When people sates that GZ called 911 are they aware he called the non emergency dispatch ( my city and most others have it so 911 isnt clogged up with calls that are not life threating at that moment)
so GZ called non emergency.. due to his life wasnt in danger at that time. The non emergency dispatch is not an officer (which to me they are acting on belhalf of the police department so I will say technically not an officer) The dispatch told him you dont "need" to follow him.. that was not saying specifically retreat, go the other way... just you dont need to follow him was to me more like a suggestion.
To follow somone that you think is suspicious is not a crime.. i have called police and stayed behind a drunk driver so i didnt lose track..however no i did not get out of my car but i certanly followed a suspisious person that YES I was profiling as DRUNK.
There are some on news and interviews that state why the dispatch or GZ say somthing to the extent of ok I will call you back in a (dispatch to zimmerman) that is nothing out of the ordinary.. when I have called police or non emergency they first ask for basically a life history from me.. .including telephone number and they have called back when phone disconnected in a domestic argument. I do not have issue with the dispatch stating he would call back.. (possible to get the address GZ was attempting to find)
some of the shows on such as JVM have really irritated me.. for two days her question was why did zimmerman and dispatch and police report state so many times that Martin was a black male... hello???? when you call 911 or non emergency they as race and gender and what the person has on, if they are known to have weapons, color of shirt and pants, if they are alone, what direction etc..police reports have the same information to identiify a person (martin was a john doe at some point due to no id)
think of it this way.. if i call 911 to a white man who is walking and i feel that i need to report him for whatever I FEEL may be a crime or potential crime... should I state there is a man walking down the street and only give his shirt color and not state it is hooded or a jacket hood where i can not see his face... if those facts were left out then the responding officer may very well stop an innocent white male in any color clothes and jacket or no jacket and stop the wrong person while a potential break in or other possible crime is committed... I just dont see where the hoodie and stating he is a black male plays into this... the words "these Punks"... I have punks in my neighborhood that range from 14 to 25 that are white, black, asian, hispanic all races that I most certainly would call punks.. due to two reasons.. punk is a word that most younger generation use.. i used it when i was younger didnt mean a BLACK person.. when I use it now refering to kids in neighborhood.. i say to myself.. ok punks get out of the street, ( incidentally the group of kids in my neighborhood.. vandelize vacent houses, steal bikes, fight with smaller kids, curse at adults, egg houses) I dont think punk fits that.. In fact they are thugs.. and that means to me trouble makers with no regard to anyone else... so TM being callled or refered to as a punk is not a racial slur, it is not profiling... it is simply a word... what if GZ used the word "these idiots or these people"
It doesnt matter to some.. GZ could of used the phrase " these sweet boys or these neighborhood kids ) and some still would have issue with it.
I will be interested in how it play out in court.. which side can present the best case with facts.. my words are only opinions and will be before I get the facts.. but at this point I am leaning 80% that GZ was overcharged and perhaps should not have been charged due to IF and only IF TM did come back to confront him that would make TM the aggressor.. and the mere fact of one blow to the head on the concrete most certainly cause great bodily harm.. what was GZ supposed to do.. wait untill his head was bashed what maybe 10 more times and then say... ohhhh my.. i think I am in danger of bodily harm or death...The person in danger has instint and if he felt he was honestly in danger for his life then stand your ground applies. The age of a 17 year old varies and their stregnth.. I have a 17 year old who is 5.0 even and tiny... I have friends of my 17 year old who are 5.9 to 6.2 who i do not know their weight but i know they are very physically fit due to I see their football drills and they are strong .. stonger than some men.. didnt TM play football since he was a small child.. that builds muscle and a well fit young man.
lease: anticipate that the prosecution has been as diligent as our WS members and also that THE QUESTIONS are asked, the inconsistencies as noted are EMPHASIZED rather than *advertiser censored*-U-ME the jury panel (OR the judge if a SYG hearing occurs) will "catch on"/apply intuitive logical thought processes! :banghead::banghead::banghead:
