George Zimmerman / Trayvon Martin Case #2

by Porky Thu May 24, 2012 1:09 am

How about this for that cozy relationship with the police. Checkout the emails of praise.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/23/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn

by DebFrmHell Thu May 24, 2012 1:55 am

ellejay wrote:--since it comes up now and again, and for the accuracy of the T/L----the media got involved about 10 days after the shooting.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/03/us-usa-florida-shooting-trayvon-idUSBRE8320UK20120403
Trayvon Martin: Before the world heard the cries

--snipped--

Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton wanted George Zimmerman arrested. They believe he stalked their son because he was black, and they were outraged that Sanford police had accepted Zimmerman's claim of self-defense.

Lee, the police chief, would contend under Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law that police could not arrest Zimmerman without evidence to contradict his story. Martin turned to Patricia Jones, his sister-in-law.

An attorney herself, she knew whom to call: Benjamin Crump, the state's best-known civil rights attorney, based in Tallahassee. Crump and law partner Daryl Parks had previously gained renown representing the family of a black teenager who died in a boot-camp-style youth detention center in 2006, winning the boy's family $7.2 million in damages from the state of Florida and Bay County.

On Tuesday, February 28, Crump was at the Duval County Courthouse in Jacksonville, about 125 miles north of Sanford, arguing that public records should be released in civil litigation over Antonio Cooks. Cooks, a black bail bondsman, had been shot and killed by Jacksonville Sheriff's Officer Jason Bailey while Cooks was serving a warrant and Bailey was responding to a burglary call.

During a break in the hearing, Crump noticed messages from Tyrone Williams, another attorney he knows, and Jones. They urgently asked for his help. Soon Jones put him in touch with Tracy Martin.

"I told him to believe in the system," Crump said of that first call. "I really believed they were going to arrest Zimmerman. I said, 'He's a neighborhood watch person with a gun. Of course they are going to arrest him just for that.'" "Then 48 hours passed and they still hadn't arrested him," Crump said. "After that we just had to do what we had to do."

He took the case pro bono. Realizing he needed a lawyer who knew Sanford and Seminole County, Crump turned to Natalie Jackson, a former Navy intelligence officer who founded the Women's Trial Group, which specializes in cases for women and children. Her mother lives in Sanford.

Now Crump and Jackson needed a media strategy. On March 5, Jackson brought in Ryan Julison, a publicist who had worked with her on a number of high-profile cases. After speaking with Tracy Martin, Julison said he also took the job for free and went to work pitching the story to national media.

Crump knew from his experience on the boot-camp case that publicity could force officials to act, but it would require persuading two people who had never stood before a television camera to withstand the spotlight.

"I got on the phone with Tracy Martin and I told him, ‘It's not going to be any fun, but this is the only way to find justice,'" Julison said. "You are going to have to bare your soul and express your emotions and your inner grief." Martin and Fulton agreed. There was only one problem. At first, the media weren't interested. Julison pitched the story to a long list of media contacts.

Eventually, on March 7, Reuters published a story titled "Family of Florida Boy Killed by Neighborhood Watch Seeks Arrest." The next day, CBS News aired a segment on "This Morning," and by 10 a.m. a crowd of reporters gathered at Natalie Jackson's law office for a news conference with Ben Crump and Tracy Martin. A media firestorm had begun.

IMO, and IMO only, the maelstorm really started when Crump invited Sharpton and Jackson on to the scene. That is when the national attention started. And I believe that was around mid-march. The earliest I could find was around Mar 20th...but I have to admit, I got tired.

It has been a long day.

by Gizmo711 Thu May 24, 2012 7:45 am

IMO this case would have made the media as soon as word got out as to what happened. Although I am not a fan of Al Sharpton, I applaud him for his effort in trying to bring justice to a case that was obviously going to be swept under the carpet.

by Porky Thu May 24, 2012 9:21 am

I was at the Sanford rally which occurred on March 22. Al Sharpton talked a lot about peaceful demonstration and had high praise for the Mayor of Sanford--initially the crowd boo'ed the Mayor but Al made the Mayor come back to the stage and rebuked the crowd for the boo's.

I think that it is important to note that Sharpton is much different than he was during his earlier years, but then again so are the times. With what was going on back in the 70's 80's we actually needed vocal civil right leaders. Even so, I still did not agree with his tactics back then.

