GZ Case - Defense Perspective

[Just K]

Corner, trap, detain . . . we don't know that's true, but it is inflamatory.
The above doesn't seem at all like a "Defense Perspective". Am I on the wrong thread?

We have already discussed this issue. Any Defense argument will be challenged by the Prosecution just as the opinions, ideas, thoughts and theories of WS members are challenged here.


The point here is:
The only thing we have, so far, to go on is the word of a man of questionable character.

 

[LambChop]

First the bold. Speculation and neither of us have proof to back our claims, so I'm not going to continue the circular argument.

Second, the underline. I was a 911 dispatcher. I can tell you factually two things here.

1) 911 dispatchers are NOT Law Enforcement, they are call center employees with a bit of training on crucial situations, and most are required to have a "Terminal Operator" certification so they can look people up in NCIC and FBI records - that's it. No law degree, in fact many places don't even require a high school diploma.

2) The 911 dispatcher did NOT give a command to not follow Mr. Martin. What she said was "We don't NEED you to do that" which is ambiguous. If the 911 dispatcher were to say "Do not do that!" this would be different, but I would still refer you to #1.

Now on to the rest of the post. In context to what I was replying to, if Mr. Martin felt scared his duty WAS to retreat. Mr. Zimmerman wanted to know what Mr. Martin was up to, I believe the question "What are you doing here?" could answer the question of "Why are you following me?" with a little common sense. I can not and will not speak on Mr. Zimmerman's behalf on why he did not ask the question before.

If Mr. Martin was really trying to get away from the threat, why didn't he make it home during the phone call with the 911 dispatcher that Mr. Zimmerman was on? He had plenty of time.

Now wait. It's okay for GZ to use SYG but not TM. Why didn't GZ retreat? He had the gun. GZ didn't because GZ was intent on not letting another one of those *en ***** get away. So GZ was the aggressor. How did GZ plan to stop TM after he saw him run????

LE depends on dispatch to give them proper information and on the civilian side to keep them safe and that is why there was the instruction, you don't need to do that. This dispatcher heard GZ say okay, which he assumed meant GZ understood. But we know GZ understood he just did not care about the safety of others which he proved by taking off after TM. GZ had no authority, the dispatcher warned him, LE gave clear instructions about following in the classes GZ attended. He knew better, he can't claim ignorance. He disgregarded what he knew was safe and went ahead and took matters into his own hands. LE was on the way. It was called in and it was now a police matter. With all GZ's training he knew that and with total disregard for the safety of his neighbors went ahead the followed TM anyway.

Also 911 is often in another area not within LE because they handle all emergency calls. GZ was not talking to a 911 operator he was talking directly to police dispatcher through the general number and works for the police department and his job is to send LE out, get all the information he can to prepare the officer for when he arrives. You would think, for his own protection, GZ would have informed the dispatcher he had a gun so the patrol officer would be aware of it when he arrived.

You can't expect kids to have the experience an adult has had and know exactly what to do in this type of situation. If they knew we wouldn't have so many children and young people going missing on a daily basis. JMO

 

[jaded cat]

First the bold. Speculation and neither of us have proof to back our claims, so I'm not going to continue the circular argument.

Second, the underline. I was a 911 dispatcher. I can tell you factually two things here.

1) 911 dispatchers are NOT Law Enforcement, they are call center employees with a bit of training on crucial situations, and most are required to have a "Terminal Operator" certification so they can look people up in NCIC and FBI records - that's it. No law degree, in fact many places don't even require a high school diploma.
2) The 911 dispatcher did NOT give a command to not follow Mr. Martin. What she said was "We don't NEED you to do that" which is ambiguous. If the 911 dispatcher were to say "Do not do that!" this would be different, but I would still refer you to #1.

Now on to the rest of the post. In context to what I was replying to, if Mr. Martin felt scared his duty WAS to retreat. Mr. Zimmerman wanted to know what Mr. Martin was up to, I believe the question "What are you doing here?" could answer the question of "Why are you following me?" with a little common sense. I can not and will not speak on Mr. Zimmerman's behalf on why he did not ask the question before.

If Mr. Martin was really trying to get away from the threat, why didn't he make it home during the phone call with the 911 dispatcher that Mr. Zimmerman was on? He had plenty of time.

BBM

Seriously? When is the last time you were job hunting? You can't get a job cleaning cages at a pet shop without a HS diploma. 7-8 years ago, when I was job hunting, jobs as an admin assist were requiring a college diploma and paying $10 an hour.

In my town, 911 operators are not police dept employees per say, but they are hired by the city under the LE budget. They are required to take 6 weeks of training and must take continuing education classes to keep up with the technology. The city doesn't go to the corner labor pool on a daily basis to get their employees.

 

[LambChop]

BBM

Seriously? When is the last time you were job hunting? You can't get a job cleaning cages at a pet shop without a HS diploma. 7-8 years ago, when I was job hunting, jobs as an admin assist were requiring a college diploma and paying $10 an hour.

