FL - 17-yo Teen Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #4

[Wise Old Owl]

GZ made is easy for us to know what was in his head:

GZ said to the 911 dispatcher - "these ****** always get away" In his head he was thinking about the burglaries in the neighborhood and the ******* were the ones getting away - his speach tells us he is relating TM walking alone to the ***** that always get away.

GZ also whispers that slur. Now, whether or not you want to hear it or don't - doesn't matter. IMHO its there - and the FBI will enhance that part and analyze it. They have the best equipment available to do this.

And, in the end, JMHO that GZ will be charged with a hate crime. GZ's own words and past history of 911 calls paint a fairly clear picture of what was in his head.


JMHO

 

[Ironhorse]

Mine!!! Not linking either. TMI. Y'all don't need to know where my kid goes to school.

I can fully respect you not providing a link and I'm grateful you didn't provide one. I feel exactly the same way you shouldn't provide a link... I was merely asking a question and am more than delighted to accept your word on the matter... I still think a 2 week suspension for something so trivial is way to harsh. Geez what do you get for chewing gum in class suspended for a year? Don't answer that... Mr. Martin suspension has no bearing on the incident of what happened at Sanford.

Thanks for the answer

 

[LolaMoon08]

DISPATCH: Are you following him?

ZIMMERMAN: Yep

DISPATCH: Okay, we don't need you to be doing that.

ZIMMERMAN: Okay.

What part of "we don't need you to be doing that" do we not understand? It's clear, imo, that the dispatcher did not want Zimmerman to follow him. He does not demand it, but clearly does not want Zimmerman to follow him. Zimmerman confirms by saying "Okay" like he is following the advice of the dispatcher, but we all know he didn't.

 

[Boytwnmom]

just like I've seen the right wing alter pics of the President to look more black. Apparently too many of us think like GZ, black is bad, the blacker, the badder.

I'd also like someone with more photographic knowledge to chime in. I'm an amateur but it looks to me like the first photo is a close up crop with a lot of noise in it. I also read that the first version was a low resolution image taken from a protesters sign which makes sense as the picture caption was about protesters carrying signs with that photo. They probably later got the ACTUAL photo. I'll try to find this in an MSM form but sadly this is a story making the rounds on right wing blogs as no one in the sane media seems to fell this an issue worth exploring. Hopefully they will make note of it though as find this ugly, really, really ugly.

pic #1 is the original pic as ran by the Miami Herald

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/22/2708960/trayvon-martin-a-typical-teen.html

pic #2 is the pic altered to change the public's perception

http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/usa/images-8/trayvon-martin.jpg

Clearly, it has been lightened, or softened, somehow. Along with other possible alterations, he looks far more, perhaps innocent is the right word, in the altered image. For the record, that has nothing to do with the guilt, or innocence, of anyone involved, but more to do with the reporting of the story.

 

[momshrink]

That's purely anecdotal. I'm sure there are plenty of people with the opposite experience.

People with the opposite experience most likely would be anecdotal evidence. My work involves empirical evidence and adolescent psychology is one of my areas of expertise. However, providing peer reviewed findings will most likely not convince those on this forum.
I do think it sad that some have such a jaded and pessimistic view of teens who are our future. I think we all tend to base our beliefs on our experiences. It would be wonderful if we could all live and work with mostly good people.
MOO, JMO

 

[Horace Finklestein]

they told him to remain in his vehicle

I thought they just said "we don't need you to do that" (follow him).

 

[songline]

Actually, it doesn't clear much up for me at all. My confusion is this; was George Zimmerman acting in his capacity as Neighborhood Watch commander when this incident took place, or was he acting as Joe Average Citizen on his way home from the store?

If the former, it seems clear that he was in flagrant violation of protocol and was exceeding his authority, likely exposing the HOA and other entities to liability. If the latter, it seems clear that he should not be able to cloak his actions in the blanket of authority conveyed by acting in an official capacity, and Trayvon should bear no burden to treat him as an official authority figure. It doesn't seem like Zimmerman should get to have it both ways. I just want to know for sure which he is claiming. Was he "on duty" or was he a private citizen on a personal errand? Jmoo

To my knowledge he was not on duty as a watchman.
HOWEVER!
Many off duty cops when they see something they say something.
GZ was not on duty but he did see a young man whom he had never seen before,
and was wondering what he was doing in his gated community.
HE WAS ACTING AS A WATCHMEN it was his duty to do so, whether it was his allocated watch time or not.