It is worth keeping in perspective that Sharpton is by and large a civil rights and voting rights advocate, and there was a ton of work to be done in those areas, particularly among urban poor blacks.

by Gizmo711 Thu May 24, 2012 9:37 am

Porky wrote:I was at the Sanford rally which occurred on March 22. Al Sharpton talked a lot about peaceful demonstration and had high praise for the Mayor of Sanford--initially the crowd boo'ed the Mayor but Al made the Mayor come back to the stage and rebuked the crowd for the boo's.

I think that it is important to note that Sharpton is much different than he was during his earlier years, but then again so are the times. With what was going on back in the 70's 80's we actually needed vocal civil right leaders. Even so, I still did not agree with his tactics back then.

It is worth keeping in perspective that Sharpton is by and large a civil rights and voting rights advocate, and there was a ton of work to be done in those areas, particularly among urban poor blacks.

I think he did a awesome job at the rally, I watched it on TV. I was especially touched by his thoughtfulness in collecting money for the family. When tragedy occurs and one is not financially fit to handle the situation it makes it all the worse. Al Sharpton literally gave from his own pocket as well as asked organizations and past the bucket. This made it possible for the family of Trayvon to focus on getting justice for their son and not have to worry about their bills.

I fully understand and appreciate Al Sharpton showing up and making it possible for an arrest to take place. However, I do believe that an arrest would have come with Crump bringing this to the media's attention. Al Sharpton made it happen even faster. My hat is off to him.

This was a tragedy enough for the family to bear, yet alone being denied having the person responsible for killing their son brought to justice. The SPD needs a complete overhaul. It is because of injustices like this that created men like Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson. This is the 21st century, justice for all is long over due. When a young man of color can't walk to the corner store and make it back alive is a disgrace to the human race. I wouldn't care what he was wearing, I wouldn't care how he was walking, I DO care that a human being was wiped off the face of the earth by a wannabe cop who thought by killing this young man would become a hero. It's sad and sickening that there are still people around like George Zimmerman.

by snowbird Thu May 24, 2012 10:11 am

Porky wrote:
ellejay wrote:
snowbird wrote:

Wow, the article states that it was an oversight of the officer, that is some oversight considering a person is dead. I can believe that he know the officer. I wonder if this picture was turned over into evidence before it made it in the news. Wasn't there a cell phone picture that made it in the news before he was arrested? If I remember correctly people were wondering who took a cell phone picture of his head at the crime.

--the cell phone (iphone) pic that ABC news got their "exclusive" hands on was a shot of the back of george's head, w/ blood dripping down..

--the officer took the front face view (where IMO george looks like a long lost marx brother...) on his cell phone.

Good catch Ellejay. I stand corrected on that photo.

So now I really don't get the photo issue, if he was taking pictures of George before he was cleaned up by EMT, then why would he not take a picture of the back of the head. With all that blood you would think he would want to document like he did with the face. Doesn't make since to me.

by Gizmo711 Thu May 24, 2012 11:16 am

In this case the only paranoia was in Zimmerman. The results speak for themseleves. A young man is dead, his life wiped out just when he was starting life, all because of Zimmerman's paranoia, or hate. There really is no other explaination for what took place. Trayvon had done nothing to create suspiscion, he was merely walking home from the store. Yet I've heard every excuse given as to why he was shot dead, down to be having been suspended from school. Crump, the families attorney is being blamed for creating problems, Trayvons parents are being blamed for having not supervised their son properly. And Trayvon, the victim of a killing blamed for wearing a hoodie. When the fact is that the killer in this case had a longer record than the victim. The killer has parents that are somewhat condoning the killing because their darling son was having his head banged in the pavement (THEIR SON WOULD NOT HAVE HAD HIS HEAD BANGED IN THE SIDEWALK HAD HE KEPT HIS A$$ IN THE CAR WHERE HE BELONGED). Zimmerman chose to inject himself into a situation that ONLY existed in HIS head. Trayvon didn't. Zimmerman chose to iject himself with a fire arm. Trayvon didn't.

Zimmerman was not protecting his own property, he was a renter in the complex, he was a self appointed citizens patrol, who carried a weapon. Yet some choose to put the blame on the young man whose life was wiped out. go figure.. George Zimmerman / Trayvon Martin Case #2 5368

George Zimmerman / Trayvon Martin Case #2 5368

by Alessandra_Deux Thu May 24, 2012 11:18 am

We can't ignore the elephant in the room, we can't ignore that Trayvon was a 17 years old black American who was profiled as a criminal by Zimmerman because of his physical appearance and that racial issues are deeply embedded it this case. There has been discontent in the Sanford African American community regarding the Sanford police before Trayvon was killed.

