FL 17 y/o Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #12

[Dr.Fessel]

:maddening:ullhair::anguish::noooo::gasp:

:maddening: LOL LOL LOL Seeing red?

 

[Dr.Fessel]

Do you have a link to this HOA posting.

Ranch, I don't. Owl had it I believe.

 

[songline]

From your link:


Crump involved Sharpton. Trayvon's parents did not. The article does not say if Crump asked Trayvon's parents for permission to do so.

NO WAY would Al Sharpton be on the case if his parents did not approve.
IMHO - they had the final say.

AND in my opinion they needed a criminal lawyer not a civil rights lawyer.
IMO if all you want is justice, that is not the way.
Had they taken a criminal lawyer and did not get a criminal lawyer to do a
proper investigation and then decide to pull out the race card
THEN AND ONLY THEN would I say they just wanted answers.

The way this has been going to me it seems that this is more about
a pound of flesh for a pound of flesh.

 

[tehcloser]

:maddening: LOL LOL LOL Seeing red?

Magenta.

 

[LambChop]

I'm sure GZ had other life interests besides being a watchman.

people are acting like that's what he did 24/7 365 a year.

And we know from the manual no one is on duty. The only duty is to report a crime or a suspect. There is no such thing in the NWP as a patrol or a person responsible for calling LE. Each resident is on their own in terms of reporting suspicious behavior directly to LE. jmo

 

[w1df10wr]

Why not?If I had a carry,conceal permit I would carry it every where.Why become any ones victim. I can not recall the young woman s name but I do remember her being taken and killed from a target parking lot.Crime is every where why not have a fighting chance.

Her name was Kelsey Smith. And her killer was Edwin Hall - http://www.websleuths.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-71093.html - that was a sad case. Doesn't seem like its been almost 5 years ago.

 

[RANCH]

They are one in the same. The gun has nothing to do with it. He was obligated to stay where he was and meet LE, not to follow. Once he called LE his obligation was to them, to wait for them to get there so they would know what was going on, where this person went, did you see him committing a crime, etc. The "no gun" part is that NWP does not want you to pursue, only report, and certainly do not arm yourself and pursue the subject. Those are the rules...do not follow. This is all LE was asking him to do, stay, sit, wait. That part was quite clear. Only difference is LE was not aware GZ was armed. jmo

Do we know for sure that GZ disregarded the dispatchers suggestion to not follow TM? And if he did disregard this suggestion did he break any laws by doing so?

 

[TonyGatto]

I'm sure GZ had other life interests besides being a watchman.

people are acting like that's what he did 24/7 365 a year.

I wonder about that. He spent lots of time keeping a watch on the neighborhood, like open garage doors, he called 911 a lot. We know from his surrogates that he was into law enforcement and wanted to be a cop, took courses in LE, bought a gun, carried the gun, used the gun, worked as a bouncer, was charged with getting into an altercation with a cop, had a domestic violence incident with his girl. Seems like this is all within the subject area of cops and courts. I haven't heard anyone talk about his golf game.

 

[ThoughtFox]

Yes, mock the victims of violent forcible felonies that have been able to protect themselves because they were armed at the time. Perhaps you should tell the woman that was about to get raped in her own home that she shouldn't have shot the home invader multiple times, because having a weapon is unseemly. Perhaps you should tell the student that was shopping at Ingles and got stabbed and slashed multiple times that he shouldn't have pulled his gun and killed his attacker because his attacker valued the victim's car more than the victim's life. Perhaps you should tell the Army captain that came home to find all of his valuables piled up in the middle of his living room that he shouldn't have shot the burglar coming back into his house to finish what he started. I guess we should all be victimized, right?

What's the saying? When seconds count, the cops are minutes away?

I think the Mods wrote a warning the other day about such analogies that do not apply to this case. This is comparing apples and oranges.

