17 yo Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #18

[LambChop]

Growing up and working with my defense attorney dad taught me that when a defendant is made public, there can be all kinds of 'evidence' that comes out. And it is not always accurate as a way to gauge who the person really is. Maybe he is a violent, cold hearted monster. But so far, I am not convinced of that.

Just because ONE former co-worker tells a story about him being fired, it does not mean it went down that way exactly.
And if he really did THROW a drunk woman cross the room, then imo, he would have been arrested and or sued by someone.

The same with the RO's from the ex girlfriend. It looks to me like it was a two way volatile relationship. I don't automatically assume that he was the violent one and she was the totally innocent victim. I saw a lot of cases like this when my dad defended clients. It is quite often a two way street.

Not always, but if it is a very violent abusive husband then you often end up with women going for medical treatment and the men being arrested. We have no evidence of that here. I think they both drank and were both immature and jealous.

I BELIEVE HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ARRESTED FOR MANSLAUGHTER ON THE FIRST NIGHT. But I also believe that he is being unfairly painted as a violent, cold blooded, premeditated killer. And so I am responding in defense of him in that way only.

GZ was working an illegal party. If this lady was a "hostess" I doubt she wanted LE investigating. This man claims GZ was fired over this. It is very easy for LE to check and I'm sure they will.

It is never, ever right for a man to hit a woman. If the relationship was bad and because he had been in trouble before he should have ended it instead of having domestic charges brought against him. And weren't there more than one???? He was either part of the problem or part of the solution and since he stayed with her, he was obviously part of the problem, IMO, because they were not married. Nothing holding him there.

I, too, think he should have been charged with manslaughter and you can be your sweet bippie he wishes now he had been, too. He may have been able to get away with charges of involuntary manslaughter......now they will want more. jmo

 

[angelmom]

I've read under cover - they don't wear a badge anywhere that can be seen - otherwise, what would be the point?

I'm sure they went in undercover at first. My cousin used to do these stings when he was underage with his BIL who was a town cop. But when they go to arrest the people, they are required to identify themselves.

Regardless, once the person was under arrest, GZ would have to be blind and deaf not to realize that the officer was LE. Otherwise, did he think his friend was being kidnapped? The officer asked him to move along, GZ refused to follow those instructions (hmmm...where have we heard that before?), swore at the officer, and then pushed him.

 

[katydid23]

The charges against GZ were dropped, there's no conviction, just the arrest.

People are arrested all the time who are found not guilty, charges are dropped, record expunged....etc., Convictions, not arrests count against a person in almost all situations. "Arrest" doesn't equate to "guilty".

I do agree that there is a reason GZ wasn't in the Police Academy. He has done everything BUT enter. I don't know about the psych evaluation angle - I know a lot of crazzzzy cops with anger issues. There's a reason, just can't figure out what it could be.

But the investigator doing the backgrounds checks can see even 'expunged' records. And they would not accept that incident in his past, imo.

They interview ALL of your past bosses and landlords and spouses and friends before they accept you into the academy.

 

[vlpate]

His ex-fiance hasn't come forward either so are we to believe that just because she hasn't come forward that it isn't true?



~jmo~

She filed for a restraining order, as did he against her. There's no restraining order filed in the case of the flying woman in the bar.

 

[LambChop]

I never said it wasn't 'true'--just that it seems to be a two way volatile relationship. And if she did attack him with a baseball bat, then maybe she wants to lay low and let the past be.

All I am saying is that people were putting his past RO and his supposed firing out there as PROOF he is a violent cold blooded guy.

And I am saying that when looking closer, these incidents seem like he is immature and hot headed, but not a violent monster. He was 20, drinking in a club, and a plain clothes guy starts hassling his friend, so he shoves the guy. Sounds like something many of my friends and relatives did back in the day.

I had a volatile relationship when I was in my 20's/ Neither of us ever went to the hospital or got arrested, but we were out of control when we drank. Many broken dishes and belongings thrown out windows and at each other.

