17 yo Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #33

[Kimberlyd125]

So does that mean that the credit card companies think I'm 21 because I'm getting applications on a regular basis. I think credit card companies target anyone who they feel will pay their bill. College students are a safe bet because companies figure they have the money (or their parents do) and they will be getting good jobs after graduation. It's a gamble they are willing to take. They really aren't a target. They are considered new customers. Where else would you expect to find new customers when the older ones like me say..."I have enough, thank you"? jmo

I disagree. Please see my post with the links explaining the problem.

They target them because it's easy.
Because they are not responsible.

Because they are unethical IMO.

ETA: Sorry Imma Be. Saw your post after I posted this one. Won't happen again.
:smile:

 

[atthelake]

FACT: I work in marketing communications and sometimes support clients for *crisis management*.

:moo::moo: This article to me looks perhaps that the family *sold* a stack of photos, and consideration I have is that it was perhaps MOM brokering that in return for a positive article, that hey got copyright privileges. Otherwise, IMHO MOO Reuters couldn't put a circle c on them.

:moo::moo: The DT is behind this article IMHO, and is doing so in an attempt for *crisis management* and to get positive public relations out in the media. Reuters is one of the MOST followed for other MSM media to pick up on IMHO and experience. I think MOM is a very good defense lawyers MOO.

I'm sorry. I was talking about the photos in the article not the bloody head photo.

I have seen it already assumed that GZ's family sold the photos. I don't think we can assume that because I think they are generic and could have come from a lot of different places.

JMO

Hey Kimberly - thanks for making me review. You are correct, that also others should be considered for selling these photos as it could have come from a lot of different places. 2+2=4 with me......so was doing, for consideration for other sleuthers, that it was family as so many were sold by someone who had the rights to them to sell. That just led me to primary consideration it was family supplying them to DT to Reuters. Both are just for consideration, opinion is ......that they should be considered. :waitasec: Again, you can *submit* articles to Reuters for Public Relations, and it there is not tag line for the author on something - HINKY! in that it is submitted......is a consideration. IMHO, MOO, :moo:

NOTE: I"m going to be a Chik-Fil-A cow soon with all this mooing! :floorlaugh:

 

[Reader]

There's a perception that if you associate yourself with GZ that it will open you up to all sorts of criticism since that's not the 'popular' thing to do. Apparently FT has no issue with this, or loves the spotlight because he has no trouble running his mouth in front of cameras.

Maybe the person who took the photo doesn't want the attention and I don't mean negative attention, but any attention? You know as soon as it would be found that who exactly this person is, the media would be camped on their doorstep asking questions about that night, they would have to hire a lawyer to speak for them, etc. Some people don't want any of that.

Then they shouldn't have provided the picture to a news org, only to LE. They really brought all that attention on themselves by making the picture available to the public.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

They really didn't because nobody know who provided the picture.
So IMO there is no attention that they brought to themselves.

 

[cityslick]

Then they shouldn't have provided the picture to a news org, only to LE. They really brought all that attention on themselves by making the picture available to the public.

Like I said, money talks. It won't be the first and won't be the last a photo gets leaked to the media. They are not all fakes.

 

[elementary]

I did find verification that GZ was licensed as an insurance agent in Florida:
Name of Licensee: ZIMMERMAN, GEORGE MICHAEL
License #: E007947
Business Location: ALTAMONTE SPRINGS,FLORIDA
Types and Classes of Valid Licenses
Type Original: GENERAL LINES (PROP & CAS)(0220)
Issue Date: 11/10/2004
Qualifying Appointment: NO
http://www.myfloridacfo.com/Data/AAR_ALIS1/index.htm

I don't seem that he had a business name for an insurance company, though I did find a George Michael Zimmerman who had a pressure wash company with a fictitious name in Lake Mary beginning in 2008 and still active. http://www.sunbiz.org/search.html

I don't think he could be an underwriter without a license. I'm not sure about being a 'fraud investigator' or whatever they called it.

IMO, JMO, etc.

Wow! Great find! I've been trying to find a definition of "qualifying appointment" and found none that made sense to me. After hitting several sites where this is mentioned, it seems that someone with an insurance license must apply for an appointment by a company (like Allstate, for example) in order to sell their products. According to the above, George was not an agent for anyone if I understand this correctly. Of course, I may be totally off base and I hope someone can correct that if so.

It is amazing that he supposedly started his own insurance business at age 20. It is also amazing how ridiculously vague the information is, proffered by lazy and irresponsible media and questionable anonymous sources.

 

[suzihawk]

I've read several public ones that they are the target of. I've linked a few here.

Do you have information where Shellie has in fact embellished the truth on quite a few occations?

I'm at work and can't link at the moment. But off the top of my head, I believe she said that she had never - not once - ever seen her husband get angry during the five years they've been married. There were a few other embellishments as well.

IMO, of course.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

Wow! Great find! I've been trying to find a definition of "qualifying appointment" and found none that made sense to me. After hitting several sites where this is mentioned, it seems that someone with an insurance license must apply for an appointment by a company (like Allstate, for example) in order to sell their products. According to the above, George was not an agent for anyone if I understand this correctly. Of course, I may be totally off base and I hope someone can correct that if so.

It is amazing that he supposedly started his own insurance business at age 20. It is also amazing how ridiculously vague the information is, proffered by lazy and irresponsible media and questionable anonymous sources.

I thought that source was named. His lawyer friend. Last name starting with a D.
Maybe I misread it.

ETA: yes, that source was named, his friend, Attorney John Donnelly

 

[Kimberlyd125]

I'm at work and can't link at the moment. But off the top of my head, I believe she said that she had never - not once - ever seen her husband get angry during the five years they've been married. There were a few other embellishments as well.