In my town, 911 operators are not police dept employees per say, but they are hired by the city under the LE budget. They are required to take 6 weeks of training and must take continuing education classes to keep up with the technology. The city doesn't go to the corner labor pool on a daily basis to get their employees.

Dispatchers also have to learn all of the police codes and they are not easy. lol

 

[Deleted member 39678]

We have already discussed this issue. Any Defense argument will be challenged by the Prosecution just as the opinions, ideas, thoughts and theories of WS members are challenged here.


The point here is:
The only thing we have, so far, to go on is the word of a man of questionable character.

BBM
What is questionable about GZ's character?

 

[AJ Noiter]

BBM

Seriously? When is the last time you were job hunting? You can't get a job cleaning cages at a pet shop without a HS diploma. 7-8 years ago, when I was job hunting, jobs as an admin assist were requiring a college diploma and paying $10 an hour.

In my town, 911 operators are not police dept employees per say, but they are hired by the city under the LE budget. They are required to take 6 weeks of training and must take continuing education classes to keep up with the technology. The city doesn't go to the corner labor pool on a daily basis to get their employees.

I just checked our local guys again, and yeah, they require a GED. No highschool diploma needed. I think it's sad that they're being offered minimum wage these days though - the job is VERY stressful, it's non-stop "CYA." I'm not sure where the budget for ours comes from, we dispatched police and fire while a 3rd party was contracted to do medical. We still had the capability to dispatch ambulances, but those requests had to be approved by the contracted guys.

 

[jaded cat]

I just checked our local guys again, and yeah, they require a GED. No highschool diploma needed. I think it's sad that they're being offered minimum wage these days though - the job is VERY stressful, it's non-stop "CYA." I'm not sure where the budget for ours comes from, we dispatched police and fire while a 3rd party was contracted to do medical. We still had the capability to dispatch ambulances, but those requests had to be approved by the contracted guys.

A GED is the equivilant to a HS diploma but I think you know that.

 

[AJ Noiter]

A GED is the equivilant to a HS diploma but I think you know that.

Here it's not. Around here if you find a job making $0.50 more than minimum wage without a HSD you're in heaven.

As for the defense perspective. I wonder if that report of the autopsy is complete. Does it have toxicology and all that jazz? Is the reporter -sure- there isn't a wound on the hand from grabbing the weapon when it was being discharged (causing the slide to malfunction and not load another round)?

 

[lisalei321]

Here it's not. Around here if you find a job making $0.50 more than minimum wage without a HSD you're in heaven.

As for the defense perspective. I wonder if that report of the autopsy is complete. Does it have toxicology and all that jazz? Is the reporter -sure- there isn't a wound on the hand from grabbing the weapon when it was being discharged (causing the slide to malfunction and not load another round)?

In the state of FL it is...and thirty years ago, before 911 (which is when I was a dispatcher for our local PD) either was acceptable.

My sister is currently certified as a 911 Officer, she is bonded and has arrest authority. She also has to do way more CEU's than I do for my PHRM!

She works in a small department, and usually (not always), she works with another Officer who is on light duty.

So I have to disagree with you on this point.

 

[elementary]

Now wait. It's okay for GZ to use SYG but not TM. Why didn't GZ retreat? He had the gun. GZ didn't because GZ was intent on not letting another one of those *en ***** get away. So GZ was the aggressor. How did GZ plan to stop TM after he saw him run????

LE depends on dispatch to give them proper information and on the civilian side to keep them safe and that is why there was the instruction, you don't need to do that. This dispatcher heard GZ say okay, which he assumed meant GZ understood. But we know GZ understood he just did not care about the safety of others which he proved by taking off after TM. GZ had no authority, the dispatcher warned him, LE gave clear instructions about following in the classes GZ attended. He knew better, he can't claim ignorance. He disgregarded what he knew was safe and went ahead and took matters into his own hands. LE was on the way. It was called in and it was now a police matter. With all GZ's training he knew that and with total disregard for the safety of his neighbors went ahead the followed TM anyway.

Also 911 is often in another area not within LE because they handle all emergency calls. GZ was not talking to a 911 operator he was talking directly to police dispatcher through the general number and works for the police department and his job is to send LE out, get all the information he can to prepare the officer for when he arrives. You would think, for his own protection, GZ would have informed the dispatcher he had a gun so the patrol officer would be aware of it when he arrived.

You can't expect kids to have the experience an adult has had and know exactly what to do in this type of situation. If they knew we wouldn't have so many children and young people going missing on a daily basis. JMO

I think that is a very pertinent point. Why is it that Trayvon cannot be imagined standing his ground, and without a gun, while GZ gets every benefit of the doubt? I'm not American, don't have a dog in this fight, and I just don't get it.

 

[AJ Noiter]

I think that is a very pertinent point. Why is it that Trayvon cannot be imagined standing his ground, and without a gun, while GZ gets every benefit of the doubt? I'm not American, don't have a dog in this fight, and I just don't get it.