The differences are:

• It didn't happen in Zimmerman's home.
• It didn't happen in Zimmerman's car.
• Zimmerman chose to get out of his car.
• It didn't happen in a store.
• No one was raped.
• Trayvon didn't commit a felony.
• Trayvon wasn't doing anything violent until approached.
• Trayvon also had a right to "stand his ground" when attacked
• It happened outdoors in public.
• Trayvon didn't have a weapon.
• Trayvon certainly didn't have a knife.
• No proof that a burglary was happening or was ever going to happen.
• Zimmerman wasn't an Army Captain.
• Trayvon had just as much right to be there as Zimmerman

I could go on and on. I wish we could just stick to the facts of this case and talk about that.

 

[m00c0w]

They are one in the same. The gun has nothing to do with it. He was obligated to stay where he was and meet LE, not to follow. Once he called LE his obligation was to them, to wait for them to get there so they would know what was going on, where this person went, did you see him committing a crime, etc. The "no gun" part is that NWP does not want you to pursue, only report, and certainly do not arm yourself and pursue the subject. Those are the rules...do not follow. This is all LE was asking him to do, stay, sit, wait. That part was quite clear. Only difference is LE was not aware GZ was armed. jmo

Then there should be no concern about him having a gun if he was going to the store, NWP or not.

 

[Concerned Papa]

magenta.

lol lol lol

 

[m00c0w]

I think the Mods wrote a warning the other day about such analogies that do not apply to this case. This is comparing apples and oranges.

The differences are:

• It didn't happen in Zimmerman's home.
• It didn't happen in Zimmerman's car.
• Zimmerman chose to get out of his car.
• It didn't happen in a store.
• No one was raped.
• It happened outdoors in public.
• Trayvon didn't have a weapon.
• Trayvon certainly didn't have a knife.
• No proof that a burglary was happening or was ever going to happen.
• Zimmerman wasn't an Army Captain.

I could go on and on. I wish we could just stick to the facts of this case and talk about that.

That would be fine and dandy, except I was posting in response to a question regarding why one would feel it necessary to carry a weapon all the time. The question was not restricted to the confines of this case, and I answered it as such. Thanks.

 

[songline]

THIS is incorrect....there are NO schedules of "patrol" in neighborhood watch, as the RULES of neighborhood watch specifically state that there is to be NO PATROL....EVER....BY ANYONE.

The rules as given by the person in charge of the city's NW as presented to this very complex and specifically to GZ who set up the presentation have been posted here a number of times. This woman states clearly that these are the rules everywhere.

Then who watches what when, we here have shifts of watch people.

 

[LambChop]

NO WAY would Al Sharpton be on the case if his parents did not approve.
IMHO - they had the final say.

AND in my opinion they needed a criminal lawyer not a civil rights lawyer.
IMO if all you want is justice, that is not the way.
Had they taken a criminal lawyer and did not get a criminal lawyer to do a
proper investigation and then decide to pull out the race card
THEN AND ONLY THEN would I say they just wanted answers.

The way this has been going to me it seems that this is more about
a pound of flesh for a pound of flesh.

What crime did the parent commit that they need a criminal lawyer? If it were me I'd have a personal injury attorney (as in wrongful death) on the case myself. That attorney would have had an accident reconstruction expert investigating already. Yep...that is exactly what I'd be doing if that were my son because I'd want the truth. jmo

 

[RANCH]

Ranch, I don't. Owl had it I believe.

Thanks. I would like to read it. I would like to see how it's worded where if police couldn't be contacted to call George. Why would it be possible to call GZ but not the police? Seems strange.

 

[songline]

I wonder about that. He spent lots of time keeping a watch on the neighborhood, like open garage doors, he called 911 a lot. We know from his surrogates that he was into law enforcement and wanted to be a cop, took courses in LE, bought a gun, carried the gun, used the gun, worked as a bouncer, was charged with getting into an altercation with a cop, had a domestic violence incident with his girl. Seems like this is all within the subject area of cops and courts. I haven't heard anyone talk about his golf game.

Hmmmm that makes him a crazy dud, itchng to shoot someone...:what::waitasec:

 

[csziggy]

Impressive work on this timeline. Minor differences between yours and the timeline info I had available, but any you look at it, by "Captain" George's own comments to the dispatcher, the boy walked from the clubhouse all the way to the 90 degree turn in the "back sidewalk" and started running at 02:06:65 into the call.

How do we know it's the 90 degree turn in the back sidewalk?

