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

[Elley Mae]

above respectfully BBM

Perhaps George thinks so, lol!. I noticed he corrected the dispatcher when he asked George his apt number. George replied, "it's a home".

Then he thinks better about giving his address for some reason and says, "crap, I don't want to give it out on here. I don't know where this kid went." (paraphrased)

It's just a little thing but one of many cumulative little things that bother me. They all look like apts/townhomes in retreat view to my old eyes and I just thought it odd to correct the dispatcher with this unnecessary information. IMO, a home would be a separate structure.

Has anyone heard if George will undergo a psyche evaluation? I've been away for several days and am behind in reading.

BTW, Hi everybody:seeya:

MOO

wm

bbm
because at that moment he was not sure where TM was and did not want TM to know where he (GZ) lived. At that moment he could not see TM.

 

[dunlurken]

And TM didn't have to answer him...Who the hell is he?

Is he in uniform? As far as I know only police officers have that right to stop and ask...I believe GZ is a person with impulse control problems, boundry problems and he thinks he's all that...He reminds me of a person deemed with 'little man syndrome', even as they relays to small statured men...but without his gun, who is GZ? His gun allows him to 'walk tall', without fear and I truly question the reasonable fear from GZ, when he always had the advantage over TM...

GM never retreated, is my belief..his mentality is evident in not wanting another *advertiser censored**hole get away...

his menality gets him in those violent messes...same with the ex fiance...she claims he started to sexually grope her, when she told him to stop, he said he could cause you're my woman..

starts on page 7 but that part on groping is page 8
http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/exhibit_list_redacted.pdf


GZ has boundry problems, is a paranoid dude...he started this fight with the X because she stopped for some cash and he thought she was elsewhere...

I always believe a liar always thinks the other person is lying...and I believe GZ is one....

<mod snip> definitely has issues. And his real problems are just about to start. Something else I find totally interesting on this board, is that the majority of posters think GZ was at fault. JMO.

bottom line: A defenseless human being is dead. No future, no nothing. However, we will have to wait until the trial actually starts to come to a complete and honest verdict. JMO

 

[Adrienne37]

But we still don't know how Oliver knew that since he claimed he had still not spoken to George at that time. How did he come by this little tidbit?

Wholeheartedly agree. This was back when Oliver was still claiming that he had regular contact with Zimmerman but of course, we know how that story ended...LOL. I have no idea if this information is true or not, just another piece of the puzzle especially considering that Oliver said it was the police that took it and Taaffe said it was a neighbor. Irregardless of who took it, it doesn't take away from the fact that:

1. Why would LE allow someone to come to a crime scene with a dead body laying there and take a photograph?

2. Why would LE take a photograph on a cell phone?

3. Last and certainly not least, why in the heck was Zimmerman not in handcuffs and allowed to be on his cell phone 2 minutes after MURDERING a kid?



~jmo~

 

[Phoenixfla]

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/hardball/47034974#47165102

Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz

Regarding probable Cause Affidavit – It won't suffice. Most affidavits of probable cause are very thin. This is so thin that it won't make it past the judge on a second degree murder charge. There is simply nothing in there that would justify second degree murder. The elements of the crime aren't established. Basically, what's in the affidavit is what's in the public domain, with the exception of the few little things that were put forward by your previous commentator. But the fact that the mother identified the voice as that of her son, of course, we all knew that that was going to happen. There is nothing in there, of course, either about the stains on the back of Zimmerman 's shirt, the blood on the back of his head, the bloody nose, all of that. It's not only thin. It's irresponsible. I think that what you have here is an elected public official who made a campaign speech last night for reelection when she gave her presentation, and overcharged, way overcharged. This case will not -- if the evidence is no stronger than what appears in the probable cause affidavit, this case will result in an acquittal.

But it's worse than that. It's irresponsible and unethical, and not including the material that favors the defendant, unless it's not true. But if it's true, as we now have learned from other information, that the grass stains are in back of Zimmerman 's shirt, that there were bruises on his head, you must put that in an affidavit . The affidavit has to tell the truth , the whole truth, and nothing but the truth .

Well, it's very easy to get an indictment. I think a chief judge of New York Court of Appeals once said that a prosecutor could persuade a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich . It's even easier to get something like this because all the prosecutor has to do is sign her name to it. But probable cause is a very minimal standard. It just means if everything you say turns out to be true, have the elements of the crime been satisfied? Proof beyond a reasonable doubt means that a jury has to conclude that there is no reasonable doubt that it happened. No reasonable doubt that it happened. This affidavit doesn't even make it to probable cause . Everything in the affidavit is completely consistent with a defense of self- defense . Everything. Even if he was the provocateur, you still have traditional defense under Florida law . If, in fact, Zimmerman provoked it but then Martin got on top and was banging his head against the ground, he still has a traditional right of self- defense . So, there is nothing in this affidavit -- and I 've read it quite carefully -- that suggests the crime. It suggests the possibility of a crime, but a good judge will throw this out. And I think probably she'd be satisfied with it. She's won her campaign. She's overcharged, second-degree murder. She's the hero.

