Witness accounts

[LambChop]

Thanks. Yes, I've seen that before. I wonder why they don't have that same warning about guns in their handbook?

I'm guessing because they thought number 10 was clear enough that people would understand:

10. Remember always that your
responsibility is to report crime. Do
not take any risks to prevent a
crime or try to make an arrest.
The responsibility for
apprehending criminals belongs
to the police department.

JMO

 

[Emma Peel]

Based on the definition I'd have to say Mr. Martin asking Mr. Zimmerman the first question very well could show who started the confrontation. It doesn't say anything about who assaulted who.

Why should I listen to his neighbor/friend/whatever he is? He has no relevance to this case other than a 2nd hand account of what happened that night, and we know that second hand accounts can't be wrong, right? Or can the 2nd hand accounts only have misunderstandings for Mr. Martin's side? Either way, he's getting his "15 minutes of fame" and people are eating up every word he says and basing accusations on it. It's silly, in my opinion. Who cares if Mr. Zimmerman likes to walk his dog while carrying his 9mm? I do too!

BBM.

Scooping up the field mice and bopping them on the head? LOL.

We've got the picture. Guns, good; field mice bad.

IMO, the good fairy caught up with GZ.

 

[LambChop]

I believe the key word in what vlpate was saying is the word "racial" in the term "racial profiling." No one, that I'm aware of, says that he wasn't profiling - he certainly was - but I doubt he was racially profiling.

Anyone think the FBI experts for the voice analysis listened to the 911 tape and will be testifying about that????? What else did GZ use to profile TM when we now know TM was doing nothing criminal?

 

[RANCH]

I'm guessing because they thought number 10 was clear enough that people would understand:

10. Remember always that your
responsibility is to report crime. Do
not take any risks to prevent a
crime or try to make an arrest.
The responsibility for
apprehending criminals belongs
to the police department.

JMO

Yes that sounds like reasonable warning. But I think that if they want people who have a CWP to leave their gun at home when they go outside, then they should put that warning in the handbook also. JMO.

 

[Emma Peel]

I believe the key word in what vlpate was saying is the word "racial" in the term "racial profiling." No one, that I'm aware of, says that he wasn't profiling - he certainly was - but I doubt he was racially profiling.

He was racially profiling if "black teens in hoodies" was the profile he was profiling for.

It's so obvious. I can't get real excited about nit-pickin' either. It is what it is. He was profiling and that profile involved race. Period.

Doesn't mean it was a hate-crime. But let's be real, shall we?

:cow:

 

[AJ Noiter]

He was racially profiling if "black teens in hoodies" was the profile he was profiling for.

It's so obvious. I can't get real excited about nit-pickin' either. It is what it is. He was profiling and that profile involved race. Period.

Doesn't mean it was a hate-crime. But let's be real, shall we?

:cow:

Sure, I believe it's being debated over in the FBI thread if you'd like to discuss it there

 

[LambChop]

No. He was not in Sanford when Mr. Martin was shot. He was out with Ms. Green in downtown Orlando. His "search" was to call the police. That's the extent of his search, really. The Sanford Police are not being charged with Murder 2, so his words about what the Sanford Police did or didn't do in their investigation seems to be pretty irrelevant, and given that most of the evidence that they do have did come from the Sanford investigators it probably wouldn't be a smart move to put someone up to bad-mouth the "lack of an investigation" that was done.

Well, Mr. Martin has nothing to lose. He's already lost his son. jmo

 

[AJ Noiter]

Well, Mr. Martin has nothing to lose. He's already lost his son. jmo

True, but if he gets on the stand and bad-mouths the investigation who does it look good for? Not the prosecution, that's who he's bad-mouthing. I'm sure we both agree that Mr. Tracy Martin wants Mr. Zimmerman to be convicted.

 

[LambChop]

Yes that sounds like reasonable warning. But I think that if they want people who have a CWP to leave their gun at home when they go outside, then they should put that warning in the handbook also. JMO.