Trayvon was gunned down at the Retreat at Twin Lakes without any legitimate reason, he wasn't violating the law in any way, shape, of form. But, please, let's don't make this discussion into a racial debate, this thread was created to discuss the legal aspects of the case, the documents, the court proceedings and to follow the news about the case, and of course, to express our own views and opinions.

All the people who got involved to support Trayvon's parents in their quest for justice have done an excellent job in raising community awareness and in bringing public attention to the killing of their son. Before the media started to report about the shooting, Trayvon's death went largely unnoticed.

Justice in this case can only be achieved through the judicial system, through a transparent and unbiased process. Zimmerman was charged and arrested for the death of Trayvon Martin, let's allow justice to take its course, my hope is that the trial will bring some measure of peace to Trayvon's family.

George Zimmerman / Trayvon Martin Case #2 Animation_Dove

George Zimmerman / Trayvon Martin Case #2 Animation_Dove

by Stolat Thu May 24, 2012 11:57 am

snowbird wrote:
Porky wrote:
ellejay wrote:
snowbird wrote:

Wow, the article states that it was an oversight of the officer, that is some oversight considering a person is dead. I can believe that he know the officer. I wonder if this picture was turned over into evidence before it made it in the news. Wasn't there a cell phone picture that made it in the news before he was arrested? If I remember correctly people were wondering who took a cell phone picture of his head at the crime.

--the cell phone (iphone) pic that ABC news got their "exclusive" hands on was a shot of the back of george's head, w/ blood dripping down..

--the officer took the front face view (where IMO george looks like a long lost marx brother...) on his cell phone.

Good catch Ellejay. I stand corrected on that photo.
So now I really don't get the photo issue, if he was taking pictures of George before he was cleaned up by EMT, then why would he not take a picture of the back of the head. With all that blood you would think he would want to document like he did with the face. Doesn't make since to me.

I'm confused - there *is* a companion photo to the face shot. This particular post doesn't show both side by side, but in the original article it did. Someone here took the photo and turned it into B&W (or someone here copied the B&W photo fom another site. There exists an original color copy that has not been edited to B&W and alongside it there exists the back of his head which shows the abrasion split open a bit. It is a different photo than the one posted here that was taken while he was on his cellphone.

Someone here posted the original link to the article that showed both front & back photos side by side. It was posted last week I believe.

by CherokeeNative Thu May 24, 2012 11:57 am

Alessandra_Deux wrote:We can't ignore the elephant in the room, we can't ignore that Trayvon was a 17 years old black American who was profiled as a criminal by Zimmerman because of his physical appearance and that racial issues are deeply embedded it this case. There has been discontent in the Sanford African American community regarding the Sanford police before Trayvon was killed.

Trayvon was gunned down at the Retreat at Twin Lakes without any legitimate reason, he wasn't violating the law in any way, shape, of form. But, please, let's don't make this discussion into a racial debate, this thread was created to discuss the legal aspects of the case, the documents, the court proceedings and to follow the news about the case, and of course, to express our own views and opinions.

All the people who got involved to support Trayvon's parents in their quest for justice have done an excellent job in raising community awareness and in bringing public attention to the killing of their son. Before the media started to report about the shooting, Trayvon's death went largely unnoticed.

Justice in this case can only be achieved through the judicial system, through a transparent and unbiased process. Zimmerman was charged and arrested for the death of Trayvon Martin, let's allow justice to take its course, my hope is that the trial will bring some measure of peace to Trayvon's family.

Well said Alessandra!! George Zimmerman / Trayvon Martin Case #2 179695

The only thing I would add is that while I am not in Sanford, I hope the community and those who are able to do so, can continue to see that the other aspect of this case does not fall through the cracks. That is that they do whatever it takes to make sure that the SPD is investigated and that anyone who was showing favoritism to GZ in processing this case is held accountable. I know I was one of the first to scream "foul" when it appeared that the SPD had not investigated this case as it should have - I now see through the document dump that they did way more than I believed. It may be that there was no favoritism or cover-up going on, and if that is the case, fine. But a full investigation is warranted at this point. I find it odd that the CofP, the state attorney, and possibly Zimmerman's daddy were at the station or in contact with those at the station that night. If this is found to be untrue - I have not heard that as yet.

by Freckles Thu May 24, 2012 12:23 pm

Every child killed represents future generations lost.

As Rodney King stated so eloquently,"Why can't we all get along?"

by snowbird Thu May 24, 2012 12:45 pm

Freckles wrote:Every child is killed represents future generations lost.

As Rodney King stated so eloquently,"Why can't we all get along?"

