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

[impatientredhead]

Well, there ya go. Now they just have to show him the photo and ask him whether that's what it looked like. He says yes, and it's in [I believe, I'm not a lawyer]. Doesn't matter who took it. Chain of custody doesn't matter[I believe, I'm not a lawyer]. It could be a drawing, or an admitted PhotoShop image, and still admitted as evidence if the witness says it accurately depicts what it looked like that night[I believe, I'm not a lawyer]. After all, he can describe it words, but a picture is worth...

Chain of custody does matter but whomever took the photo, neighbor, EMT, LE, official or personal it can be admitted. The State can't exactly say they want it excluded when it benefits the defendant and their reason is "a civilian took it" and we don't have an official one. That steps right in an explosive pile of incompetent and contaminated crime scene. For everyone that is screaming that GZ is guilty AND that the crime scene is contaminated proves it, a contaminated crime scene goes in GZs benefit. You can't send him to jail for life on the basis of an incomplete and incompetent investigation.

One of the many reasons I think he will get standing at his SYG hearing and this will never see a jury. World renown attorneys are saying the probable cause affidavit is irresponsible in its presentation of "known facts". The SA submitted that under intense public pressure. Politically passed the buck to someone else. IMO yada yada

 

[Kimberlyd125]

Well lets put it this way... When my husband and I told our teenage daughters "we don't need for you to go out and drink, have sex, or do drugs, I can assure you that was an order for them not to do the things we told them they did not need to be doing... That was an order straight from my husband and myself..JMHO

IMO, for my family, that language is way too lenient and not a direct order.

I would say
"you better not"
OR
"don't you dare"

I would never say
"I don't need you to"

Maybe this is a cultural thing? Regional?

I have never considered "don't need you to" as an order in any way, shape, or form.

 

[RANCH]

If he was ACTING as a member of his NW group, then yes, he is supposed to follow the policies of the organization. If he wants to be some rogue neighbor, cruising around with a gun, then he is only obligated to uphold the laws of his city, county and state.

He and FT both claimed GZ was a member of The Retreat at Twin Lakes NW group.

BBM
I don't think he was acting as a member of his NW group. I think he was going to the store. JMO.

 

[LyndyLoo]

Yep, big difference.

Like when I'm at the grocery store and I offer to put something back on the shelf and the stock person says "you don't have to do that".

I take that as a suggestion and I put it back anyway.

:rocker:

then that shelf falls onto of you..and you file a law suit for your injuries etc..
What is it about disregarding warning..isnt it like at 'Do this at your own risk" type thing that many contracts have..that you sign/acknowledge??..then try and claim you didnt know better or was never told this could be a problem that cause harm or loses???

:banghead:

 

[HiHater]

I honestly don't get all these, "the NW says this" and "the NW doesn't allow for this." The NW people have no authority whatsoever. They're just a bunch of random condo residents and "THE RULES" are primarily, if not exclusively, for the protection of the NW members and to limit the potential liability of the HOA. GZ was free to do whatever he felt was necessary and appropriate under the circumstances and within the bounds of "THE LAW," not "THE RULES." Imo, another one of those non-issues that won't matter, at all, in the long run. jmo

Okay, the neighborhood watch either matters or it doesn't IMO. You want to disregard the rules, and say George was acting within the law.

Then let's also disregard neighborhood watch and the previous burglaries that he says were committed by young black males.

He is concerned, obsessed even, about that in his role as the neighborhood watchmen.

But since NW is a non-factor, I'm going to assume that his profiling of Trayvon was race based in its entirety, and that GZ is an absolute racist. I'm not regarding the NW at all, so GZ wasn't protecting his community, he was terrorizing it.

JMO MOO

 

[Karmady]

The point is, IMHO, that GZ seemed to have a great deal of difficulty following instructions. Especially if they didn't suit his purposes.

IMO JMO MOO

Imo, that depends on your definition of "instructions" and how you view "instructions," in general. Personally, I'm going to evaluate the source of the instructions and what the instructions are designed to accomplish. I'm not going to just blindly follow instructions in all cases. Particularly where I perceive the welfare of my family and community to be at stake. I don't see that as a "difficulty." I see it as excercising independent judgment on matters that impact me personally and directly and of which I have personal knowledge, while the "instructor" does not.

 

[MaryAnn]

There is NOTHING in the English language that says "don't need to" is an order.
Nothing.

JMO but I disagree. did you hear the tone of the 911 dispatcher? I thought he was a little sarcastic, like "we don't need you to do that"! He sounded to me like he was annoyed and couldn't believe what he was hearing. I'm sure if he knew what GZ was about to do he would have said sternly, "No" don't do that.