 

[songline]

I thought they just said "we don't need you to do that" (follow him).

That is what I read too.

 

[Boytwnmom]

shouldn't MR. Head Neighborhood Watch Man know the rules? It's been shown over and over that the rules and their training as provided by the local LE all say to NEVER carry a gun, NEVER follow a suspect, NEVER try to apprehend someone, that there is a WATCH role and a POLICE role. GZ should have been MORE aware than anyone of the need to stay in his car and wait for the real police who might have been able to discern the difference between a kid coming home from the store with candy and an armed criminal.

Absolutely not true. Blatant made up statement.

911 dispatcher: OK. We don’t need you to do that. [2:26]


Continue reading on Examiner.com George Zimmerman's 911 call transcribed - National unsolved cases | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/unsolved-ca...immerman-s-911-call-transcribed#ixzz1q9ZBobgH

 

[Rougelatete]

We don't know that Trayvon didn't start the fight. I doubt GZ did.

Please read my response on page 47 and explain how there is evidence that GZ did not start the fight. Thank you.

 

[LambChop]

I am disgusted that this CRIME this MURDER is being politicized as a 2nd amendments rights argument when it's a FACT GZ was told to remain in his vehicle he did not do that he went after TM on foot. He shot him in the heart and killed him. TM was unarmed Nothing else matters IMO

I don't think it is a 2nd Amendment issue and I don't understand why people feel it is. Anyone who is licensed to carry a gun can do so. It's when you discharge your weapon and how you choose to use it that can be the problem. Not all gun owners are responsible people. I do not think GZ was a very good judge of character and lacked the very communication skills he needed for the position he found himself in. If you are in a security job you identify yourself immediately before asking someone a question. He never did that. He never availed himself when he had the opportunity with LE on the line to question TM as to why he was on the property. It would have ended it right there. The dispatcher only can advise him by what GZ was relaying to him on the phone. GZ being the eyes and ears. GZ was describing a suspect who was acting suspicious and apparently appeared to be on drugs. It certainly was not hard for LE to jump to the conclusion of self defense when GZ had already set the stage of 'this is one of them that usually gets away' theory.

No one wants to debate that front gate area with GZ on the phone with LE and the chance he passed up to end it right there. I think GZ wanted TM to be that "punk" he described to LE. I don't think it was ever a black thing but to GZ it was a punk thing, it was another one of those kids that always gets away. That comment will haunt him for sure and might be enough to get him into court. I hope so. TM's family needs to know the truth. There should be nothing to hide now, their son is dead and GZ is free. jmo

 

[rhornsby]

Prior to Stand Your Ground, a person was allowed to defend themselves using deadly force, but only after first attempting to "retreat to the wall." If they did not retreat, they would have to convince a jury why they reasonably believe retreating would not save them.

Under Stand your Ground, you are no longer required to first attempt to retreat, however your use of deadly force still must be objectively reasonable.

In this case, the most crucial piece of evidence that is missing is the circumstances under which Zimmerman became physically engaged with Trayvon. If Trayvon simply swung at him, deadly force would not be justified.

But if, say, Trayvon jumped him and somehow got on top of him and started beating on him, Zimmerman's use of deadly force would be reasonable if he was on the ground - even under the old law, because once you are in a defenseless position you can no longer retreat.

Much of the outrage centers on Trayvon Martin being 17, having skittles and iced tea, etc. These were all unknowns to George Zimmerman. All he knew was a strange person was in his neighborhood and when Trayvon started running, Zimmerman rightfully thought it was suspicious.

And while I neither believe GZ should have ignored the 911 dispatcher's directives nor brought his gun; the simple truth is neither of those things are against the law, nor do they diminish his right to defend himself IF Trayvon ultimately initiated the altercation somehow.

And that is the problem, we don't know the circumstances of how the actual altercation started. If the physical evidence, not the before and after evidence, supports GZ's self defense; the unfortunately he was within his right to use deadly force.

He was not supposed to know TM was 17, had skittles and iced tea, before doing so.

