George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin General discussion

[Horace Finklestein]

Sorry, but if you are going to do something at work and your boss says, "yeah I don't need you to do that" - are you going to just do it anyway??

That is saying "don't do it, we got this when we get there."

I hope George goes down.

Depends on the situation

 

[especiallyheather]

Sorry, but if you are going to do something at work and your boss says, "yeah I don't need you to do that" - are you going to just do it anyway??

That is saying "don't do it, we got this when we get there."

I hope George goes down.

But according to the non emergency call, he did NOT follow him, He said okay and then stopped and answered questions about his (Georges) location.

(I am Not defending anyone, it is too early to do that IMHO.)

 

[oyeyemi808]

Sorry, but if you are going to do something at work and your boss says, "yeah I don't need you to do that" - are you going to just do it anyway??

That is saying "don't do it, we got this when we get there."

I hope George goes down.

That's that some S#!$%! ALV would say it didn't mean don't follow! SMH

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Jhpuffy]

I can honestly say I have never seen a trial where people are so divided on the guilt or innocence of the defendant. I disagree with my own father on this case. I live in Florida and my daughter is almost the exact same age as Trayvon Martin. The thought of a grown man following her first in a vehicle and then on foot with a loaded weapon makes me cringe because I know she would fight for her life out of fear of being put in the trunk of his car. That being said the part of the phone call that stands out the most to me is when George Zimmerman tells the operator to have the police call him when they get there so he can tell them where he is at. That shows me he had no intention of going back to his vehicle or he would have just agreed to meet them where his vehicle was at by the mailboxes. JMO

 

[JudyBolton]

The 911 operator said "We don't need you to do that" totally different from "I don't want you following this guy".

George was nevertold not to follow.

My take on this is it was an authority issue - some accounts have implied that GZ broke some kind of law over this "we don't need you to do that" statement. It was not a command from law enforcement - but it was a statement from an operator.... who did not have authority to command him - nor (looking at the specific words) did she.

I thought GZ said he was following so that when law enforcement arrived they could find him. "we don't need you....." implies they thought they could find him even if he disappeared in someone's back yard for instance.

I am not able to hear the trial so this may have been covered already.

 

[SieSie]

Guys it does not matter if the attorney wiped his nose.. stay on topic.

Sorry, my bad. I'll just read along...

 

[iluvmua]

Sorry, but if you are going to do something at work and your boss says, "yeah I don't need you to do that" - are you going to just do it anyway??

That is saying "don't do it, we got this when we get there."

I hope George goes down.[/QUOTE]

George followed him for 11 seconds and then returned to his car. This is a VERY clear case of self defense.

 

[daisy7]

"We don't need you to do that" is not telling him not to follow him. Pretty simple. They don't have the authority to tell him not to follow him anyway. Media's done a good job of misinforming people.

We're gonna have to agree to disagree about this

 

[doubt]

so they're going to play the proverbial game of verbal volleyball when it comes to the 911 call. i don't see much success coming out of it. why call 911, emergency or non-emergency, if you aren't going to do as they advise? aside from saying ''ok'' when told ''we don't need you to do that," the remainder of the call makes it clear that gz was giving the impression he was NOT following any longer, and also that the 911 rep had no reason to THINK he was following.

i think this will come back to bite them as the prosecution will surely hit on this fact, and also i suspect that they will point out what i have long been bothered by....which is that as soon as GZ went on to make it so difficult for the operator to get police to his exact location, even asking responding officers to call him when they got there, it sure appears as though GZ went right back to doing what he was told he need not do.

moo.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

That's that some S#!$%! ALV would say it didn't mean don't follow! SMH

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Well she would actually be right in this case.

 

[oyeyemi808]

On both sides!!!

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

This is so disjointed. I followed the prosecution while writing out bills and making appts and going over my summer calendar.

Right now I am having trouble following and I am ONLY sitting at the LAptop...

How can the other Lawyer let this go on like this? I feel like this is a mistake..

 

[iluvmua]

My take on this is it was an authority issue - some accounts have implied that GZ broke some kind of law over this "we don't need you to do that" statement. It was not a command from law enforcement - but it was a statement from an operator.... who did not have authority to command him - nor (looking at the specific words) did she.

I thought GZ said he was following so that when law enforcement arrived they could find him. "we don't need you....." implies they thought they could find him even if he disappeared in someone's back yard for instance.

I am not able to hear the trial so this may have been covered already.

nope, he did not break any law.

911 operators have no authority to tell anyone what to do.

this is where a lot of confusion comes in.

It is not a crime to follow someone. It was a very stupid move on George's part but it's not a crime to follow someone.

 

[thefragile7393]

Prosecutors generally reach for the highest possible charge regardless, even when the evidence is better suited to one lesser. They are in the business of persuasion too...just as much as the defense.

Looking at the high profile cases of Scott P, Drew P, Jason Y, Jodi A, Brett S, they reached for and got exactly the right sentences. Just a few big examples, there are local ones I can cite. Yes some overreach. I haven't seen it in the cases I have followed, big and small, with the glaring exception of CA

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

 

[raine1212]

Guys it looks like the glitch is fixed

 

[doubt]

I can honestly say I have never seen a trial where people are so divided on the guilt or innocence of the defendant. I disagree with my own father on this case. I live in Florida and my daughter is almost the exact same age as Trayvon Martin. The thought of a grown man following her first in a vehicle and then on foot with a loaded weapon makes me cringe because I know she would fight for her life out of fear of being put in the trunk of his car. That being said the part of the phone call that stands out the most to me is when George Zimmerman tells the operator to have the police call him when they get there so he can tell them where he is at. That shows me he had no intention of going back to his vehicle or he would have just agreed to meet them where his vehicle was at by the mailboxes. JMO

you and i are on the exact same page! my thoughts exactly!

 

[cityslick]

nope, he did not break any law.

911 operators have no authority to tell anyone what to do.

this is where a lot of confusion comes in.

It is not a crime to follow someone. It was a very stupid move on George's part but it's not a crime to follow someone.

If you remember back when discussion was going on, there was talk of 'stalking' but I'm not sure the prosecution is going down that road. I never thought GZ was 'stalking' TM.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Guys, If you start arguing points, or making a judgment now that causes an argument, they are going to close this down and not let us discuss the case.

Just talk about the facts, Don't make absolutes because the truth is, that none of us was there and none of us know for sure. WE can only speculate. Listen to the evidence and let it lead you. This is not evidence today. IT is just opening statements. Persuasive argument.

Just take a pause before posting.

 

[iluvmua]

I can honestly say I have never seen a trial where people are so divided on the guilt or innocence of the defendant. I disagree with my own father on this case. I live in Florida and my daughter is almost the exact same age as Trayvon Martin. The thought of a grown man following her first in a vehicle and then on foot with a loaded weapon makes me cringe because I know she would fight for her life out of fear of being put in the trunk of his car. That being said the part of the phone call that stands out the most to me is when George Zimmerman tells the operator to have the police call him when they get there so he can tell them where he is at. That shows me he had no intention of going back to his vehicle or he would have just agreed to meet them where his vehicle was at by the mailboxes. JMO

He only followed him to see where Trayvon was going and to get a street address.

How can you continue to follow someone if you do not know where they are at?

 

[daisy7]

Guys it looks like the glitch is fixed

Awesome news!! BTW - Thanks, raine, for modding this thread!!!