 

[suzihawk]

What Jo said on March 27 has some credit now that the picture from a phone was released the day of the hearing.

It certainly does have some credit since the photo was released. But I still want to know HOW Oliver knew this.

 

[Adrienne37]

Here is another simple question:
Isn't it true that GZ, as any other defendant who is out on bail or bond, is free to work any job he is qualified to obtain. Well, within his curfew hours unless he telecommutes, of course.
I ask this question because some have stated that if he is offered immunity via a win on a SYG hearing, that he would be reimbursed for his lost wages and any debts he incurred while unable to work.

Note: To my knowledge, no one in any official capacity is prohibiting him from finding a job. Hell, he could put on a baseball cap and a uniform and deliver pizzas. I'm sure someone in the gun lobby would hire him to do an office job...maybe even data entry, at home and on his own schedule...more or less.
He could do cold calling for telephone surveys.

IMO, it is his an his lawyers choice for him to go into hiding...are we to assume that GZ will never work another day in his life because he is afraid to be seen in public? And if so, whose choice will that be?

The way I see it, he and his wife can get jobs and still remain in hiding.

It's ridiculous. Perhaps Zimmerman should have weighed all of his options closely before he decided to play judge, jury, and executioner. It sounds like he has "spotty" employment throughout the years anyway. He quit a job to keep from having his wages garnished. We, the tax payers of the state of Florida, owe Zimmerman nothing.


~jmo~

 

[impatientredhead]

Here is another simple question:
Isn't it true that GZ, as any other defendant who is out on bail or bond, is free to work any job he is qualified to obtain. Well, within his curfew hours unless he telecommutes, of course.
I ask this question because some have stated that if he is offered immunity via a win on a SYG hearing, that he would be reimbursed for his lost wages and any debts he incurred while unable to work.

Note: To my knowledge, no one in any official capacity is prohibiting him from finding a job. Hell, he could put on a baseball cap and a uniform and deliver pizzas. I'm sure someone in the gun lobby would hire him to do an office job...maybe even data entry, at home and on his own schedule...more or less.
He could do cold calling for telephone surveys.

IMO, it is his an his lawyers choice for him to go into hiding...are we to assume that GZ will never work another day in his life because he is afraid to be seen in public? And if so, whose choice will that be?

The way I see it, he and his wife can get jobs and still remain in hiding.

I have been looking for records on the SYG payouts by the state. They clearly reimburse legal and investigative fees, expert testimony, all that if the state loses. As far as lost wages though I haven't found a reference one way or the other. On one hand George was employed before this happened and no employer could have him there safely afterwards, but at the same time he lost that job before he was charged and it would seem that he would have lost it post shooting due to the publicity even if they had never charged him at all. I am still looking though, it has to be in the public records.

 

[Elley Mae]

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/hardball/47034974#47165102

If one where to believe that what alan says is true, then would one be wrong to believe that this is a dog and pony show to appease the public. jmo

 

[Adrienne37]

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/hardball/47034974#47165102

Thanks so much for refreshing our memories with this piece of drivel. He's been pretty vocal about the charges for quite a while. I read it a couple of weeks ago. First off, Alan Dershowitz knows absolutely nothing about this case other than what he has read, just the same as the rest of us. He has no clue what evidence there is. When he comes down here and takes a look at what evidence there is in this case, then perhaps his "opinion" will mean a little bit more.



~jmo~

 

[saguaro]

If one where to believe that what alan says is true, then would one be wrong to believe that this is a dog and pony show to appease the public. jmo

Alan Dershowitz goes by the law and not emotion.

In my opinion, he's one of the great legal minds of our time.

 

[impatientredhead]

Wholeheartedly agree. This was back when Oliver was still claiming that he had regular contact with Zimmerman but of course, we know how that story ended...LOL. I have no idea if this information is true or not, just another piece of the puzzle especially considering that Oliver said it was the police that took it and Taaffe said it was a neighbor. Irregardless of who took it, it doesn't take away from the fact that:

1. Why would LE allow someone to come to a crime scene with a dead body laying there and take a photograph?

2. Why would LE take a photograph on a cell phone?

3. Last and certainly not least, why in the heck was Zimmerman not in handcuffs and allowed to be on his cell phone 2 minutes after MURDERING a kid?