So eloquently put about our children. I guess we can't all get along because humans are complicated people with there own biases. I wish that it would be different, maybe in our children's life time or their children's children. We can all hope.

by Freckles Thu May 24, 2012 12:59 pm

snowbird wrote:
Freckles wrote:Every child is killed represents future generations lost.

As Rodney King stated so eloquently,"Why can't we all get along?"

So eloquently put about our children. I guess we can't all get along because humans are complicated people with there own biases. I wish that it would be different, maybe in our children's life time or their children's children. We can all hope.

Back in the 60's, that was the mantra. To change the world for the better. I feel *we* let down the world or else our heads were full of air. crystal ball

by Porky Thu May 24, 2012 1:05 pm

Freckles wrote:
snowbird wrote:
Freckles wrote:Every child is killed represents future generations lost.

As Rodney King stated so eloquently,"Why can't we all get along?"

So eloquently put about our children. I guess we can't all get along because humans are complicated people with there own biases. I wish that it would be different, maybe in our children's life time or their children's children. We can all hope.

Back in the 60's, that was the mantra. To change the world for the better. I feel *we* let down the world or else our heads were full of air.

We can't even begin to get along until we engage is serious dialogue and approach our issues with reasoned conflict resolution. Ti dismiss an entire groups concerns as "paranoia" is surely counterproductive.

by Stolat Thu May 24, 2012 1:23 pm

Freckles wrote:Every child killed represents future generations lost.

As Rodney King stated so eloquently,"Why can't we all get along?"

LOL!!! Okay - everyone here pretty much knows I've been a justice for Trayvon supporter and an advocate of non-racial bias. And this is free from bias and I would have this same reaction to any person, no matter ethnicity. But I just HAD to laugh at this Freckles - not laughing at you, just the irony. I find it humorous to follow the advice of someone who as recently as 2011 insists on breaking the law and putting others people's lives at mortal risk by driving drunk and getting a DUI and driving without a license.

by Porky Thu May 24, 2012 1:47 pm

Stolat wrote:
Freckles wrote:Every child killed represents future generations lost.

As Rodney King stated so eloquently,"Why can't we all get along?"

LOL!!! Okay - everyone here pretty much knows I've been a justice for Trayvon supporter and an advocate of non-racial bias. And this is free from bias and I would have this same reaction to any person, no matter ethnicity. But I just HAD to laugh at this Freckles - not laughing at you, just the irony. I find it humorous to follow the advice of someone who as recently as 2011 insists on breaking the law and putting others people's lives at mortal risk by driving drunk and getting a DUI and driving without a license.

Lol well that too

by Freckles Thu May 24, 2012 2:55 pm

Stolat wrote:
Freckles wrote:Every child killed represents future generations lost.

As Rodney King stated so eloquently,"Why can't we all get along?"

LOL!!! Okay - everyone here pretty much knows I've been a justice for Trayvon supporter and an advocate of non-racial bias. And this is free from bias and I would have this same reaction to any person, no matter ethnicity. But I just HAD to laugh at this Freckles - not laughing at you, just the irony. I find it humorous to follow the advice of someone who as recently as 2011 insists on breaking the law and putting others people's lives at mortal risk by driving drunk and getting a DUI and driving without a license.

I didn't say he walked on water or was without his own personal demons! Certainly, he, too, is human. But he offered a beautiful insight after a much harrowing experience. And I will find the wisdom where I can. (When you look at the "celebrated" in America, there are few who lead pure and exemplary lives. And when you find them, you will usually find the detractors hanging off the shirttails. Sometimes, the detractors are of their own making and other times it is of society's making.)

Trayvon had full right to be where he was. He had full right to protect himself from any aggressor. I think this board is solid in that belief. IMO, SPD tried to bury this homicide as some little incident. Or try to blame it on the victim himself. I was surprised when the 183 pages of evidence DID emerge showing the SPD HAD collected some evidence. Still, the question remains as to whether a crime scene was fully investigated. (And some PD officer's cheap camera black and white shot is a poor excuse at an investigation. I hope there is more quality evidence forthcoming.)

It is not just Sanford, I find an alarming trend throughout America of different shades of abuse from failure to properly investigate all the way to the Kelly Thomas in Los Angeles where Kelly was beaten to death in FULL view of many! Berkley where seated and nonviolent students where maced in full view of news' cameras. NY. Chicago. The lists we could assemble.

GZ was told to stay in his vehicle. Told. It was more than a suggestion. When you call upon another authority, you acknowledge them and their "advice". GZ tried to give the appearance of acknowledging the advice but in fact ignored what he was told. And yes, PD was supposedly in charge once GZ called them.

