17 yo Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #32

[jaded cat]

He didn't break any laws when he failed to follow both polices as far as I know. JMO.

That's exactly why I stated they were policies, not the law. AFAIC, he broke the law when he shot TM in cold blood. :moo:

 

[Etilema]

Yeah there was if he formed the intent to shoot him the minute he saw him, and the call to dispatch was his cover. This is what I believe happened, he profiled TM racially or otherwise and decided to go gunning for him. In other words, I believe this was premeditated 1st degree murder, but I'll settle for 2nd degree. IMO!

I don't go quite that far. I think he intended to detain him, and was fully willing to shoot him if "necessary". In other words, I don't think he intended definitely to shoot him, but knew very well that it was likely to end up that way and was fine with that. And I agree that what he said to police was a cover, in case he did kill him.

Just My Opinion!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[HiHater]

Absolutely not.

"we don't need" is not an order.

"do not do that"
"stop doing that"
Those are orders.

As we have discussed before, is there any way to interpret "we don't need you to do that" into "go right ahead"? In any language, translation, dialect...I'm all ears. I know George speaks Spanish, but even then, I think the translation is direct...

This is a moot point by the way, because GZ says he didn't follow.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

And even if it had been an "order" it would be meaningless, since police dispatch has no authority to give binding orders. jmoo

I agree.

But, he was never told not to follow or to stop following anyway.

I don't see this being a factor at trial.

JMO

 

[annalia]

And that means...He was told NOT to follow TM...

I really never got the, it's ok because 911 didn't specifically say cease and desist immediately, just listening to the tone of the dispatcher's voice when he said it, there's no way that he didn't know that they said it for a reason. He's the one that called 911 for help and direction, they gave him direction. Ok that's enough, let us handle this.

It's not as if they said, "Oh that's so nice of you but we don't need you to do that, and then he responds oh it's ok I don't mind."

And he said "OK", he knew what they meant.

Maybe he wasn't actually breaking the law but it's one more thing that showed his intent.

JMHO

 

[Emeralgem]

Absolutely not.

"we don't need" is not an order.

"do not do that"
"stop doing that"
Those are orders.

Well lets put it this way... When my husband and I told our teenage daughters "we don't need for you to go out and drink, have sex, or do drugs, I can assure you that was an order for them not to do the things we told them they did not need to be doing... That was an order straight from my husband and myself..JMHO

 

[Just K]

ive been doing a lot of research into the other case in sanford, with the collison kid, ever since the commissioners meeting. A lot of the things there really opened my eyes a lil to the way spd handled the gz matter.
look at the comments section below this article. Notice the first comment. What a coincidence huh??? imo!
http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/new...of-sanford-police-lieutenant-turns-himself-in

Wow, and he even says, "CIRCLING THE WAGONS..."
..."Hargrett has already proved his incompetence and willingness to lie to the public and “circle the wagons” in order to protect his corrupt police officers..."

..."The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - E Burke
We live in an era where, a simple grass roots movement propelled by the discontented constituents of leaders, whom were entrusted with our safety, shall make a significant impact.. ."

I'd bet, if Fox were subpenaed, we would not be surprised at who the author of that comment turns out to be. (posted by We-shall-be-heard)

 

[saguaro]

No, what was said was they didn't NEED him doing that.

Big difference IMO.

Yep, big difference.

Like when I'm at the grocery store and I offer to put something back on the shelf and the stock person says "you don't have to do that".

I take that as a suggestion and I put it back anyway.

 

[suzihawk]

I honestly don't get all these, "the NW says this" and "the NW doesn't allow for this." The NW people have no authority whatsoever. They're just a bunch of random condo residents and "THE RULES" are primarily, if not exclusively, for the protection of the NW members and to limit the potential liability of the HOA. GZ was free to do whatever he felt was necessary and appropriate under the circumstances and within the bounds of "THE LAW," not "THE RULES." Imo, another one of those non-issues that won't matter, at all, in the long run. jmo

The point is, IMHO, that GZ seemed to have a great deal of difficulty following instructions. Especially if they didn't suit his purposes.

IMO JMO MOO

 

[MaryAnn]

He didn't break any laws when he failed to follow both polices as far as I know. JMO.

Except for killing someone.

 

[Karmady]

JMO/IMO
BBM
Except in the likely civil suit where the condo board, association, and owners pay dearly. They had an armed volunteer vigilante patrol with their blessing...and he killed an unarmed teen.

