2012.05.17 Doc Dump Thread

[pcrum12]

That is strange accusation since GZ has Black ancestry himself and one of his first defenders was his close friend whose skin was the same hue as tM. Isn't it possible that since the demographic of the majority of criminals terrorizing this neighborhood was Black male teenagers...that GZhad a perfectly normal reaction to a strange teenager of THAT description walking in the rain? It was statisically
RATIONAL. In order to brand GZ a racist, one must deny his own mixed heritage, his very real friendships and the common sense reason for being suspicious of TM that night.


Some want us to ignore common sense and crime statistics in that neighborhood in order to deem this man a racist.

That is unfair. GZ had every reason to be WATCHFUL. For those who complain...do you want to dissolve every neighborhood watch then...or so hamper the simple aspect of observing someone because...someone else is annoyed by it? Then be prepared to be over run by crime. It has become useful unfortunately to expect people to deny very rational fears. It has become fashionable for us to teach our children to be aggressively aggreived. This is a poor idea.

Stopping crime trumps this "sensitivity." We need to teach pur children that. And we need to teach them respect and their own obligation to the community. Two schools amd three suspensions in the new school says to me that TM was having realroblems with authority and respect for others. Why do we teach our children now to feel this "entitlement"... that they can Talk,look, and do anything and they have their RIGHTS. They can e mbrace the GANSTA look and language And yet everyone should so ehow KNOW they are just faking.

GZ had a right to live in acrime free neighborhood. That trumps this silliness that he should not have offended TM's feelings by watching him.

Very well Said! You Rock! Where did the smiley icons go?????

 

[Dr.Fessel]

I don't think anyone has ever answered me when I have asked this, so if you know the answer, I would appreciate some direction here.

When was GZ directed to stay with the car? Did it occur while he was still in the the car? "Stay" to me indicates that he was *with* the vehicle and they told him to *remain* with the vehicle.

In hindsight, because of the way things ended up, it is easy to Monday Morning Quarterback and say that it was a poor decision for him to exit the vehicle.

If, however, TM had been someone with a gun and had murdered someone around the corner, or broken into a condo and raped someone or abducted a child, people would be complaining that he was too chicken to get out and keep tabs on the criminal and clamoring for laws that protect watchmen who intervene.

Or he could have just drove down to the end of the street and watched for Trayvon to come up the walk or try to leave the community, if he had done that he would have seen him go into his home. Then when the cops got there he could say he went into that home right there!

 

[Lovelymountains]

How is it you shoot someone from 3 feet away...directly into their chest...and it's not considered a crime?
Who provoked who? TM was just walking home.
I guess I'm missing something.

PS- GZ was close enough supposedly to say he thought TM looked high. Wasn't it dark?

Yes. Not only dark but raining. I don't think you're missing anything because that's what happened. TM was just walking home.

 

[RR0004]

He said he was "This guy looks like he's up to no good. Or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about."


I think it was his behavior and not his appearance that made him seem suspicious.

When I saw a pic of GZ in court right after he was arrested, I said the same thing. I know he couldn't possibly have shown up drugged, but there was something definitely off...his affect was just not right.
But you know what they say about "assuming". In this case, it got Trayvon killed. To be honest with you, I would hate to be in GZ's shoes.
There's no doubt in my mind (considering Trayvon's age) that he was more scared of GZ than the other way around.
JMO

 

[mommakk51]

Me too. Take it from someone who suffered a mild traumatic brain injury/ subdural hematoma, if the EMT's had any measure of belief that GZ really had taken the kind of beating he and his family described, they would have been adamant about taking him to the ER for a CT scan, otherwise, had anything actually been wrong (and it very likely would have been if his head had actually been pummeled into cement), they would have been liable for negligence.

... My first instinct was that GZ may have taken some sort of drug he didn't want detected, and now that we know he was taking Adderall, that instinct has only grown stronger.

They can NOT take someone to the hospital that refuses to go. That would open them up to a lawsuit too. GZ did not have insurance, I am sure he did not want to have a $15,000+ hospital bill that he would probably be sued for.
JMO

 

[wowitsdark]

I was just in my county's court house...simply walking down a hall...when I saw 2 police officers walking with a prisoner in chains. I was no where near them, but the police officer looked back and said to me "you need to stay back". Do you think that I wouldn't? Do we know for a fact that the dispatcher wasn't a ranking officer? In my town, the guy at the mic is often a police officer.