Put another way: When you turn to your employer for assistance, you turn over to that person authority for how to conduct some aspect of the business. He is the superior and it would be expected you would follow the counsel given. If not, would you not ask him for other consideration? GZ did not dissent from the advice he was given so it could be logically assumed he was going to follow the given advice and stay in the vehicle.

by Twinkle Thu May 24, 2012 2:56 pm

Alessandra_Deux wrote:But, please, let's don't make this discussion into a racial debate, this thread was created to discuss the legal aspects of the case, the documents, the court proceedings and to follow the news about the case, and of course, to express our own views and opinions.

Well said, and I agree.

CherokeeNative wrote:It may be that there was no favoritism or cover-up going on, and if that is the case, fine. But a full investigation is warranted at this point. I find it odd that the CofP, the state attorney, and possibly Zimmerman's daddy were at the station or in contact with those at the station that night. If this is found to be untrue - I have not heard that as yet.

First of all, to address whether the CofP and state attorney were at the station that night, Norm Wolfinger strongly denied allegations that such a meeting took place, and to my knowledge Crump et al have not been able to back up these allegations with

In the letter delivered Monday, the Martin family said that a Sanford police detective "filed an affidavit stating that he did not find Zimmerman's statements credible in light of the circumstances and facts surrounding the shooting."

The family said Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee and State Attorney Norm Wolfinger met the night of the shooting and disregarded the detective's advice, letting Zimmerman go.

Neither Sanford police nor prosecutors have confirmed the existence of such an affidavit, which ABC News first reported. Sanford officials and special prosecutor Angela Corey's office declined comment.

But Wolfinger, who stepped aside in the case last month, vehemently denies that any "such meeting or communication occurred" between him and Lee.

"I have been encouraging those spreading the irresponsible rhetoric to stop and allow State Attorney Angela Corey to complete her work," Wolfinger said in a statement Monday. "Another falsehood distributed to the media does nothing to forward that process."

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/02/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html

As for Robert Zimmerman, I have never seen any source for the rumors that he was at the station and/or talked to the CofP or state attorney, just pure speculation. We know that Robert Zimmerman was recovering from some kind of heart problem when the shooting occurred and that GZ's wife was the one who brought a change of clothes to the station for GZ and moved his car. There is no indication that Robert Zimmerman was at the station that night.

Also, Robert Zimmerman himself said:

After giving up his gun, clothes and shoes to police, George Zimmerman gave at least three statements. Pictures were taken of his injuries. "I saw him the next morning. He looked like hell. I said, 'Who beat you up?' His nose was swollen, he had a protective thing over it, and he had a cut lip and two cuts on the back of his head."

Zimmerman insisted that no one in the Sanford Police or the Seminole County prosecutor's office knew he was a retired judge. He denied ever meeting with the original prosecutor on the case, Norm Wolfinger. He said that he only met once with a prosecutor's investigator, when he gave a sworn statement insisting that the voice he heard on a 911 tape calling for help was George's.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/14/2799569_p2/zimmermans-father-our-lives-will.html

So..."I saw him the next morning" strongly implies that RZ did not see GZ the night of the shooting. And he denies meeting with Wolfinger or exerting his supposed influence as a retired magistrate from Virginia.

by ellejay Thu May 24, 2012 3:52 pm

Freckles wrote:---------snipped--------

Trayvon had full right to be where he was. He had full right to protect himself from any aggressor. I think this board is solid in that belief. IMO, SPD tried to bury this homicide as some little incident. Or try to blame it on the victim himself. I was surprised when the 183 pages of evidence DID emerge showing the SPD HAD collected some evidence. Still, the question remains as to whether a crime scene was fully investigated. (And some PD officer's cheap camera black and white shot is a poor excuse at an investigation. I hope there is more quality evidence forthcoming.)

--i'm just commenting on this one area, therefore snipped the post...

--as far as photo evidence, it was a pic of george at the scene that serino was looking for---subsequently discovered that officer wagner had taken one on his cell phone of him in the police car...we got the 'black & white' version in the docs b/c it was photocopied in...

--we do know that many other crime scene pics were taken w/ a "real camera" b/c we've seen many of them, i would now like to see a map/chart of the full crime scene area....george's re-enactment of the event.....hear what he had to say to LE that night.......etc.

