17 yo Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #35

[katydid23]

I saw this and heard part of a name. How in the world can it not be in the video?

You heard 'part' of a name? So then he stopped himself?

Then he did not expose her to the public apparently. He stopped himself in time. So what is all the hubbub about?

 

[thefragile7393]

He is part Peruvian, not Mexican.

Ok that would go under Hispanic which was part of my original post...I never said he was Mexican. I don't get the animosity between Latin/South American countries but....its common.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[katydid23]

Her statement was recorded. If her testimony differs, she impeaches herself basically. What's the problem with this, I don't see where you're going? They didn't secretly question her, they recorded her statement with ABC News present.

WHY would they put a shy, secret, anonymous minor in front of a news crew?

 

[highflyer]

It's not. We had a big discussion about it earlier. It's clearly not there and doesn't look like it happened.

I saw it. I heard it. This is not from group think, I saw it. It was quick, O'Mara apologized and judge said okay. If that isn't on the video then it's twilight zone time.

 

[Gwen]

Where in the laws or constitution does it say that you can walk down the street? Dance in your front yard? Breathe?

Laws restrict activities for the most part. The constitution restricts the government. If there are no laws prohibiting him from doing something (following an individual, for instance), then it's not unlawful and he has every right to carry out those actions.

I don't buy that because the constution doesn't say I can dance in my yard it is a given that GK is allowed to follow, harrass, stalk, and detain young people. That isn't reasonable.

I just want to know where it says (if anywhere in the law) that he had the right to do what he did?

I don't think he was loitering. He wasn't on private property. He wasn't disturbing anyone. It just isn't reasonable to act in the manner GZ did with all that has been reported. IMO

 

[m00c0w]

He had no autority to confront that child. He was not permitted under any law to detain, follow (after being told it wasn't necessary), or hinder the progress of his walk on public property. JMO

BBM

Can you provide a link that shows both of these specific actions to have been committed by Zimmerman prior to the affray that occurred which is still fairly nebulous as to how it was factually started?

And could you furthermore point me to the Florida or federal statute that prohibits an individual from merely following another individual? And perhaps the law that makes a dispatcher's suggestion (or "order" even) legally binding? You specifically state he's not "permitted under any law". Laws don't normally permit.

 

[katydid23]

Andy Rooney once said, "People will generally accept facts as truth only if the facts agree with what they already believe."

This is not directed to any one person in particular. I love the passion of the members here and am excited I finally decided to join in on the conversation. I think it is possible to feel one way and still see the facts objectively.

It is wonderful and refreshing to see individuals engaging with one another in a civil and respectful way online.

Great post. and welcome to WS. :fireworks::welcome: You are catching us on a good day. :crazy:

 

[m00c0w]

I don't buy that because the constution doesn't say I can dance in my yard it is a given that GK is allowed to follow, harrass, stalk, and detain young people. That isn't reasonable.

I just want to know where it says (if anywhere in the law) that he had the right to do what he did?

I don't think he was loitering. He wasn't on private property. He wasn't disturbing anyone. It just isn't reasonable to act in the manner GZ did with all that has been reported. IMO

If it's not restricted by law, it's lawful. It's really that simple.

 

[katydid23]

I saw it. I heard it. This is not from group think, I saw it. It was quick, O'Mara apologized and judge said okay. If that isn't on the video then it's twilight zone time.

I believe you said you heard "PART' of a name. So perhaps he caught himself. Which means it was a mistake. imo

And if he did expose her in court, why no mention of it anywhere in the media, or by any of his loud vocal critics and enemies. [ other than here that is.]

 

[jaded cat]

Andy Rooney once said, "People will generally accept facts as truth only if the facts agree with what they already believe."

This is not directed to any one person in particular. I love the passion of the members here and am excited I finally decided to join in on the conversation. I think it is possible to feel one way and still see the facts objectively.

It is wonderful and refreshing to see individuals engaging with one another in a civil and respectful way online.

BBM

I agree. I have my theories about what might have happened but I have no choice but to wait for the facts and forensics to come out. I am open to the thought that I may be wrong about somethings but nothing will deny the tragedy of a 17 yo young man being shot.

 

[highflyer]

You heard 'part' of a name? So then he stopped himself?

Then he did not expose her to the public apparently. He stopped himself in time. So what is all the hubbub about?

Yes, I heard part of a name. He did stop. He did apologize. The Judge said okay. At this moment the hubbub is about people saying that it isn't on the video.

 

[vlpate]

By accident. I explained exactly how I found it to the reporter, and she verified my info, and then wrote the story

So weird that one of the people on his friend's list is a PR person in Orlando and their layout is exactly the same. Even more strange, M'OM hasn't taken it down! It's been known this was there for a few days but no one was picking up on it, that's the only reason I was curious about how you found it. Thanks

 

[m00c0w]

Yes, I heard part of a name. He did stop. He did apologize. The Judge said okay. At this moment the hubbub is about people saying that it isn't on the video.

The judge never said "okay". The judge clarified why the investigator didn't want to reveal the name (by speaking to the investigator)... :waitasec:

JMO

 

[HiHater]

WHY would they put a shy, secret, anonymous minor in front of a news crew?

WHY not? Did you see her face or learn her identity in that interview? She was comfortable in her surrounding obviously, and her parents were probably present. This is a non-starter for me, I'm not going to try to find a way to villify a 15 year old child or decisions made about her.

 

[Gwen]

BBM

Can you provide a link that shows both of these specific actions to have been committed by Zimmerman prior to the affray that occurred which is still fairly nebulous as to how it was factually started?

And could you furthermore point me to the Florida or federal statute that prohibits an individual from merely following another individual? And perhaps the law that makes a dispatcher's suggestion (or "order" even) legally binding? You specifically state he's not "permitted under any law". Laws don't normally permit.

First of all, GZ told the 911 dispatcher he was following the boy.

Second, This was a child. He is was on public property.

As to 'merely following', it was more than that clearly. He was on the phone with 911 while he was following. It wasn't without purpose. It was not 'merely following".

Finally, I will use your post. "Laws don't normally permit". Show me where he had permission or authority.

 

[Just K]

and could you please provide the link to the evidence of Trayvon doing the hitting? Just because Zimmerman said it doesn't make it true. It's already been well established that he likes to tell tall tales.


~jmo~

And, his MS page eludes to a few times where his friends have had a part in helping out of some pretty sticky jams.

 

[highflyer]

The judge never said "okay". The judge clarified why the investigator didn't want to reveal the name (by speaking to the investigator)... :waitasec:

JMO

Thank you.

 

[HiHater]

I believe you said you heard "PART' of a name. So perhaps he caught himself. Which means it was a mistake. imo

And if he did expose her in court, why no mention of it anywhere in the media, or by any of his loud vocal critics and enemies. [ other than here that is.]

Maybe because discussing it in the media would bring more attention to an error/mistake/misjudgment or purposeful statement that should really just be forgotten?

I get why we discuss it, but why would the media?

 

[vlpate]

Yes, I heard part of a name. He did stop. He did apologize. The Judge said okay. At this moment the hubbub is about people saying that it isn't on the video.

"O'MARA: During this time, Martin was on the phone with a friend and described what was happening. How did you get that information?

GILBREATH: From Detective Osteen.

O'MARA: How did he get it?

GILBREATH: He interviewed the witness.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'll object to that witness' name being disclosed.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I apologize."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1204/20/cnr.02.html

 

[Gwen]

MooCow

Touche'. Cept we have a dead boy at the end of this harmless 'following' session. That isn't harmless following.