispatch.

Calling dispatch means nothing more than he wanted LE to come. The rest would be speculation IMO.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

BBM

Then why in the world would you call? They didn't call him and ask for his help...it was vice versa.

MOO

Just because you call the fire department doesn't mean you can't use your own hose to put out the fire until they get there, even if they tell you to to not do it.

 

[m00c0w]

So if a person is choking and you call 911, you wouldn't do what they said even if it would save a life because they are only dispatch? What about a person who calls 911 when there house is on fire, if they told you to get out of the house, you wouldn't listen because they were only a dispatcher?


Hmmm, I think I've got it now.



~jmo~

That sounds like you're constructing a straw man to me. Not having a legal obligation to follow their advice doesn't mean their advice will always be ignored.

 

[LambChop]

I disagree, it's a more indirect, polite way of saying the same thing. How do we know the dispatcher wasn't Japanese? In Japanese culture being too direct is a bad thing, so they are taught to couch things more politely. Still means the same thing- DO NOT follow.

I believe it was the chief who said their dispatch personnel have to word it that way, instead of an order, because of lawsuits. Evidentally someone may have been injured because they were told to stay where they were and sued. Have to see if I can find it. jmo

 

[Nova]

I wonder how often that situation occurs with other people (being only a credit shy but still in the ceremony)?

I don't think it's that uncommon. Walking in the ceremony only matters to Mom and Dad. It doesn't give you a diploma and it certainly doesn't put a degree on your transcript, which is where degrees are verified.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

So if a person is choking and you call 911, you wouldn't do what they said even if it would save a life because they are only dispatch? What about a person who calls 911 when there house is on fire, if they told you to get out of the house, you wouldn't listen because they were only a dispatcher?


Hmmm, I think I've got it now.



~jmo~

What I would do has nothing to do with this case.

He called dispatch. Dispatch sent LE. That's their job.

 

[Aedrys]

Finding someone to be suspicious for dubious reasons is not being an aggressor.
Getting out of your vehicle to follow someone is not being an aggressor.
Following someone despite a police dispatcher saying that's not needed, is not being an aggressor.
Approaching someone is not being an aggressor.
If all GZ did was follow TM, then TM did not have the right to punch him. I'm pretty sure the laws against battery don't have exceptions for people being followed. If TM did have such a right, then Hollywood stars would have free reign on the paparazzi, LOL.

1) If GZ approached TM and pulled out his gun when he approached, that would be being an aggressor.

2) If TM approached GZ, and GZ responded (right away or after some words were exchanged) with a punch or pulling out his gun, then GZ would be the aggressor.

3) If TM approached GZ, words were exchanged, and TM threw the first punch, then TM would be the aggressor.

As far as I can tell, we don't know which of these three scenarios occurred.

If someone did all of what you suggested to me, I would be in fear of my life. That person would seem very aggressive towards me. Maybe it's a man/woman thing, but as a woman, I would be terrified if someone thought I was suspicious, got out of their vehicle, followed me, and then approached me. If I was a kid, that would be terrifying and aggressive to me too. I'd be screaming "stranger danger" or at my age now, screaming for help. I don't see how those actions are not aggressive. Body language and action (getting out a car, following, etc) can be aggressive, not just pulling a gun on someone or attacking someone.

 

[shadowraiths]

I'm just asking you if it's a policy / instruction manual from THAT development or a national organization.
The reason I'm asking is I don't want to go search tons of threads for a national policy book.

I'm just wanting to know if we have ever seen the policies for GZ's development.

If not, ok. I was just curious.
I've googled and googled and can't find policies from THE development where the shooting occurred.

IMO they could differ from others.

JMO

FYI, they did not sign up with USAwatch ( link ) which is sponsored by the National Sheriff's Association and appears to require training and local LE coordination. They instead, purchased items from NNWI ( link ), a neighborhood watch materials distribution company that not only does not provide training, coordination, etc but is in no way affiliated with the National Sheriff's group.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

FYI, they did not sign up with USAwatch ( link ) which is sponsored by the National Sheriff's Association and appears to require training and local LE coordination. They instead, purchased items from NNWI ( link ), a neighborhood watch materials distribution company that not only does not provide training, coordination, etc but is in no way affiliated with the National Sheriff's group.

Thank you! Your post is very helpful and is very much appreciated.