 

[HiHater]

IMO, for my family, that language is way too lenient and not a direct order.

I would say
"you better not"
OR
"don't you dare"

I would never say
"I don't need you to"

Maybe this is a cultural thing? Regional?

I have never considered "don't need you to" as an order in any way, shape, or form.

GZ is 28 years old. He fully understood what the dispatcher was saying, and according to him, he obeyed it. I don't understand why people are making excuses, when GZ isn't?

 

[HiHater]

Imo, that depends on your definition of "instructions" and how you view "instructions," in general. Personally, I'm going to evaluate the source of the instructions and what the instructions are designed to accomplish. I'm not going to just blindly follow instructions in all cases. Particularly where I perceive the welfare of my family and community to be at stake. I don't see that as a "difficulty." I see it as excercising independent judgment on matters that impact me personally and directly and of which I have personal knowledge, while the "instructor" does not.

What was Trayvon doing that would impact anyone other than himself?

 

[suzihawk]

I can't believe we're re-visiting this whole "you don't need to do that" issue yet again.

:sigh:

 

[Kimberlyd125]

We don't "need" you to walk in front of a passing train, but please feel free to do so if it suits you at the moment?

It has been discussed to death that the words used were "we don't need you to do that" and that a dispatcher is not a police officer. Neither side has budged an inch in that discussion. The judge will determine its relevancy.

The judge will determine the relevancy of everything we are discussing.

That's not really stopping our discussion IMO.

We are not all here 24/7. So like every other case here, topics are rehashed sometimes.

 

[annalia]

I understood the "ok" to be a confirmation in regards to GZ actually admitting he was following TM after the dispatcher had asked him IF he was following TM.. Does that make sense? No way do I believe the dispatcher was telling GZ it was ok to follow TM because he then immediately stated... "We don't need for you to be doing that"... JMHO..

I agree but I meant after the dispatcher said "OK we don't need you to do that" it was GZ who said OK.

IIRC, the dispatcher says, "are you following him", GZ says "yes", the dispatcher said, "Ok we don't need you to do that", GZ then said "OK".

JMHO

 

[HiHater]

Yep, big difference.

Like when I'm at the grocery store and I offer to put something back on the shelf and the stock person says "you don't have to do that".

I take that as a suggestion and I put it back anyway.

Apples to oranges. IMO

 

[Kimberlyd125]

:rocker:

then that shelf falls onto of you..and you file a law suit for your injuries etc..
What is it about disregarding warning..isnt it like at 'Do this at your own risk" type thing that many contracts have..that you sign/acknowledge??..then try and claim you didnt know better or was never told this could be a problem that cause harm or loses???

:banghead:

If a shelf falls on you in a store, no matter if you are taking something off or putting it back, the shelf was faulty and the damages are the store owner's responsibility.

No matter what was said by anybody.

 

[Emeralgem]

IMO, for my family, that language is way too lenient and not a direct order.

I would say
"you better not"
OR
"don't you dare"

I would never say
"I don't need you to"

Maybe this is a cultural thing? Regional?

I have never considered "don't need you to" as an order in any way, shape, or form.

I see it my way, you see it your way... Nuff said..I'm through discussing it.. Bottom line for me... GZ knew dispatch did not want him to follow TM..JMHO

 

[suzihawk]

Was GZ actually "on duty" that night? I thought it was someone else's turn. So he was actually just acting on his own as a concerned citizen. Is the HOA really responsible for what a resident does on his own when he's not actually taking his shift, turn, duty or whatever they call it.

There are no shifts. No one has "duty". It's a WATCH program. Watch and report. Period. The End.

 

[HiHater]

I can't believe we're re-visiting this whole "you don't need to do that" issue yet again.

:sigh:

Me either. Roe v. Wade. I'm not changing my position, and you're not going to change yours. We're arguing for the sake of arguing.

ETA: jumping off your post, not direct at you.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

JMO but I disagree. did you hear the tone of the 911 dispatcher? I thought he was a little sarcastic, like "we don't need you to do that"! He sounded to me like he was annoyed and couldn't believe what he was hearing. I'm sure if he knew what GZ was about to do he would have said sternly, "No" don't do that.

But he didn't. That's the point.

 

[mikeysmommom]

Does anyone know if the martin family can have the autopsy report sealed since TM was a minor?

 

[HiHater]

I see it my way, you see it your way... Nuff said..I'm through discussing it.. Bottom line for me... GZ knew dispatch did not want him to follow TM..JMHO

Can somebody tell me this, I've asked like 40 times.

If GZ did not understand that the dispatch was telling him not to follow, why does he say he stopped following?