--we'll have to wait and see what comes out next, and if the judge does in fact decide to seal some of it from us...

by ellejay Thu May 24, 2012 4:04 pm

http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/zimmerman_state_motion.pdf
State's Motion for Protective Order---di la rionda 24/05/2012.

http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/zimmerman_prot_order.pdf
DEFENDENT'S CONCURRENCE TO THE STATE'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND OBJECTION TO RELEASE OF CERTAIN DISCOVERY AND REQUEST FOR DELAY IN RELEASE OF CERTAIN DISCOVERY TO ALLOW ANALYSIS

---blah blah blah---eventually saying that he would like the judge to give him 30 days to look at the discovery/file motions for redactions/restrictions---omara 24/05/2012.

by Stolat Thu May 24, 2012 4:33 pm

ellejay wrote:
Freckles wrote:---------snipped--------

Trayvon had full right to be where he was. He had full right to protect himself from any aggressor. I think this board is solid in that belief. IMO, SPD tried to bury this homicide as some little incident. Or try to blame it on the victim himself. I was surprised when the 183 pages of evidence DID emerge showing the SPD HAD collected some evidence. Still, the question remains as to whether a crime scene was fully investigated. (And some PD officer's cheap camera black and white shot is a poor excuse at an investigation. I hope there is more quality evidence forthcoming.)

--i'm just commenting on this one area, therefore snipped the post...

--as far as photo evidence, it was a pic of george at the scene that serino was looking for---subsequently discovered that officer wagner had taken one on his cell phone of him in the police car...we got the 'black & white' version in the docs b/c it was photocopied in...

--we do know that many other crime scene pics were taken w/ a "real camera" b/c we've seen many of them, i would now like to see a map/chart of the full crime scene area....george's re-enactment of the event.....hear what he had to say to LE that night.......etc.

--we'll have to wait and see what comes out next, and if the judge does in fact decide to seal some of it from us...

Okay folks -- hope this clears up all this talk about photos....

http://www.fox17online.com/news/nationworld/os-pictures-evidence-photos-released-in-the-shooting-death-of-trayvon-martin-20120517,0,376151.photogallery

Check out Photos # 14 thru #18 -- all different angles of GZ's head - front and back - no edited B&W shots. Also included in the gallery are very detailed shots of the apartment complex.

Have at it....

by WeeBonnie Thu May 24, 2012 4:47 pm

Gizmo711 wrote:

Because they are activist not police. It is the police's job to sort thru crimes. White on white, black on black, hispanic on hispanic has nothing to do with activists. There is always going to be crime. But hate crimes are treated differently because ther is no motive other than hate.

Well said! I'd like to add that it's the activists job to make sure that local police take every murder seriously and not favor those who look- or act- like them to the detriment of the community.

It is not 'paranoia' to state racial profiling does occur among the police all to frequently- it has been backed by many studies! It is not paranoia or asking for special favors to possess the same civil rights and be treated equally by LE officers. It is merely asking to be treated as an equal.

We're not there yet, folks. That's why they felt comfortable sweeping this killing under the rug. That's why this case eventually received national attention.

by Freckles Thu May 24, 2012 5:11 pm

I was the one using the word "paranoia" and I used it to refer to those who wish to use race to wrongly subjugate others.

I am not denying racial profiling exists.
I never said it was acceptable.
I never said it was wrong to demonstrate against racial profiling.

We need to move on.
While racial profiling may have occurred, there are more elements to this than racial profiling.
In particular, like many PD across USA, Sanford PD APPEARED to be shielding a person they had an interest in. (In other cases, PDs are shielding there own officers.)
I was surprised the extent the SPD actually collected evidence.

Trayvon had a right to be where he was doing what he was doing. GZ received instructions to stay in a vehicle and failed to heed the instructions but he took an innocent situation and escalated it.

by snowbird Thu May 24, 2012 5:12 pm

WeeBonnie wrote:
Gizmo711 wrote:

Because they are activist not police. It is the police's job to sort thru crimes. White on white, black on black, hispanic on hispanic has nothing to do with activists. There is always going to be crime. But hate crimes are treated differently because ther is no motive other than hate.

Well said! I'd like to add that it's the activists job to make sure that local police take every murder seriously and not favor those who look- or act- like them to the detriment of the community.

It is not 'paranoia' to state racial profiling does occur among the police all to frequently- it has been backed by many studies! It is not paranoia or asking for special favors to possess the same civil rights and be treated equally by LE officers. It is merely asking to be treated as an equal.

We're not there yet, folks. That's why they felt comfortable sweeping this killing under the rug. That's why this case eventually received national attention.

Ok she was responding to my post that I was responding to someone else. My point was total missed. I am sure that the people who have lost children on the black on black crime will be very comforted by we can help ya'll because this is urban violence. However if you have a black on white crime will be more than happy to go there.