I don't think they are telling him he CAN'T wear his gun. I think the message is he needs to keep it to calling it in, only, and not to pursue. If GZ felt TM was a threat to the community because of the fact that GZ was carrying a gun his obligation ended with the phone call. It now became a police department matter and GZ had no right to interfer. I mean, really, what did GZ expect would happen when he caught up with TM???? GZ had a gun so it appears he felt he could afford to be reckless. Because that is exactly what he did. jmo

 

[LambChop]

True, but if he gets on the stand and bad-mouths the investigation who does it look good for? Not the prosecution, that's who he's bad-mouthing. I'm sure we both agree that Mr. Tracy Martin wants Mr. Zimmerman to be convicted.

I have only seen the most professional type of behavior coming from Mr. Martin. If he is called to the stand, IMO, he will answer the questions in the same manner. And, you know, if that were my son and there was even a hint of coverup, I'd be bringing it to the attention of anyone I could get ahold of who would listen to me. We all would, and we know we would and if we think we wouldn't we are just kidding ourselves. jmo

 

[AJ Noiter]

I have only seen the most professional type of behavior coming from Mr. Martin. If he is called to the stand, IMO, he will answer the questions in the same manner. And, you know, if that were my son and there was even a hint of coverup, I'd be bringing it to the attention of anyone I could get ahold of who would listen to me. We all would, and we know we would and if we think we wouldn't we are just kidding ourselves. jmo

If he were to do so at this trial (if it gets that far), it would be out of place. If charges are brought against the Sanford investigators then sure, I would understand how he could take the stand but I do not see how it fits in with the trial regarding Mr. Zimmerman.

 

[LambChop]

If he were to do so at this trial (if it gets that far), it would be out of place. If charges are brought against the Sanford investigators then sure, I would understand how he could take the stand but I do not see how it fits in with the trial regarding Mr. Zimmerman.

No, it doesn't fit in. IMO he will testify about finding the call information that TM was on the phone with his gf right before he was shot. That is the only information that I can think of that they would need him to testify to, jmo

 

[vlpate]

Is this an opinion, or ... perhaps just a fantasy?

GZ was absolutely profiling. To say he was not profiling is is incorrect. IMO.

Key word, "racially". "To say he was racially profiling would be incorrect and would be easily disproved by the burglary reports and the history of crime on the property."

In my opinion. :moo::twocents:

 

[Emma Peel]

Key word, "racially". "To say he was racially profiling would be incorrect and would be easily disproved by the burglary reports and the history of crime on the property."

In my opinion. :moo::twocents:

Or, it could actually be proven to be true by same reports. IMO. Of course, we don't have those reports. So, it's moo, and likely moot until we do.

 

[Reader]

No. He was not in Sanford when Mr. Martin was shot. He was out with Ms. Green in downtown Orlando. His "search" was to call the police. That's the extent of his search, really. The Sanford Police are not being charged with Murder 2, so his words about what the Sanford Police did or didn't do in their investigation seems to be pretty irrelevant, and given that most of the evidence that they do have did come from the Sanford investigators it probably wouldn't be a smart move to put someone up to bad-mouth the "lack of an investigation" that was done.

Yep, all of 26.3 miles and 30 minutes away! It's strange that those that say GZ's doctor's office was so close that it shouldn't be questioned why he went there instead of right in Sanford, want to accuse Mr. Martin of being so far away he could not possibly be 'there' when his son was killed. He and his fiancee were only at a movie for a few hours!

http://www.bing.com/maps/?q=sanford...kbyUyQyUyMEZMX19fZV8mbW9kZT1EJnJ0b3A9MH4wfjB+

I'm sure Mr. Martin will answer whatever questions are put to him during the trial, truthfully. If he is asked about what happened between him and SPD he will answer it. If it proves lack of investigation or preferential treatment of GZ, so be it. That will explain why GZ is now charged by an out of town SA for 2nd degree murder that was not charged by SPD. Two people have left office because of the problems with this case and how it was handled, and previous history shows this was not unusual for the SPD. See the appropriate thread here.