Bottom line for me is that IF I was arrested for something now, and I was sleuthed, would I have people from my long past talking about me being fired before? Yes. Not proud of it. I got into a catfight with another cocktail waitress one night over a boyfriend. If SHE told the story to the press then I would sound like as maniac.

LOL. Things happen and maybe that is how the cocktail waitress saw it. We never think we've done anything wrong in a confrontation and that goes for both sides. But your past does come back to haunt you and today it's even worse. Everything shows up on the internet so you can't ever escape anything you've done that becomes news.

GZ's past violent behavior is relevant here because, as the co-worker said, he appears to be the nicest guy but he has some anger management issues. He attended classes for that and still seems to have a problem because he got into a fight. I cannot believe GZ ever turned his back on TM. Did not happen. TM was HIS suspect, he wanted to detain him or he would not have gone after TM. GZ wanted to keep TM from getting away. TM was not headed toward GZ he was headed home. Had GZ stayed with his car as he was asked to do this never would have happened because TM would have gotten home safely. jmo

 

[angelmom]

Hmmm...

having an injunction for domestic violence, or being convicted of domestic violence is almost always a DQ.

en.allexperts.com/q/Careers-Police-1531/2009/6/LEO-JOB-ARREST-RECORD.htm

 

[vlpate]

But the investigator doing the backgrounds checks can see even 'expunged' records. And they would not accept that incident in his past, imo.

They interview ALL of your past bosses and landlords and spouses and friends before they accept you into the academy.

His wasn't expunged, it was just an example of charges/arrests that wouldn't be on a person's record in most instances. I wouldn't think a felony charge for assaulting an officer, or really anyone, could be expunged in three years (another example). JMO

 

[Emeralgem]

Yes it does, it's always an excuse for him. There seems to be quite a pattern there.



~jmo~

Ya think? Just unbelievable ALL the excuses..JMHO

 

[jjenny]

His wasn't expunged, it was just an example of charges/arrests that wouldn't be on a person's record in most instances. I wouldn't think a felony charge for assaulting an officer, or really anyone, could be expunged in three years (another example). JMO

He would still have to put the fact that he was arrested on his application. And when you have a bunch of people applying to police academy with no arrests, why would they accept someone with a mark on a reputation?

 

[katydid23]

You keep insisting he "knew" he would not get into the PD.. can you back up the PD requirements with a link and not just what you personally feel?
I know people that have been arrested and worked things out so that they could get into the police force...
How do we know he didn't get onto the force (his ultimate dream according to his own admission) because he failed the PSYCHOLOGICAL?????? I mean if you're going to assume.. i can do the same thing....
I would think he couldn't make it into LE because he failed the psychological...

I don't know of any police force that will allow someone who was arrested and convicted to enter the academy. I am not sure what you mean by ' worked things out' so they could enter the academy.

I only know about the LAPD and the Ventura County sheriffs because that is where my son has applied. I looked very closely at their requirements when he was working on his 'packet.'

I know he would not have failed the 'psychological' exam because they do not give anyone that exam until they have already passed all of the earlier hurdles. They have to pass the Background Investigation FIRST which is very thorough. They will not accept someone who was arrested for shoving an undercover cop or for having a Restraining Order for a DV history. Nor from someone fired from a security job for assaulting a woman. If all of those things are TRUE, then he has ZERO chance of working things out and being accepted into the academy. The psych exam is at the end of the hoops they run you through.

 

[vlpate]

Hmmm...

en.allexperts.com/q/Careers-Police-1531/2009/6/LEO-JOB-ARREST-RECORD.htm

BEM: It’s against the law in most states for anyone convicted of Domestic violence to buy/ carry a firearm, and that includes police.

"Florida Requirements: Not have been convicted of any felony or of a misdemeanor involving perjury or a false statement, or have received a dishonorable discharge from any of the Armed Forces of the United States. Any person who, after July 1, 1981, pleads guilty or nolo contendere to or is found guilty of any felony or of a misdemeanor involving perjury or a false statement is not eligible for employment or appointment as an officer, notwithstanding suspension of sentence or withholding of adjudication. Notwithstanding this subsection, any person who has pled nolo contendere to a misdemeanor involving a false statement, prior to December 1, 1985, and has had such record sealed or expunged shall not be deemed ineligible for employment or appointment as an officer.

