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

[Kimberlyd125]

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?

No excuses.

A poster said he was told don't follow.
He wasn't.

That's not an excuse. That's factual. We all heard it in the 911 tape.

 

[jaded cat]

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

As has been posted before, there are no shifts for NW. You're just supposed to, ya know, watch. Traveling to the store and being on watch are not mutally exclusive.

Carrying a gun while acting in the duties of NW is a violation of the rules. He already called LE and they were on their way. He had no reason whatsoever to leave his truck.

 

[LynnM]

I believe that the Retreat at Twin Lakes was using the guidebook provided by the Sanford Police Department.

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/NWProgramHandbook.pdf

 

[Karmady]

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

Imo, the pertinent inquiry is not what it turned out that Trayvon was doing, but what GZ reasonably believed that he was doing under the circumstances. And while that inquiry is, I agree, relevant to my post, it's not at all relevant to the case, imo. In court, the focus will be on who attacked whom. Not who got out of their car, or who was carrying skittles and tea, or who asked a question or what the NW rules were. So how GZ came to be in proximity to Trayvon will be, imo, totally irrelevant.

 

[mercuriod]

snipped

OT, did you ever find that info you promised to post showing that certified teachers where you live in the United States only have to have AA degrees? You never did post it, would be very interested in that post.

 

[Velouria]

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

Exactly. GZ was the alleged "watch captain" and therefore, would be responsible for scheduling any shifts. Why would you need to work in shifts when you're the only guy on the team?

In other words, the distinction between "on" and "off" duty was entirely in GZ's head.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

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

That's a good question. I would think not since its going to come out at the trial and will become public knowledge.

But that's just my guess.

 

[impatientredhead]

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.

There is nothing to decide. A 911 operator is not a police officer and has zero authority to give you a binding order. If they did you would see people charged with disobeying a police officer for ignoring them. The gun lobbying groups have websites about the three reasons you should ignore the 911 operator, hang up right after you give your address, that everything else she says to you is irrelevant and taking up focus that should be on shooting your intruder. (Didn't say I agreed before everyone attacks! Just that it is a very common and public recommendation).


http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...-defense-tip-dont-listen-to-the-911-operator/

It is as simple as this though, 911 cannot be sued if they give you horrible advice that results in injury, because in addition to being a county or city employee which has its own protection, they are by definition giving you advice with limited and possibly faulty data, therefore they cannot be responsible for the advice they give you when it flies in the face of other data they don't have. When an LE takes you into custody they are responsible for your well being from that point until they release you, because they have taken away your ability to make decisions in your own survival. And there is a charge, disobeying a police officer, that is covered by the statute and it does not say ignoring a police officer or disbatch or an emergency worker or someone representing the police department. It is specific, disobeying a sworn officer, active duty. There is no comparison to an operator telling you they don't need you to follow someone.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

It all happened so fast. TM was just a kid not knowing he had a lose cannon following him. I doubt that TM realized the danger he was in until GZ approached him. TM was doing what every 17 year old boy does walk and talk on the phone. I'm trying to think of what my Son would have done at that age and I doubt he would have immediately called the police!!

It's frightening to me that people think that GZ was in the right? TM wasn't doing anything suspicious in the first place and then to be shot down because he wasn't recognized?

Does this mean that anyone living in a gated community in Florida shouldn't have any visitors and if they do don't let them out of the house for fear of being shot dead because their face is unfamiliar??

I don't think anyone is saying GZ was in the right. I, for one, am saying he may have done nothing wrong or illegal. Or maybe he did. We don't know. My reaction stems from so many acting as if they know he was wrong.

TM was suspicious to GZ because he was not recognized.
Being suspicious is not the same as doing something wrong - it means you might be doing something wrong.

We don't know whether GZ ever approached TM. We only know that GZ followed TM, and then lost him.

After losing him did GZ find him again and then approach him, or did TM decide to approach him? We don't know, but it doesn't matter, because it's not wrong or illegal for either one to approach the other.

Regardless of which one approached the other, at that point so far neither one had done anything wrong or illegal, but both had reason to find the other suspicious.

Once one did approach the other, either GZ shot TM in cold blood, or there were some words exchanged, and one or the other started a physical altercation, and eventually it lead to GZ shooting TM.