(1) Because that's the most direct route home for TM

(2) Because it's the ONLY place he could be running southwards towards the "back gate" and meet these qualifiers put out by the "Captain's" father:



Once you understand that the boy clearly walked 422 feet from point A to point B in 126 seconds, it's simple arithmetic to realize he did not dawdle, tarry, or "case the houses out" as the "Captain" was trying to tell the dispatcher.

He was very simply a boy trying to take candy home to his brother and was willing to walk in the rain to do it.

Thanks, CP. I thought about starting with your timeline, but decided to use original sources. My time stamps from the recording of GZ's calls are NOT exact. In an effort to try to line up the dispatcher entries, I did not mark times until after GZ makes the statements that the dispatcher had to hear to make those entries. And of course, it can be difficult to mark the times exactly.

I do find it interesting that the entry from the dispatcher about Trayvon running is at almost the exact time that the call logs indicate that Trayvon got a call from his girlfriend. Was the call that originated at 19:04 dropped when Trayvon began running?

I also did not try to line up any of the other 911 calls - but since it seems that there was only (an estimated) sixty second between the end of the girlfriend's last call and the arrival of the first SPD units, that could mean that the forty seconds of yelling on the 911 call marked as Call 3 at the City of Sanford site encompasses nearly all of any altercation between Travyvon and George. There was enough time after the gunshot for GZ to stand up and reholster his weapon before any witnesses got outside.

 

[Wise Old Owl]

The old "my rights end where yours begin" comes to mind.

Just because we all have "rights" - doesn't mean that those rights trump public safety.

Exp:

Flying - today - post 9/11 world - you take your shoes off - your possessions are x-rayed and looked at. And you certainly DO NOT CARRY YOUR GUN ONTO A PLANE - even if you have a CWP. Its a public safety issue. But, because of this - it does not mean you are GIVING UP YOUR RIGHTS - its your choice. If you don't like it - then don't fly. Its that simple.

In everday life - you have choices. We all have rights - you have a right to smoke (cigarettes); you have a right to drink; you have a right to enter public buildings; to have a right to ride public transportation; all kinds of things. BUT - there are rules (and sometimes even laws) too.

Exp: Just because you have a right to smoke - you can't go into a bar a "light up" - there are now laws concerning smoking indoors. If you don't like it - then don't go in there. It doesn't mean you are "giving up" your right to smoke.

Just because you have a right to carry your gun - doesn't mean you can go into any public courthouse in the country carrying it. If you don't like it - then don't go. But again, it doesn't mean you are "giving up" that right.

You have a right to drink. It doesn't mean you can drink and then get behind the wheel. Its a law. If you don't like it - then don't own a car. It doesn't mean you are "giving up" your right to drink.

Giving something up does not necessarily equate with the loss of a "right". If I have a right to carry a gun - it doesn't mean I can brandish that gun whenever or wherever I choose. I do that and I have now "broke the law".

Without our laws and rules - we would have chaos and anarchy. But just because we do have laws and rules - doesn't mean we have to "give up" rights.

It boils down to choices - which is what I just keep saying. We all make choices everyday - all day.

It was what GZ chose to do - and now he must live with the choices he made that night.




JMHO

 

[Dr.Fessel]

So we're back to giving up rights as citizens when you affiliate yourself with a NWP.

I guess so. Lot's of rights you have to give up when you affiliate yourself with certain organizations, and if you don't like the rules then you hang up your club pin, your bright sash, hand in your card or your Captain's cap.

 

[ThoughtFox]

That would be fine and dandy, except I was posting in response to a question regarding why one would feel it necessary to carry a weapon all the time. The question was not restricted to the confines of this case, and I answered it as such. Thanks.

Yes, you also wrote that people are "mocking victims" here on this thread, which isn't true, in my opinion.

If someone was actually in any of those situations you listed, of course they have a right to defend themselves.

The problem is, none of that applies to George Zimmerman or Trayvon Martin, no matter which was a victim. Not one situation you listed has anything to do with the facts of this case, except that those people were carrying guns too.

So you seem to be comparing Trayvon to a rapist, a burglar, a violent felon, and a car-jacker.