Also having an injunction for domestic violence, or being convicted of domestic violence is almost always a DQ. Being arrested for it is not always one, but most of the time it will be."

That last sentence is puzzling - it's worse to have an injunction than to be convicted? Strange - I will have to go back and look at the record information. I guess I don't understand what a restraining order is."

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Careers-Police-1531/2009/6/LEO-JOB-ARREST-RECORD.htm

 

[deelytful1]

I don't know of any police force that will allow someone who was arrested and convicted to enter the academy. I am not sure what you mean by ' worked things out' so they could enter the academy.

I only know about the LAPD and the Ventura County sheriffs because that is where my son has applied. I looked very closely at their requirements when he was working on his 'packet.'

I know he would not have failed the 'psychological' exam because they do not give anyone that exam until they have already passed all of the earlier hurdles. They have to pass the Background Investigation FIRST which is very thorough. They will not accept someone who was arrested for shoving an undercover cop or for having a Restraining Order for a DV history. Nor from someone fired from a security job for assaulting a woman. If all of those things are TRUE, then he has ZERO chance of working things out and being accepted into the academy. The psych exam is at the end of the hoops they run you through.

Well, I know someone who had a misdemeanor marijuana conviction and got on.. someone else who failed the psychological 3 TIMES and got on... So until we know exactly WHY GZ did not get into the police academy (if in fact he tried) I don't think we should be making assumptions... IMO this thread needs more fact and less unsubstantiated opinion...

 

[LolaMoon08]

According to the link, the officer didn't identify himself to Zimmerman and he assaulted him first so Zimmerman was forced to defend himself.

http://www.scribd.com/heidi_vries/d...ation-for-the-Citizens-Police-Academy-in-2008


~jmo~

Interesting. Zimmerman seems to always be in the position where he has no other choice but to defend himself?

First of all, I've dealt with ATF a lot. I was a bartender. They do yearly "raids" where they come into the bar in full uniform, masks, and guns drawn. Yes, they make a big scene. It became funny to me after a few years. Not to the customers though. They would make the manager turn on the lights and everyone in the room had to show identification.

They are always in the clubs undercover and they act just like regular customers. They drink, get lap dances, ask where they can score drugs, etc... one time I had one ask me where he could get some "coke" and I immediately told my manager (we have a zero tolerance policy) and the bouncers yanked him up and took him out... when they got outside, he flashed his ATF badge and told them "good job."

One thing you are NEVER to do is to stop ATF from what they are doing. You are not allowed, under any circumstances to fight with them, argue with them. You sit there and let them do their thing.

I don't know the whole circumstances with Zimmerman and the ATF officers, but if he was trying to ID someone (his friend?) he had that right and if they were undercover, I don't for a minute think that the ATF officer attacked Zimmerman first unless he felt he was a threat to him... sound familiar?

Just a little background on the ATF.

 

[katydid23]

LOL. Things happen and maybe that is how the cocktail waitress saw it. We never think we've done anything wrong in a confrontation and that goes for both sides. But your past does come back to haunt you and today it's even worse. Everything shows up on the internet so you can't ever escape anything you've done that becomes news.

GZ's past violent behavior is relevant here because, as the co-worker said, he appears to be the nicest guy but he has some anger management issues. He attended classes for that and still seems to have a problem because he got into a fight. I cannot believe GZ ever turned his back on TM. Did not happen. TM was HIS suspect, he wanted to detain him or he would not have gone after TM. GZ wanted to keep TM from getting away. TM was not headed toward GZ he was headed home. Had GZ stayed with his car as he was asked to do this never would have happened because TM would have gotten home safely. jmo

I totally agree that he should have stayed in his car. That was wrong. But was it ILLEGAL? That is the question. I will admit that I am looking at it from a defense attorney's eyes. That is what shaped me to some extent.

