Unarmed Florida Teen Shot

[crushing]

AND he lied about his ability to post bail and afford an attorney. This angel-of-the-night.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2

Yes, previous to the bail being set there was some confusion on the part of the judge and lawyers regarding the availability of the money in a fund that was set up for his defense. It's obvious now that Zimmerman's counsel should have included the defense fund money, if not along with Zimmerman's assets then on a separate line. Has he continued with the same lawyer? How would it look publicly if he dropped his counsel and hired a differe laywer? It would probably be seen as a negative for GZ.

 

[jks9199]

No, my point is, GZ was told not to follow, he disregarded. He played hero, and ended up losing. If both parties had every right to be in that area, as so many claim, then what was so suspicious about TM?

Was he told "don't follow him" or was he told "we don't need you to do that"? Very different meanings, no?

As to what made Zimmerman suspicious? We probably won't know until the trial. (I do wonder how they're going to get an untainted jury pool at this point...)

 

[Wo Fat]

What was TM doing that was suspicious?

Personally, I have no earthly idea. I haven't heard it in the 911 transcripts, nor have I heard it it news/media accounts. But it's likely one of the questions that the State of Florida (or United States of America) will be asking.

There'd better be a dam'd good answer.

 

[shesulsa]

Was he told "don't follow him" or was he told "we don't need you to do that"? Very different meanings, no?

Zimmerman had security training.

When I trained for security we were told, under no uncertain terms, to pay attention to what we were told - that there were clues in what could and could not be said by dispatchers and police/fire. If *I* called 911 and told the dispatcher that I was trying to keep the man in sight, was asked if I was following him, replied in the affirmative, and was told by the dispatcher, 'we don't need for you to do that,' I would be hearing between the lines that I was being told to fall back ... and I would damn sure do it.

This was a lesson that was hammered into our heads every damn day of training. Am I alone here?

 

[jks9199]

Zimmerman had security training.

When I trained for security we were told, under no uncertain terms, to pay attention to what we were told - that there were clues in what could and could not be said by dispatchers and police/fire. If *I* called 911 and told the dispatcher that I was trying to keep the man in sight, was asked if I was following him, replied in the affirmative, and was told by the dispatcher, 'we don't need for you to do that,' I would be hearing between the lines that I was being told to fall back ... and I would damn sure do it.

This was a lesson that was hammered into our heads every damn day of training. Am I alone here?

It's not consistent with any training I had as a security officer. Under two different instructors, it was heavily "observe & report." Emphasis was very much on do not engage -- but do call it in, and do report it. Often it's stressing continue to observe as long as you can do so safely. Most neighborhood watch programs are similar.

 

[Tgace]

I believe that Zimmerman's case could either be a good shoot OR a bad one depending on what EVIDENCE is presented. Im not sold that Z is 100% right or truthful here. I hear that detectives wanted to charge Z that night but the DA told them not to. That says something to me.

I'm just arguing that this COULD easily be a clear case of SD if the situation is indeed as Z is trying to suggest. If Z is lying than I hope he gets convicted.

What "gets me" are the people who have already convicted Z based on what they see in the media. They parrot the stalking/skittles/goodies crap and refuse to consider that Z.....regardless of ignoring a dispatchers statement of "we don't need you to do that".... may very well be telling the truth. I think that personal politics and media influenced opinions on race have much to do with it.

I think it would be interesting to mine the forum for some of the threads on what to do after a SD situation..you know the stay/leave....talk to cops/don't talk threads...to see how posters opinions there mesh with this situation.

Everybody thinks that if they get involved I a SD situation that its gonna be a clear cut case of them being in the right...when this is probably closer to the norm. A cluster.


Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[MJS]

Was he told "don't follow him" or was he told "we don't need you to do that"? Very different meanings, no?

As to what made Zimmerman suspicious? We probably won't know until the trial. (I do wonder how they're going to get an untainted jury pool at this point...)

Zimmerman had security training.