~jmo~

I have seen it mentioned repeatedly that GZ is not in cuffs, but the police report says that is the first thing they did. Is the statement that he is not based on the photo? That he is on the phone? If I was cuffed in front I could easily hold my phone from that angle? Or is the thought that if he was cuffed they would have taken his phone? Thanks!!!

 

[Cher352]

Thanks so much for refreshing our memories with this piece of drivel. He's been pretty vocal about the charges for quite a while. I read it a couple of weeks ago. First off, Alan Dershowitz knows absolutely nothing about this case other than what he has read, just the same as the rest of us. He has no clue what evidence there is. When he comes down here and takes a look at what evidence there is in this case, then perhaps his "opinion" will mean a little bit more.

~jmo~

But I think that is his point. His is looking at it from a legal standpoint of what is actually know and stated in charging documents. He is not trying to second guess the case based on unknown or theoretical facts.

JMO

 

[magnolia]

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/hardball/47034974#47165102

Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz. I really respect and trust his opinion.

 

[LambChop]

I have seen it mentioned repeatedly that GZ is not in cuffs, but the police report says that is the first thing they did. Is the statement that he is not based on the photo? That he is on the phone? If I was cuffed in front I could easily hold my phone from that angle? Or is the thought that if he was cuffed they would have taken his phone? Thanks!!!

In lockup his is shown as being cuffed in the back. It's SOP to cuff in the back when taking a suspect into custody otherwise they could use their cuffed hands as a weapon against the officer. jmo

 

[magnolia]

Thanks so much for refreshing our memories with this piece of drivel. He's been pretty vocal about the charges for quite a while. I read it a couple of weeks ago. First off, Alan Dershowitz knows absolutely nothing about this case other than what he has read, just the same as the rest of us. He has no clue what evidence there is. When he comes down here and takes a look at what evidence there is in this case, then perhaps his "opinion" will mean a little bit more.


~jmo~

It is not necessary that Mr. Dershowitz know all the details or evidence in the case in order to give his opinion on the Probable Cause Affidavit. IMO

 

[Just K]

One more thing about GZ's "inability to work or obtain gainful employment:"
In this day and age even the wages can be electronically deposited via direct deposit. GZ can give any address as a mailing address while he lives somewhere else. Nothing, but his own choice, prevents him from earning a living. IMO

And the same can be said for his wife and his immediate family members.

In Florida it seems that if a person chooses to be unemployed they can file for indigent status and that is just wrong, IMO.

 

[suzihawk]

Here is another simple question:
Isn't it true that GZ, as any other defendant who is out on bail or bond, is free to work any job he is qualified to obtain. Well, within his curfew hours unless he telecommutes, of course.
I ask this question because some have stated that if he is offered immunity via a win on a SYG hearing, that he would be reimbursed for his lost wages and any debts he incurred while unable to work.

Note: To my knowledge, no one in any official capacity is prohibiting him from finding a job. Hell, he could put on a baseball cap and a uniform and deliver pizzas. I'm sure someone in the gun lobby would hire him to do an office job...maybe even data entry, at home and on his own schedule...more or less.
He could do cold calling for telephone surveys.

IMO, it is his an his lawyers choice for him to go into hiding...are we to assume that GZ will never work another day in his life because he is afraid to be seen in public? And if so, whose choice will that be?

The way I see it, he and his wife can get jobs and still remain in hiding.

All good points to be sure. But I wouldn't want him delivering pizza to my house! :what:

 

[Just K]

All good points to be sure. But I wouldn't want him delivering pizzza to my house! :what:

He could wear a costume and be a sign flipper for new condos at gated communities. Something like that. He can work if he wants to. IMO

 

[cityslick]

Wholeheartedly agree. This was back when Oliver was still claiming that he had regular contact with Zimmerman but of course, we know how that story ended...LOL. I have no idea if this information is true or not, just another piece of the puzzle especially considering that Oliver said it was the police that took it and Taaffe said it was a neighbor. Irregardless of who took it, it doesn't take away from the fact that:

1. Why would LE allow someone to come to a crime scene with a dead body laying there and take a photograph?

2. Why would LE take a photograph on a cell phone?

3. Last and certainly not least, why in the heck was Zimmerman not in handcuffs and allowed to be on his cell phone 2 minutes after MURDERING a kid?



~jmo~

I've heard of LE doing this before (taking pictures with a cell phone) but it's not SOP and in fact there is nothing official about it. If a cop is taking pictures on a cell phone, he's taking them as pictures for himself, not for LE or part of any investigation.

 

[suzihawk]

I've heard of LE doing this before (taking pictures with a cell phone) but it's not SOP and in fact there is nothing official about it. If a cop is taking pictures on a cell phone, he's taking them as pictures for himself, not for LE or part of any investigation.

What reason would a cop working on an active investigation have to do that?!