Before I get into trouble I will say that I was all for Jesse Jackson and can't think of the other guys name, came forward and brought it to the media. I believe that is what got the police investigation going. I was comment why people feel like they should come out for other things, as ya'll to put it Urban ing. However, it is black on black that children are getting shot.

I was purely talking about leadership. I was not talking about Civil Rights, I was talking about Leadership that people respected and they may listen too.
Question:
If Martin Luther King was alive today, would he be addressing the problem?

Everything I have read, seen heard of about Mr. King, this problem would have been addressed. He was a great leader IMO and people of different race listen to him.

My point was only Leadership, and I still think they could do more. IMO

by snowbird Thu May 24, 2012 5:17 pm

Freckles wrote:I was the one using the word "paranoia" and I used it to refer to those who wish to use race to wrongly subjugate others.

I am not denying racial profiling exists.
I never said it was acceptable.
I never said it was wrong to demonstrate against racial profiling.

We need to move on.
While racial profiling may have occurred, there are more elements to this than racial profiling.
In particular, like many PD across USA, Sanford PD APPEARED to be shielding a person they had an interest in. (In other cases, PDs are shielding their own officers.)
I was surprised the extent the SPD actually collected evidence.

Trayvon had a right to be where he was doing what he was doing. GZ received instructions to stay in a vehicle and failed to heed the instructions but he took an innocent situation and escalated it.

I do agree that the police were trying to shield George, because they know him. It will be interesting to see where the FBI investigation goes with the police department. I am still confused about the picture that was taken in back of the police car. If it was taken because he wanted to show George injuries, why would he not take a picture of the back of his head? Do you have any thoughts on that?

by WeeBonnie Thu May 24, 2012 5:29 pm

snowbird wrote:
WeeBonnie wrote:
Gizmo711 wrote:

Because they are activist not police. It is the police's job to sort thru crimes. White on white, black on black, hispanic on hispanic has nothing to do with activists. There is always going to be crime. But hate crimes are treated differently because ther is no motive other than hate.

Well said! I'd like to add that it's the activists job to make sure that local police take every murder seriously and not favor those who look- or act- like them to the detriment of the community.

It is not 'paranoia' to state racial profiling does occur among the police all to frequently- it has been backed by many studies! It is not paranoia or asking for special favors to possess the same civil rights and be treated equally by LE officers. It is merely asking to be treated as an equal.

We're not there yet, folks. That's why they felt comfortable sweeping this killing under the rug. That's why this case eventually received national attention.

Ok she was responding to my post that I was responding to someone else. My point was total missed. I am sure that the people who have lost children on the black on black crime will be very comforted by we can help ya'll because this is urban violence. However if you have a black on white crime will be more than happy to go there.

Before I get into trouble I will say that I was all for Jesse Jackson and can't think of the other guys name, came forward and brought it to the media. I believe that is what got the police investigation going. I was comment why people feel like they should come out for other things, as ya'll to put it Urban ing. However, it is black on black that children are getting shot.

I was purely talking about leadership. I was not talking about Civil Rights, I was talking about Leadership that people respected and they may listen too.
Question:
If Martin Luther King was alive today, would he be addressing the problem?

Everything I have read, seen heard of about Mr. King, this problem would have been addressed. He was a great leader IMO and people of different race listen to him.

My point was only Leadership, and I still think they could do more. IMO

I'd reply but I am sorry i can't make sense of the first paragraph at all. And the statements about urbaning? Not sure what urbaning be, the grammar used is throwing me.

But rest assured Jackson and Sharpton have both spoken out against the violence poverty and hopelessness that permeates the black community in many areas of the USA.
It seems like many who can't be or are not effected by it never listened. Part of the problem here is white America isn't listening till they can make it about them.
Well, with whites cramming the welfare rolls and jails with meth addicts gone bad, maybe they should start - first by getting off their high horse.

by Twinkle Thu May 24, 2012 5:39 pm

Freckles wrote:GZ received instructions to stay in a vehicle and failed to heed the instructions but he took an innocent situation and escalated it.

I just want to address the bolded because I see this being said over and over, all over the internet, and it just isn't true. GZ did not receive instructions to stay in his vehicle prior to leaving his vehicle. Once it became obvious that he was outside of his car and on the move, the 911 operator asked if he was following TM, and when GZ acknowledged that he was, then said "we don't need you to do that". So there was no instruction for him to stay in his vehicle at any time, just an admonishment that he did not need to follow the "real suspicious guy" he was calling to report, and that did not occur until GZ was already out of his car and in pursuit. Moreover, it is GZ's claim that he heeded this advice and was headed back to his car when he was attacked by TM.

by Gizmo711 Thu May 24, 2012 5:54 pm

Porky wrote:
Freckles wrote:
snowbird wrote:
Freckles wrote:Every child is killed represents future generations lost.