When I trained for security we were told, under no uncertain terms, to pay attention to what we were told - that there were clues in what could and could not be said by dispatchers and police/fire. If *I* called 911 and told the dispatcher that I was trying to keep the man in sight, was asked if I was following him, replied in the affirmative, and was told by the dispatcher, 'we don't need for you to do that,' I would be hearing between the lines that I was being told to fall back ... and I would damn sure do it.

This was a lesson that was hammered into our heads every damn day of training. Am I alone here?

It's not consistent with any training I had as a security officer. Under two different instructors, it was heavily "observe & report." Emphasis was very much on do not engage -- but do call it in, and do report it. Often it's stressing continue to observe as long as you can do so safely. Most neighborhood watch programs are similar.

I would say that the wording, while different, still has hints of the same meaning. He asked a question, I'm assuming along the lines of, "I'm following this kid." If they in fact said 'we dont need you to do that', that, IMO, could easily be taken as stop following the kid.

Now, if there's an emphasis on 'observe and report' I'd also imagine there should be some common sense involved, but we all know thats not exercised by everyone. I think it would be interesting to know what exactly he was/was not allowed to do under the watch program.

 

[MJS]

I believe that Zimmerman's case could either be a good shoot OR a bad one depending on what EVIDENCE is presented. Im not sold that Z is 100% right or truthful here. I hear that detectives wanted to charge Z that night but the DA told them not to. That says something to me.

I'm just arguing that this COULD easily be a clear case of SD if the situation is indeed as Z is trying to suggest. If Z is lying than I hope he gets convicted.

What "gets me" are the people who have already convicted Z based on what they see in the media. They parrot the stalking/skittles/goodies crap and refuse to consider that Z.....regardless of ignoring a dispatchers statement of "we don't need you to do that".... may very well be telling the truth. I think that personal politics and media influenced opinions on race have much to do with it.

I think it would be interesting to mine the forum for some of the threads on what to do after a SD situation..you know the stay/leave....talk to cops/don't talk threads...to see how posters opinions there mesh with this situation.

Everybody thinks that if they get involved I a SD situation that its gonna be a clear cut case of them being in the right...when this is probably closer to the norm. A cluster.


Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

Started a new thread. I look forward to your input.
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?104072-What-Do-You-Do-After&p=1502172#post1502172

 

[billc]

Some new thoughts on zimmerman as the victim of a hostile police officer...

http://pjmedia.com/blog/new-zimmerman-evidence-removes-any-doubt/

Here is the core of this nightmare. One detective decided, without evidence, that Zimmerman could not be believed. Chris Serino had no reliable evidence to support his position but he went ahead and submitted an affidavit calling for a manslaughter charge.

Detective Serino ignored the evidence that Martin walked around in the rain aimlessly looking at houses. He ignored the evidence that Martin had attacked Zimmerman and threatened to kill him, shouting: “You gonna die tonight, M__ F__!” The detective also ignored the obvious injuries on Zimmerman’s face during the interviews.
The chief of police and the district attorney first decided that there was not enough evidence to support Serino’s hunches. Lack of evidence is a cornerstone rationale for the operation of a civilized legal system when ethical officials decide not to proceed with a prosecution.

After the mob appeared demanding Zimmerman’s head, the governor appointed a new special prosecutor, Angela Corey, to handle the case. She openly talked about “Dear Trayvon” and appeared to support the mob’s suspicions.

Zimmerman was then charged.
Rather than investigate the New Black Panthers or the other criminals making death threats, teams of FBI agents and local investigators have been ordered by Eric Holder’s Justice Department to go around Florida asking about whether anyone has heard George Zimmerman make racist comments. You can’t make this stuff up.

 

[ballen0351]

I would say that the wording, while different, still has hints of the same meaning. He asked a question, I'm assuming along the lines of, "I'm following this kid." If they in fact said 'we dont need you to do that', that, IMO, could easily be taken as stop following the kid.

Now, if there's an emphasis on 'observe and report' I'd also imagine there should be some common sense involved, but we all know thats not exercised by everyone. I think it would be interesting to know what exactly he was/was not allowed to do under the watch program.

That's all fine and good but its not a crime to ignore a dispatcher.

 

[Wo Fat]

Here is the core of this nightmare. One detective decided, without evidence, that Zimmerman could not be believed.