The only time where he would've had the right to "Stand Your Ground" is when the gun came into play, and then ONLY if he was the defender and not the aggressor. This stems from the Florida statute, and I'll bold the important words:

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

Trying to explain to a judge that you thought your life was in danger, or feared great bodily harm because "someone was following you" doesn't make sense.

 

[HiHater]

The only time where he would've had the right to "Stand Your Ground" is when the gun came into play, and then ONLY if he was the defender and not the aggressor. This stems from the Florida statute, and I'll bold the important words:



Trying to explain to a judge that you thought your life was in danger, or feared great bodily harm because "someone was following you" doesn't make sense.

It makes a lot of sense, actually. If you don't know why a person is following you, you wouldn't be the least bit afraid?

 

[jjenny]

It makes a lot of sense, actually. If you don't know why a person is following you, you wouldn't be the least bit afraid?

In a situation where there is a fight, either of the people involved could claim SYG. If Trayvon Martin was not dead, then he could have claimed SYG.

 

[AJ Noiter]

It makes a lot of sense, actually. If you don't know why a person is following you, you wouldn't be the least bit afraid?

Being "afraid" and fearing for your life or fearing great bodily harm is about to be done to you are two completely different things. Also, I'd like to point out that just because you say "I was afraid for my life" doesn't mean they're just going to take your word for it. A "reasonable person" must fear for their life/etc for SYG to be applicable.

 

[HiHater]

This case was over-charged after a special prosecutor was brought in because the local authorities felt they didn't have enough evidence to bring even manslaughter charges. Add in the gross misinformation (that borders on fabrication) and, IMO, it's been a witch hunt from the moment the MSM put out those two photos that did not resemble either TM or GZ and began reporting Crump's stories as undisputed fact.

JMO, OMO, and :moo:

What reason did the prosecutor have to over-charge this case? People were calling for an arrest, some for a conviction. No one demanded second-degree murder, many were shocked by it. I find it odd that people are saying not only did the SA cave to public pressure to charge, she actually overcharged by virtue of the same demand. It doesn't make sense to me...She could have placated people with simple manslaughter...

MOO

 

[HiHater]

Being "afraid" and fearing for your life or fearing great bodily harm is about to be done to you are two completely different things. Also, I'd like to point out that just because you say "I was afraid for my life" doesn't mean they're just going to take your word for it. A "reasonable person" must fear for their life/etc for SYG to be applicable.

No kidding, that's why GZ found himself with a 2nd degree murder charge...IMO

BBM

Also, if someone is following you, I would argue that you are essentially afraid of one of the two (life/great bodily harm). I mean, you're not usually scared that the person following you is going to give you a big hug and kiss...JMO

 

[AJ Noiter]

What reason did the prosecutor have to over-charge this case? People were calling for an arrest, some for a conviction. No one demanded second-degree murder, many were shocked by it. I find it odd that people are saying not only did the SA cave to public pressure to charge, she actually overcharged by virtue of the same demand. It doesn't make sense to me...She could have placated people with simple manslaughter...

MOO

To "calm the crowd." To "look like the heroine." There are many reasons for her to over charge. It could also be political, and if it is, even if she fails to deliver on THIS case it wouldn't mean her political career is over. I'm sure someone will help me with a name here, but one of the investigators for the Casey Anthony trial STILL proceeded to run for office after losing his case - I don't know if he won or lost that election but it struck me as odd that people would consider congratulating the investigator by electing him after he showed his lack in job performance.

The "overcharge" statement has been made by MANY lawyers. Some who are affiliated with certain networks, and some who were not. The biggest shocker, I think, to everyone was Mr. Alan Dershowitz saying what he did about it.

 

[AJ Noiter]

No kidding, that's why GZ found himself with a 2nd degree murder charge...IMO

BBM

Also, if someone is following you, I would argue that you are essentially afraid of one of the two (life/great bodily harm). I mean, you're not usually scared that the person following you is going to give you a big hug and kiss...JMO

I believe that might fall under the definition of "paranoia."

 

[HiHater]

I believe that might fall under the definition of "paranoia."

Sarcasm not necessary. Paranoia would be thinking you're being followed when you're not, but I think you know that.

If someone, who is a stranger to you, is following you---it would be reasonable to fear for your life and/or safety.

 

[HiHater]

To "calm the crowd." To "look like the heroine." There are many reasons for her to over charge. It could also be political, and if it is, even if she fails to deliver on THIS case it wouldn't mean her political career is over. I'm sure someone will help me with a name here, but one of the investigators for the Casey Anthony trial STILL proceeded to run for office after losing his case - I don't know if he won or lost that election but it struck me as odd that people would consider congratulating the investigator by electing him after he showed his lack in job performance.

The "overcharge" statement has been made by MANY lawyers. Some who are affiliated with certain networks, and some who were not. The biggest shocker, I think, to everyone was Mr. Alan Dershowitz saying what he did about it.

All of the reasons given by you are exactly why she would NOT overcharge. She could have calmed the crowd with any charge that led to an arrest/jury trial.