GZ wasn't an employee, he wasn't trained, he wasn't bonded, he wasn't insured...:what: It's a head scratcher, for sure.

Yeah, possibly. I wasn't thinking of the HOA situation from that perspective in my post. I know you and I and other have been over that and then some lol. If GZ is immune, I think it could make a big difference as to whether the HOA can be separtely civilly liable. jmoo

 

[LyndyLoo]

Don't fool yourself he grasped what dispatch told him.. He just made a decison NOT to follow instructions..JMHO

I woud also even go further...BY Gz acknowledging receipt of that instruction he himself put himself at risk, not to mention possible other innocents into danger by continuing and following to confront his perceived suspicious charater...SOO Gz cannot claim ignorance of the dangers of continuing not just for himself BUT for the possibility of innocents getting harmed in the process?/

geesh..he even said on the stand in his bond hearing..he did not know if TM had any weapon? All the What IF's??

Point for me is he followed his personal mission/agenda that cost an INNOCENT's life..and to blame that innocent for his own death is beyond me :banghead:

 

[suzihawk]

Don't fool yourself he grasped what dispatch told him.. He just made a decison NOT to follow instructions..JMHO

Precisely! I should have turned on my sarcasm button.

 

[jaded cat]

I honestly don't get all these, "the NW says this" and "the NW doesn't allow for this." The NW people have no authority whatsoever. They're just a bunch of random condo residents and "THE RULES" are primarily, if not exclusively, for the protection of the NW members and to limit the potential liability of the HOA. GZ was free to do whatever he felt was necessary and appropriate under the circumstances and within the bounds of "THE LAW," not "THE RULES." Imo, another one of those non-issues that won't matter, at all, in the long run. jmo

If he was ACTING as a member of his NW group, then yes, he is supposed to follow the policies of the organization. If he wants to be some rogue neighbor, cruising around with a gun, then he is only obligated to uphold the laws of his city, county and state.

He and FT both claimed GZ was a member of The Retreat at Twin Lakes NW group.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

As we have discussed before, is there any way to interpret "we don't need you to do that" into "go right ahead"? In any language, translation, dialect...I'm all ears. I know George speaks Spanish, but even then, I think the translation is direct...

This is a moot point by the way, because GZ says he didn't follow.

There is NOTHING in the English language that says "don't need to" is an order.
Nothing.

 

[mercuriod]

As we have discussed before, is there any way to interpret "we don't need you to do that" into "go right ahead"? In any language, translation, dialect...I'm all ears. I know George speaks Spanish, but even then, I think the translation is direct...

This is a moot point by the way, because GZ says he didn't follow.

Just thought I would be cute, LOL "we don't need you to do that" translated to spanish "no le necesitamos para hacer esto"

 

[mercuriod]

I agree.

But, he was never told not to follow or to stop following anyway.

I don't see this being a factor at trial.

JMO

Oh I do, it will show that GZ is the first aggressor, therefore can't claim the SYG immunity.

 

[Beyond Belief]

Was GZ actually "on duty" that night? I thought it was someone else's turn. So he was actually just acting on his own as a concerned citizen. Is the HOA really responsible for what a resident does on his own when he's not actually taking his shift, turn, duty or whatever they call it.

 

[Emeralgem]

I really never got the, it's ok because 911 didn't specifically say cease and desist immediately, just listening to the tone of the dispatcher's voice when he said it, there's no way that he didn't know that they said it for a reason. He's the one that called 911 for help and direction, they gave him direction. Ok that's enough, let us handle this.

It's not as if they said, Oh that's so nice of you but you don't need to do that, and then he responds oh it's ok I don't mind.

And he said "OK", he knew what they meant.

Maybe he wasn't actually breaking the law but it showed his intent.

JMHO

I understood the "ok" to be a confirmation in regards to GZ actually admitting he was following TM after the dispatcher had asked him IF he was following TM.. Does that make sense? No way do I believe the dispatcher was telling GZ it was ok to follow TM because he then immediately stated... "We don't need for you to be doing that"... JMHO..

 

[jaded cat]

Absolutely not.

"we don't need" is not an order.

"do not do that"
"stop doing that"
Those are orders.

We don't "need" you to walk in front of a passing train, but please feel free to do so if it suits you at the moment?

It has been discussed to death that the words used were "we don't need you to do that" and that a dispatcher is not a police officer. Neither side has budged an inch in that discussion. The judge will determine its relevancy.