This may sound like semantics, but words have meaning and the meanings are important.

It's one thing for me to tell you what *I* need, and another for me to tell you what *you* need to do.

The policemen you encountered were clearly the ones with the 'upper hand' in terms of knowledge or insight of the situation at hand, and were in a position to tell you that *you* needed to stay back.

I believe that in GZ's case, when the dispatcher, who did not have the benefit of seeing what was happening, told GZ that they did not *need* him to follow did not have the 'upper hand' in terms of knowledge or insight into the situation.

The real question, I guess, is what the hearer thinks is the implied reason for there not being *need*.

In the GZ situation, I would have assumed the implication is, "We don't need you to do that - we can handle it."

But GZ's personal experience was that they *didn't* usually handle things in a timely manner, and time was of the essence.

I would contend that if what the dispatcher meant was, "STOP IT!" that he should have said what your policeman said: You need to stay back.

Instead, he said, "I don't *need* you to...", leaving it open for GZ to consider, "Oh, yes, really... you do. I can see the layout of the place and you can't, and there is no way they will find him if I don't look around that corner."

However... regardless... GZ's reply was, "Okay."

 

[Elley Mae]

I don't think anyone has ever answered me when I have asked this, so if you know the answer, I would appreciate some direction here.

When was GZ directed to stay with the car? Did it occur while he was still in the the car? "Stay" to me indicates that he was *with* the vehicle and they told him to *remain* with the vehicle.

In hindsight, because of the way things ended up, it is easy to Monday Morning Quarterback and say that it was a poor decision for him to exit the vehicle.

If, however, TM had been someone with a gun and had murdered someone around the corner, or broken into a condo and raped someone or abducted a child, people would be complaining that he was too chicken to get out and keep tabs on the criminal and clamoring for laws that protect watchmen who intervene.

Transcript
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html
audio
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zj7qEcD8R-8"]George Zimmerman 911 Call To Stanford Police Department - YouTube[/ame]

 

[RR0004]

Bottom line, Trayvon wouldn't be dead if GZ had just stayed in his vehicle.
JMHO

 

[Maxim]

I think the term was 'intermediate range'.

IIRC, in the examination of the hoodie, the term was "contact."

 

[wowitsdark]

When I saw a pic of GZ in court right after he was arrested, I said the same thing. I know he couldn't possibly have shown up drugged, but there was something definitely off...his affect was just not right.
But you know what they say about "assuming". In this case, it got Trayvon killed. To be honest with you, I would hate to be in GZ's shoes.
There's no doubt in my mind (considering Trayvon's age) that he was more scared of GZ than the other way around.
JMO

I don't know about that. GZ was too afraid that TM might be hiding somewhere and listening to him to even speak his own address aloud over the phone.

From my POV, this whole thing was just a tragic misunderstanding. Both of them had opportunities to do things that would have totally changed the course of their personal histories, but I don't think that *either* of them envisioned that their actions would result in a death. I think that both of them probably had reasonable, educated assumptions about each other and acted accordingly... and sadly, their assumptions were wrong.

 

[wowitsdark]

Because as evidence it should have been photographed where it was found. I think we can all agree it was not found in that position otherwise the photo would have been of TM's body showing the can exactly where it was found and frankly we would not have seen it. What we would see is a picture after it was gather and bagged. IT DOES NOT BELONG THERE. It's evidence. <modsnip>

Except that it was found *in* his pocket as they were attempting CPR.

You can't really photograph something in a pocket while it's actually in the pocket.

 

[RR0004]

This may sound like semantics, but words have meaning and the meanings are important.

It's one thing for me to tell you what *I* need, and another for me to tell you what *you* need to do.

The policemen you encountered were clearly the ones with the 'upper hand' in terms of knowledge or insight of the situation at hand, and were in a position to tell you that *you* needed to stay back.

I believe that in GZ's case, when the dispatcher, who did not have the benefit of seeing what was happening, told GZ that they did not *need* him to follow did not have the 'upper hand' in terms of knowledge or insight into the situation.

The real question, I guess, is what the hearer thinks is the implied reason for there not being *need*.

In the GZ situation, I would have assumed the implication is, "We don't need you to do that - we can handle it."

But GZ's personal experience was that they *didn't* usually handle things in a timely manner, and time was of the essence.

I would contend that if what the dispatcher meant was, "STOP IT!" that he should have said what your policeman said: You need to stay back.