I just have to hear what he said that night himself before i make my decisions. And I am going to take these reports of him as a violent monster with a grain of salt.

 

[HiHater]

Did GZ list his domestic violence arrest on that application (Citizens Law Enforcement)?

Was there an actual arrest, if so that means he lied?

JMO MOO IMO

 

[katydid23]

Well, I know someone who had a misdemeanor marijuana conviction and got on.. someone else who failed the psychological 3 TIMES and got on... So until we know exactly WHY GZ did not get into the police academy (if in fact he tried) I don't think we should be making assumptions... IMO this thread needs more fact and less unsubstantiated opinion...

A misdemeanor pot conviction could mean they were in the car where a joint was found. That is way different than him having a DV charge or assaulting an officer arrest. imo

I do not believe he got anywhere near taking a psych exam with his record. I don't think he got past the Background Investigation. He had too many brushes with the law that were much more serious than a pot misdemeanor.

 

[katydid23]

BEM: It’s against the law in most states for anyone convicted of Domestic violence to buy/ carry a firearm, and that includes police.

"Florida Requirements: Not have been convicted of any felony or of a misdemeanor involving perjury or a false statement, or have received a dishonorable discharge from any of the Armed Forces of the United States. Any person who, after July 1, 1981, pleads guilty or nolo contendere to or is found guilty of any felony or of a misdemeanor involving perjury or a false statement is not eligible for employment or appointment as an officer, notwithstanding suspension of sentence or withholding of adjudication. Notwithstanding this subsection, any person who has pled nolo contendere to a misdemeanor involving a false statement, prior to December 1, 1985, and has had such record sealed or expunged shall not be deemed ineligible for employment or appointment as an officer.

Also having an injunction for domestic violence, or being convicted of domestic violence is almost always a DQ. Being arrested for it is not always one, but most of the time it will be."

That last sentence is puzzling - it's worse to have an injunction than to be convicted? Strange - I will have to go back and look at the record information. I guess I don't understand what a restraining order is.

An arrest for something does not equal an automatic DQ because they have to be open to the fact that someone might be falsely arrested.

One of my sons friends, who is now in the academy was arrested falsely for something, not DV though. BUT he was in the wrong place at the wrong time and it ALMOST got him a DQ from the academy. But he was able to convince them to look more closely at the situation.

 

[Elley Mae]

Did GZ list his domestic violence arrest on that application (Citizens Law Enforcement)?

Was there an actual arrest, if so that means he lied?

JMO MOO IMO

http://www.scribd.com/heidi_vries/d...ation-for-the-Citizens-Police-Academy-in-2008

He explained it them, he was accepted to the academy.

 

[Isabelle]

GZ was working an illegal party. If this lady was a "hostess" I doubt she wanted LE investigating. This man claims GZ was fired over this. It is very easy for LE to check and I'm sure they will.

It is never, ever right for a man to hit a woman. If the relationship was bad and because he had been in trouble before he should have ended it instead of having domestic charges brought against him. And weren't there more than one???? He was either part of the problem or part of the solution and since he stayed with her, he was obviously part of the problem, IMO, because they were not married. Nothing holding him there.

I, too, think he should have been charged with manslaughter and you can be your sweet bippie he wishes now he had been, too. He may have been able to get away with charges of involuntary manslaughter......now they will want more. jmo

What kind of party would be illegal? Just curious.

 

[LambChop]

I totally agree that he should have stayed in his car. That was wrong. But was it ILLEGAL? That is the question. I will admit that I am looking at it from a defense attorney's eyes. That is what shaped me to some extent.

I just have to hear what he said that night himself before i make my decisions. And I am going to take these reports of him as a violent monster with a grain of salt.

It was not illegal but it did interfer with LE doing their job. It could have been GZ who was shot and killed because the person he went after could have had a gun. My problem with George is.....he knew better. He had enough exposure to procedures required of private citizens to know he was overstepping his bounds. Once he stepped out of the car he knowing put everyone's life in danger when he did not have to do that. jmo