Apparently, a Florida judge also decided that Zimmerman isn't someone to be believed. He had the chance to be free on bond, and when it came down to something so important as his freedom--and so simple as telling the truth--Zimmerman couldn't help but lie.

So it's no wonder that one or more detectives observed the same thing: Zimmerman tends to lie.

 

[MJS]

That's all fine and good but its not a crime to ignore a dispatcher.

LOL, never said it was. People ignore what I tell them to do all the time. However, by not following the advice/suggestions of what he was told, certainly doenst make him look good.

 

[shesulsa]

That's all fine and good but its not a crime to ignore a dispatcher.

LOL, never said it was. People ignore what I tell them to do all the time. However, by not following the advice/suggestions of what he was told, certainly doenst make him look good.

I believe it will be used to point to the fact that he did his job - observe and report - and had the opportunity to secure his safety at that moment when dispatch told him they didn't need for him to follow Martin. The audio tapes I listened to *sound like* Zimmerman continued to follow or pursue Martin at that point. This is the crucial moment for me in this mess. Feel free to disagree, and I'm almost sure he wasn't *looking* to kill someone that night ... but this moment right here carries some weight for me.

 

[Tgace]

I believe it will be used to point to the fact that he did his job - observe and report - and had the opportunity to secure his safety at that moment when dispatch told him they didn't need for him to follow Martin. The audio tapes I listened to *sound like* Zimmerman continued to follow or pursue Martin at that point. This is the crucial moment for me in this mess. Feel free to disagree, and I'm almost sure he wasn't *looking* to kill someone that night ... but this moment right here carries some weight for me.

How can you tell if he continued to follow TM...or was walking away from him...by the sound???

 

[jks9199]

Honestly -- what's it matter if Zimmerman continued to follow Martin or not? Let's be real -- the murder charge is unlikely to hold water; I don't think they'll successfully show anything resembling intent. I think it will finally turn on how Martin confronted and attacked Zimmerman.

 

[elder999]

Honestly -- what's it matter if Zimmerman continued to follow Martin or not? Let's be real -- the murder charge is unlikely to hold water; I don't think they'll successfully show anything resembling intent. I think it will finally turn on how Martin confronted and attacked Zimmerman.

Or forensic evidence that contradicts Zimmerman's story............

Or a plea deal.......................

Or any number of other things.

 

[ballen0351]

I believe it will be used to point to the fact that he did his job - observe and report - and had the opportunity to secure his safety at that moment when dispatch told him they didn't need for him to follow Martin. The audio tapes I listened to *sound like* Zimmerman continued to follow or pursue Martin at that point. This is the crucial moment for me in this mess. Feel free to disagree, and I'm almost sure he wasn't *looking* to kill someone that night ... but this moment right here carries some weight for me.

None of that matters when we talk about self defense. I could following you around call you names throw candy at you head run up and punch you in the back of the head. If you then beat me to the ground and well after I'm no longer fighting back you continue to kick me guess what I started it followed you and hit you first but your still going to jail.

 

[Wo Fat]

Honestly -- what's it matter if Zimmerman continued to follow Martin or not? Let's be real -- the murder charge is unlikely to hold water; I don't think they'll successfully show anything resembling intent. I think it will finally turn on how Martin confronted and attacked Zimmerman.

Except that the only way that one can conclude that "Martin confronted and attacked Zimmerman", is to believe Zimmerman's accounts. And he's already proven to be a liar.

No one can dispute that Zimmerman got his azz kicked. But one has to have a whole lotta faith to continue taking Zimmerman at his word as to how it happened.

 

[granfire]

Except that the only way that one can conclude that "Martin confronted and attacked Zimmerman", is to believe Zimmerman's accounts. And he's already proven to be a liar.

No one can dispute that Zimmerman got his azz kicked. But one has to have a whole lotta faith to continue taking Zimmerman at his word as to how it happened.

On the other hand it seems like the other party was no angel either.

Flip a coin.

 

[billc]

I must have fallen and hit my head. Granfire, that is an excellent, and well made observation. I'm going to go to the doctor now...