Instead, he said, "I don't *need* you to...", leaving it open for GZ to consider, "Oh, yes, really... you do. I can see the layout of the place and you can't, and there is no way they will find him if I don't look around that corner."

However... regardless... GZ's reply was, "Okay."

I heard what I heard...and IMO dispatcher "sounded" like he meant business...IOW..."don't do that sir". We can debate words, intonation, nuance, etc. till the cows come home...but the point is...George's actions ended up getting a teenager killed...IMO.

 

[Yoda]

This may sound like semantics, but words have meaning and the meanings are important.

It's one thing for me to tell you what *I* need, and another for me to tell you what *you* need to do.

The policemen you encountered were clearly the ones with the 'upper hand' in terms of knowledge or insight of the situation at hand, and were in a position to tell you that *you* needed to stay back.

I believe that in GZ's case, when the dispatcher, who did not have the benefit of seeing what was happening, told GZ that they did not *need* him to follow did not have the 'upper hand' in terms of knowledge or insight into the situation.

The real question, I guess, is what the hearer thinks is the implied reason for there not being *need*.

In the GZ situation, I would have assumed the implication is, "We don't need you to do that - we can handle it."

But GZ's personal experience was that they *didn't* usually handle things in a timely manner, and time was of the essence.

I would contend that if what the dispatcher meant was, "STOP IT!" that he should have said what your policeman said: You need to stay back.

Instead, he said, "I don't *need* you to...", leaving it open for GZ to consider, "Oh, yes, really... you do. I can see the layout of the place and you can't, and there is no way they will find him if I don't look around that corner."

However... regardless... GZ's reply was, "Okay."

Was his 'okay' a yes or I understand you don't 'need' me to? The dispatcher did not follow up and make sure he stopped and returned to his vehicle. Wouldn't the dispatcher have done that if he meant stop now? If it's all relying on GZ getting out of the vehicle then the defense should review all police calls and see if direct instructions are given and reinforced ever. Moo

 

[wowitsdark]

And there's another witness who says she saw GZ on top based on photos on the news as the "larger man". Granted, the Trayvon photos shown at one time were when he was younger and the defense can ask her to clarify but Trayvon was only 2" taller (according to the ME report) BUTabout 40 lbs lighter.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/vide...nd-on-what-she-heard-on-the-phone#pl-68832490

IMHO, TM's oversized hoodie made him look larger than he probably actually was. His pants were also way too large (as is the style in many places)... so how he appeared and how he was were not necessarily the same things.

 

[pcrum12]

The facts may be...that tragically, TM is dead within an hour because he decided to use his fists to deal with a problem rather than his intelligence. The "cowboy" had no ESP to discern what TM's intentions were.

It's also a tragedy that residents of all races live in such fear that they need Watch Captains for extra protection, but that is a sorry fact. All of our children have to understand that it is those who harrass these neighborhoods that bring about a need for watchfulness or profiling. If old blonde women are causing the majority of crime in my neighborhood, then it is THEIR actions that cause me to be watched more closely. It is statistics that caused GZ to watch TM. Statistics are not racism, hatred or bias...they are just FACT not emotion. Working with fact is the only common sense way to protect your neighborhood.

IMO it is also tragic that so many good kids now wish to dress and style themselves and TALK as if they were "gangstas." Of course, they have the right...but do parents talk about the possible consequences? Or do we now feel so entitled that it is demanded that others discern the real thugs from the "pretenders?"

Imagine if TM had been taught to walk up to an adult and say "hi...I'm visiting with *advertiser censored* in Condo C. I thought you might wonder who I am...and I want to know that I'll be here for over a week." Kids used to be taught respect,humility, and how to approach a situation.....instead of rudeness, sense of entitlement, and finally, physical confrontation.

The media once again...was not content with truth or facts. TM was made five years younger and angelic. Anything negative about himwas met with emotional hysteria...as if TM's perfection was NOT to be questioned. Meantime, they scoured the gutter for anybody to say anything bad about GZ...could any of us stand against an army of paid character assassins reporting any unsubstaniated dirt? Everything was EMOTION. They did not even get GZ's race correctly reported...because the story was juicer if GZ was "white." Members of Congress referred to TM being "shot like a dog in the street."...as if there was no confrontation. TM's parents became media stars...and supposedly both quit their jobs. This became a one sided emotional Lynch Mob...demanding outcomes on falsely reported media "facts." Now the fairy tale is falling apart as FACTS come out. The media will slink away. They will report the stuff they don't like in a paragraph buried somewhere in the back where most will never see it. They have destroyed a man without a trial...to the point where our President (a lawyer) and our AG COMMENT on a case not yet gone to trial. Who is not going to convict GZ...he killed "the President's "son!!!!"