Well, Mr. Martin has nothing to lose. He's already lost his son. jmo

How true...let the chips fall where they may...he only wants justice for his son.

Okay, I never read that. What I remember is after the question of what are you doing here there was a scuffling sound and the phone went dead. jmo

That's the same I remember...there was no repeating of TM asking 'why are you following me?'. This call and his own call also verifies at no time did GZ identify himself to Trayvon or explain why he was following him. Trayvon had every right to ask that question and defend himself since to him, GZ was just some strange man acting like a stalker for some unknown reason.

IMO

 

[vlpate]

#1:

Thanks for the link. From that link:
"We have recently experienced an increased incidence of crime within thecommunity including three break-ins in the past month, which is why having residents committed to being members of the Neighborhood Watch and reporting suspicious activities is so important. We must send a message that we will not tolerate this in our community!

BEM: I bet they regret this unfortunate choice of words now.

 

[AJ Noiter]

Yep, all of 26.3 miles and 30 minutes away! It's strange that those that say GZ's doctor's office was so close that it shouldn't be questioned why he went there instead of right in Sanford, want to accuse Mr. Martin of being so far away he could not possibly be 'there' when his son was killed. He and his fiancee were only at a movie for a few hours!

If I recall, I was replying to your words as stated here:

Excuse me? Trayvon's father was THERE and was searching for him the next day and was given the john doe photo of his dead son to identify by a SPD detective! He can testify to all of that plus the run through that the SPD gave him later, telling him how GZ stated what happened and where Trayvon died.

He can't be "there" and 26.3 miles away (in another city, which was my original claim that had you typing the words above) at the same time.

I'm sure Mr. Martin will answer whatever questions are put to him during the trial, truthfully. If he is asked about what happened between him and SPD he will answer it. If it proves lack of investigation or preferential treatment of GZ, so be it. That will explain why GZ is now charged by an out of town SA for 2nd degree murder that was not charged by SPD. Two people have left office because of the problems with this case and how it was handled, and previous history shows this was not unusual for the SPD. See the appropriate thread here.

<snip for relevance>

As I debated with LambChop, that's a very dangerous ground. It would then BEG for someone to call up one of the Sanford investigators to question them on WHY they didn't press charges. Who does this work for? Certainly not the prosecution as the investigator would have to say "we didn't have the proof needed to file charges." It wouldn't make sense for them to put him up to bad-mouth the investigation.

 

[vlpate]

Or, it could actually be proven to be true by same reports. IMO. Of course, we don't have those reports. So, it's moo, and likely moot until we do.

We've actually had those reports going on three months. I've posted them countless times. I can fetch them if you'd like?

 

[Just K]

Thanks for the link. From that link:
"We have recently experienced an increased incidence of crime within thecommunity including three break-ins in the past month, which is why having residents committed to being members of the Neighborhood Watch and reporting suspicious activities is so important. We must send a message that we will not tolerate this in our community!

BEM: I bet they regret this unfortunate choice of words now.

V: Did the "unfortunate" part come from SPD or the Homeowner's Association. That is the first time I have seen it. If this was in the RTL Newsletter, I agree, they probably regret that suggestion getting past the editor. I would love to know if part of GZ's responsibility as NW was to submit articles for the newsletter. If he wrote that sentence, all I can say is OMG!

 

[vlpate]

V: Did the "unfortunate" part come from SPD or the Homeowner's Association. That is the first time I have seen it. If this was in the RTL Newsletter, I agree, they probably regret that suggestion getting past the editor. I would love to know if part of GZ's responsibility as NW was to submit articles for the newsletter. If he wrote that sentence, all I can say is OMG!

It comes from this link. It looks as thought the NW wrote it since it lists the SPD phone number and their email. You're right though, that would be ... weird!