IMO, of course.

That's not a documented lie.
Unless you were in their house everyday you can't say she embellished that.

It might seem doubtful to you, but not a documented lie.


JMO

 

[elementary]

Someone would have to testify to the fact that they took the picture. I don't think defense can just present it as evidence unless it can be verified. So it is possible this will be the last time we see the picture if that person refuses to identify themselves. jmo

I'm thinking that not only would there be verification, but it would also make the photographer an eyewitness to George's 'wounds', no? And subject to thorough questioning on the witness stand.

 

[who]

I'm thinking that not only would there be verification, but it would also make the photographer an eyewitness to George's 'wounds', no? And subject to thorough questioning on the witness stand.

I'm pretty sure the EMT(s) are particularly important witnesses.

IMO, that report, and what they say, trump any gauzy picture on an iPhone.

 

[Bottle Cap]

Sure looks like Reuters bought a bunch of pictures. Copyrighted them too.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...vaged-burglaries-vandalism-just-shooting.html

Just so everybody knows, the Daily Mail is like the National Enquirer. Its a tabloid paper, not a source of hard news.



"The Daily Mail is a British, daily middle-market[2] tabloid newspaper owned by the Daily Mail and General Trust.[3]

"The Daily Mail was Britain's first daily newspaper aimed at the newly literate "lower-middle class market resulting from mass education, combining a low retail price with plenty of competitions, prizes and promotional gimmicks",[4] and the first British paper to sell a million copies a day.[5]"


[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_mail"]Daily Mail - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

 

[Adrienne37]

I'm thinking that not only would there be verification, but it would also make the photographer an eyewitness to George's 'wounds', no? And subject to thorough questioning on the witness stand.

I would like to see the SPD address this issue and explain to us how a person managed to get inside a crime scene to snap a photograph of the back of Zimmerman's head and also explain to us why he was allowed to be on his cell phone after just murdering a kid. Secondly, if what Oliver says is true and the photo was taken by the police on an I-phone, I expect SPD to address this issue as well and inform us why a police officer there to investigate a murder would take a photograph on his I-phone and then proceed to distribute it to ABC news.


~jmo~

 

[elementary]

He wrote in his senior yearbook that he was going to come to Florida to work with his godfather who just bought a $1 million business. Wonder what happened with that?

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/23/nation/la-na-nn-george-zimmerman-20120323



~jmo~

Well, that's more evidence to me suggesting grandiosity. And if his godfather is that rich (and it sounds as if his godfather was helping him out), why isn't he helping the family now?

 

[Phoenixfla]

Is there any doubt the media has exploited this case <mod snip> for their own selfish purpose?? Sensationalism sells!!
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/...-local-reporter-in-editing.html#storylink=cpy

Another one bites the dust.

What surprises me the most is that the MSM is actually doing something about it for once.

 

[Phoenixfla]

At best, it is an unholy mess. BUT, a mess that began because GZ assumed that TM was guilty of a crime that had not even been committed.

What crime did GZ assume that TM was guilty of? I have not read that. I understood that GZ thought TM looked suspecious?

 

[Kimberlyd125]

Well, that's more evidence to me suggesting grandiosity. And if his godfather is that rich (and it sounds as if his godfather was helping him out), why isn't he helping the family now?

We don't know what the godfather's financial status is today.
Surely it could have changed since GZ was in high school.

We also don't know what he is or isn't doing to help the family.

JMO

 

[gxm]

JMO/IMO
If she believes she has received threats, yes, she should be documenting and turning the evidence over for every one.

The police need to investigate. They will also be able to explain to her the difference between a threat, a death threat, hate mail, and folks who just don't agree with her husband's actions. They are not all illegal.

What I don't understand is why anyone would send menacing messages to GZ's wife. She wasn't involved in this tragedy. Why harass her or anyone else in his family? IMO, it makes no sense.

JMO, OMO, and :moo:

 

[atthelake]

I would like to see the SPD address this issue and explain to us how a person managed to get inside a crime scene to snap a photograph of the back of Zimmerman's head and also explain to us why he was allowed to be on his cell phone after just murdering a kid. Secondly, if what Oliver says is true and the photo was taken by the police on an I-phone, I expect SPD to address this issue as well and inform us why a police officer there to investigate a murder would take a photograph on his I-phone and then proceed to distribute it to ABC news.


~jmo~

It was clarified upthread that references to *cell phone* were in the vien of the person that took the photo, (perhaps a neighbor?) not that Zimmerman was on his phone. Please correct me ASAP if needed to so I can quickly correct this post if I'm incorrect.

ETA: I have been corrected downthread that shows a photo with explanation it WAS ZIMMERMAN ON THE PHONE about 3 posts down. Sorry, - and guess everyone's not on-board with previous Papa or Fessel post - so good brought forward as we don't have threads for static stuff for this yet.........just moving really quickly and on general thread #33!

"You can see that Zimmerman is on a cell phone in the picture that was taken. One of our wonderful members, I believe either Papa or Dr. Fessel, blew the photograph up and you can plainly see the cell phone to his ear. The photo has been linked in these threads numerous times."

 

[Phoenixfla]

Given all of the attacks and accusations leveled at Trayvon's parents for putting out a few pictures that were only a few years old, we now know that GZ's family had put out a picture that was 11 years old, pictures in that article were over 20 years old.

Sorry, but I see a difference in an article that chronicles GS's life, and the initial articles that only showed one photo of TM where he was several years younger than the night of the accident. I would not be opposed to an article chronicling TM's life with as many photos as they want to include.