 

[songline]

People with the opposite experience most likely would be anecdotal evidence. My work involves empirical evidence and adolescent psychology is one of my areas of expertise. However, providing peer reviewed findings will most likely not convince those on this forum.
I do think it sad that some have such a jaded and pessimistic view of teens who are our future. I think we all tend to base our beliefs on our experiences. It would be wonderful if we could all live and work with mostly good people.
MOO, JMO

We cannot walk around with eyes wide shut.
It is historically known that the teen years are the most rebellious,
the most emotional, and on and on.
I have done a lot of counseling professionally.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

DISPATCH: Are you following him?

ZIMMERMAN: Yep

DISPATCH: Okay, we don't need you to be doing that.

ZIMMERMAN: Okay.

What part of "we don't need you to be doing that" do we not understand? It's clear, imo, that the dispatcher did not want Zimmerman to follow him. He does not demand it, but clearly does not want Zimmerman to follow him. Zimmerman confirms by saying "Okay" like he is following the advice of the dispatcher, but we all know he didn't.

Well that is not the same thing as telling him to not follow Trayvon.

 

[Ironhorse]

Actually, it doesn't clear much up for me at all. My confusion is this; was George Zimmerman acting in his capacity as Neighborhood Watch commander when this incident took place, or was he acting as Joe Average Citizen on his way home from the store?

If the former, it seems clear that he was in flagrant violation of protocol and was exceeding his authority, likely exposing the HOA and other entities to liability. If the latter, it seems clear that he should not be able to cloak his actions in the blanket of authority conveyed by acting in an official capacity, and Trayvon should bear no burden to treat him as an official authority figure. It doesn't seem like Zimmerman should get to have it both ways. I just want to know for sure which he is claiming. Was he "on duty" or was he a private citizen on a personal errand? Jmoo

Those are excellent questions...

A lot depends on as you say was he acting in the capacity of Neighborhood watchman or an average Joe? If it was the former then the HOA could be held liable furthermore did the HOA lay out specific rules as to whether or not a Watchman could be armed or not? If it was the latter this might absolve the HOA much of the liability but it also frees up Mr. Zimmerman from being restrained by any Watchman rules if there was any to begin with...

Sadly none of us know any of those details we can only speculate...

 

[Salem]

Let's move it over everybody! Please continue here: [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7719287#post7719287"]FL - 17-yo Teen Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #5 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]


Locking up in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 -

 

[SuziQ]

I can fully respect you not providing a link and I'm grateful you didn't provide one. I feel exactly the same way you shouldn't provide a link... I was merely asking a question and am more than delighted to accept your word on the matter... I still think a 2 week suspension for something so trivial is way to harsh. Geez what do you get for chewing gum in class suspended for a year? Don't answer that... Mr. Martin suspension has no bearing on the incident of what happened at Sanford.

Thanks for the answer

You are welcome. I meant the comment about linking in a lighthearted way. I should have put a smiley or something after that.

 

[RANCH]

Prior to Stand Your Ground, a person was allowed to defend themselves using deadly force, but only after first attempting to "retreat to the wall." If they could did not retreat, they would have to convince a jury why they reasonably believe retreating would not save them.

Under Stand your Ground, you are no longer required to first attempt to retreat, however your use of deadly force still must be objectively reasonable.

In this case, the most crucial piece of evidence that is missing is the circumstances under which Zimmerman became engaged with Trayvon. If Trayvon simply swung at him, deadly force would not be justified.

But if, say, Trayvon his and then jumped him and somehow got on top of him and started beating on him, Zimmerman's use of deadly force would be reasonable if he was on the ground - even under the old law, because once you are in a defenseless position you can no longer retreat.

Much of the outrage centers on Trayvon Martin being 17, having skittles and iced tea, etc. These were all unknowns to George Zimmerman. All he knew was a strange person was in his neighborhood and when Trayvon started running, Zimmerman rightfully thought it was suspicious.

And while I neither believe GZ should have ignored the 911 dispatcher's directives nor brought his gun; the simple truth is neither of those things are against the law, nor do they diminish his right to defend himself IF Trayvon ultimately initiated the altercation somehow.

And that is the problem, we don't know the circumstances of how the actual altercation started. If the physical evidence, not the before and after evidence, supports GZ's self defense; the unfortunately he was within his right to use deadly force.

He was not supposed to know TM was 17, had skittles and iced tea, before doing so.

Thanks Richard. Your post says exactly what I feel about this case.