You may like this...but it is NOT justice. The whole matter is now disintegrating...fracturing into piles of little separate EXPOSED LIES. Just as Nancy grace took the night off when the Duke lacrosse Hoax was exposed...the media will slink away from the hysteria and lies they promoted. Think it's okay? Well, it could happen to you and yours.

Real subjects for scrutiny..like SYG laws will fade to the back again...just as the false duke Hoax set back REAL rape victims. In time, less and less people will give any credence to the important tangential issues because they feel duped by the fairy tale the media encapsulated those issues in.

So we all lose.

BRAVO! You have hit the nail on the head and expresses what I've failed to put into words.

 

[LambChop]

I don't know about that. GZ was too afraid that TM might be hiding somewhere and listening to him to even speak his own address aloud over the phone.

From my POV, this whole thing was just a tragic misunderstanding. Both of them had opportunities to do things that would have totally changed the course of their personal histories, but I don't think that *either* of them envisioned that their actions would result in a death. I think that both of them probably had reasonable, educated assumptions about each other and acted accordingly... and sadly, their assumptions were wrong.

Essentially, fear can kill you. It appears they both feared one another and only one person had the gun. jmo

 

[RR0004]

Trayvon Martin was a child who got shot in the heart. I have read very little of what's been written here or in the media. But, I did read the autopsy, and did read the word "homicide".
Also...IMO... close range would be used to describe being shot within inches...intermediate range would indicate to me being shot within feet of the shooter...while far range would indicate that someone had been shot at a considerable distance.
We'll never know what either the accused or the victim were thinking...but GZ will have to live with what he did for the rest of his life...while Trayvon's parents have to live with the loss of their son.
Sad all around.
JMO

 

[jjenny]

I think the term was 'intermediate range'.

That doesn't mean "feat." It means within inches.

 

[Just K]

GZ did not "track him down."....he watched him. That's what his volunteer job was all about. TM did not go straight home....he was not walking purposely to that condo. That and the fact that TM was not one of the neighborhod kids...coupled with statistics that put TM in the demographic of those criminializing that neighborhood...made it common sense to keep an eye on this stranger.

Too many thugs had gotten away "through the back gate"....too many thugs had done their crimes before LEcould get there. Trying to make it an outrage that GZ continued to watch this stranger in his neighborhood is putting sensitivity over crime and over common sense. So TM was watched. Either politely introduce yourself , call police, or GO HOME.

It is this sense of personal entitlement over common sense that allows crime to flourish. What if a strange teenager had killed a neighbor minutes later in commision of a crime. Would we not be criticizing the WATCH CAPTAIN who sat on his duff in the car and let that happen? Everyone's "rights" in that neighborhood were diminished by the thugs who were victimizing honest residents. Blame THEM for the extra scrutiny that made TM be looked at more closely.

People are tired of being victimized and hearing that we cannot use statistics to keep ourselves safe because someone's feelings may be hurt. THAT FACT is used by criminals to keep victimizing honest folks of all races.

Trayvon Martin was a free citizen of the United States of America and an invited guest at a residence in that gated community. He was under no obligation to walk or appear to walk in any particular manner toward any location purposefully or casually.

He was a free person and was not obligated to appear as if he was going anywhere. GZ had no right to impose his will onto another free person but he chose to anyway. It seems to be a pattern with that guy.

 

[jjenny]

Trayvon Martin was a child who got shot in the heart. I have read very little of what's been written here or in the media. But, I did read the autopsy, and did read the word "homicide".
Also...IMO... close range would be used to describe being shot within inches...intermediate range would indicate to me being shot within feet of the shooter...while far range would indicate that someone had been shot at a considerable distance.
We'll never know what either the accused or the victim were thinking...but GZ will have to live with what he did for the rest of his life...while Trayvon's parents have to live with the loss of their son.
Sad all around.
JMO

"The reports also noted the fatal wound's surrounded by a two-by-two inch pattern called stippling, caused by gunpower burns. It suggests Zimmerman fired inches away from the teenager."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_1...ords-were-its-over/?google_editors_picks=true