As others have noted, all that is relevant with respect to GZ's innocence or guilt is what happened in the last 60 seconds or so prior to the shooting, and we know nothing about that, except how it ended.

 

[impatientredhead]

That's a good question. I would think not since its going to come out at the trial and will become public knowledge.

But that's just my guess.

Autopsy photos they can seal, the report no.
Is my understanding of Florida's rule.

 

[HiHater]

No excuses.

A poster said he was told don't follow.
He wasn't.

That's not an excuse. That's factual. We all heard it in the 911 tape.

He was told not to follow. That's my interpretation, that's the way GEORGE ZIMMERMAN interpreted it, and I'm done with this line of discussion.

ETA: JMO MOO IMO

 

[Just K]

He didn't even describe the truck, so I would assume that either there's only going to be one truck in the area, or they were familiar with it...

well, one thing I noticed in those 46 or 47 pages of GZ previous 911 calls was that at some point the dispatchers started writing just "George" as the complainant as opposed to his earlier calls where they wrote out "George Zimmerman." It is safe to say they were on a first name basis with "George."

 

[Emeralgem]

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

I understand what you are saying now.. So GZ agreed with what dispatch instructed him to do yet continued on to do it his way..End result being he shot and killed a young man....JMHO

 

[Kimberlyd125]

OT, did you ever find that info you promised to post showing that certified teachers where you live in the United States only have to have AA degrees? You never did post it, would be very interested in that post.

I didn't say they only had to have AA degrees. I said they graduate and become teachers. I thought our CC offered Bachelors due to the fact that a good friend of mine graduated from BBCC and went right into a classroom.
I called my friend, and she had taken courses at LSU that I didn't know about.
I would have definitely gotten back to you but I was on a small hiatus.

 

[Karmady]

: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:

And those disclaimers are as good as the paper they're written on. They will get you nowhere in court. I'm sure y'all followed the sweat lodge case, and you saw how that turned out. There were waivers out the wazoo in that case. jmo

 

[grandmaj]

:deadhorse:

Everyone please move on and discuss some of the facts in this case. It is clear that the last 5 hours opinion has taken over this thread.

This is a fact based thread not a theory thread or opinion. Move on please. There has been news posted that hasn't been given a second glance. Check out the media, the court docket.

 

[LyndyLoo]

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.

:what: BBM
Ohhh Maybe you were unaware that gz was the NW team..he was the Captain of a non-membership team of watch persons..


I am conviced that the Sandford Dispatch non-emergency dispatch knew full well who George was..he even in his 911 Non-Emergency call that night reminded that dispatch person about all the breakins and so forth..So i just do not buy George was only a normal citizen reporting something..

On the contrary..george was on a mission to rid HIS community of these punks who always get away..(sneak insight to his mindset at the time)

 

[suzihawk]

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.

Good to know.

What do you think the instructions of the dispatcher were designed to accomplish?

 

[HiHater]

Imo, the pertinent inquiry is not what it turned out that Trayvon was doing, but what GZ reasonably believed that he was doing under the circumstances. And while that inquiry is, I agree, relevant to my post, it's not at all relevant to the case, imo. In court, the focus will be on who attacked whom. Not who got out of their car, or who was carrying skittles and tea, or who asked a question or what the NW rules were. So how GZ came to be in proximity to Trayvon will be, imo, totally irrelevant.

Whoa...I'd disagree.

GZ's story is that Trayvon doubled back and attacked him. Trayvon was on a path to where he was staying. How is the way they came to be in proximity just going to be disregarded?

 

[impatientredhead]

As has been posted before, there are no shifts for NW. You're just supposed to, ya know, watch. Traveling to the store and being on watch are not mutally exclusive.

Carrying a gun while acting in the duties of NW is a violation of the rules. He already called LE and they were on their way. He had no reason whatsoever to leave his truck.

Carrying a gun while doing neighborhood watch's legality is determined by the county and it is legal in his county. It is not the official recommendation of the nationwide organization, but the legalities are ruled by your local jurisdiction.

By your position that if you are part of NW you are always on duty you would be relinquishing your right to ever legally carry a concealed weapon? Cause you are on duty 24/7?