As Rodney King stated so eloquently,"Why can't we all get along?"

So eloquently put about our children. I guess we can't all get along because humans are complicated people with there own biases. I wish that it would be different, maybe in our children's life time or their children's children. We can all hope.

Back in the 60's, that was the mantra. To change the world for the better. I feel *we* let down the world or else our heads were full of air.

We can't even begin to get along until we engage is serious dialogue and approach our issues with reasoned conflict resolution. Ti dismiss an entire groups concerns as "paranoia" is surely counterproductive.

I have been around a very long time, I seen it all, as one would say. I was estacic when I finally saw that most of this hatred was leaving with new generations. Children don't know predjudice, they are taught it and as each generation grows we hope that it ends there...But then you see something like this happen and it brings it all back...It brings us back about 50 years...I just wonder when it is finally going to end. Yes, people will hold predjudice but when a person in charge (i.e., LE) continues to go in the same old direction, it is very discouraging.

by Gizmo711 Thu May 24, 2012 5:57 pm

Twinkle wrote:
Freckles wrote:GZ received instructions to stay in a vehicle and failed to heed the instructions but he took an innocent situation and escalated it.
I just want to address the bolded because I see this being said over and over, all over the internet, and it just isn't true. GZ did not receive instructions to stay in his vehicle prior to leaving his vehicle. Once it became obvious that he was outside of his car and on the move, the 911 operator asked if he was following TM, and when GZ acknowledged that he was, then said "we don't need you to do that". So there was no instruction for him to stay in his vehicle at any time, just an admonishment that he did not need to follow the "real suspicious guy" he was calling to report, and that did not occur until GZ was already out of his car and in pursuit. Moreover, it is GZ's claim that he heeded this advice and was headed back to his car when he was attacked by TM.

Zimmerman should not have needed instructions. He only disobeyed because he was holding a 9mm. Had he not had a weapon that night we wouldn't be having this conversation, Zimmerman would have kept his butt in his car and Trayvon would still be alive and Zimmerman wouldn't be in a world of trouble. That 9mm gave Zimmerman the guts to do something real stupid and that was to leave his car.

by snowbird Thu May 24, 2012 6:17 pm

WeeBonnie wrote:
snowbird wrote:
WeeBonnie wrote:
Gizmo711 wrote:

Because they are activist not police. It is the police's job to sort thru crimes. White on white, black on black, hispanic on hispanic has nothing to do with activists. There is always going to be crime. But hate crimes are treated differently because ther is no motive other than hate.

Well said! I'd like to add that it's the activists job to make sure that local police take every murder seriously and not favor those who look- or act- like them to the detriment of the community.

It is not 'paranoia' to state racial profiling does occur among the police all to frequently- it has been backed by many studies! It is not paranoia or asking for special favors to possess the same civil rights and be treated equally by LE officers. It is merely asking to be treated as an equal.

We're not there yet, folks. That's why they felt comfortable sweeping this killing under the rug. That's why this case eventually received national attention.

Ok she was responding to my post that I was responding to someone else. My point was total missed. I am sure that the people who have lost children on the black on black crime will be very comforted by we can help ya'll because this is urban violence. However if you have a black on white crime will be more than happy to go there.

Before I get into trouble I will say that I was all for Jesse Jackson and can't think of the other guys name, came forward and brought it to the media. I believe that is what got the police investigation going. I was comment why people feel like they should come out for other things, as ya'll to put it Urban ing. However, it is black on black that children are getting shot.

I was purely talking about leadership. I was not talking about Civil Rights, I was talking about Leadership that people respected and they may listen too.
Question:
If Martin Luther King was alive today, would he be addressing the problem?

Everything I have read, seen heard of about Mr. King, this problem would have been addressed. He was a great leader IMO and people of different race listen to him.

My point was only Leadership, and I still think they could do more. IMO

I'd reply but I am sorry i can't make sense of the first paragraph at all. And the statements about urbaning? Not sure what urbaning be, the grammar used is throwing me.

But rest assured Jackson and Sharpton have both spoken out against the violence poverty and hopelessness that permeates the black community in many areas of the USA.
It seems like many who can't be or are not effected by it never listened. Part of the problem here is white America isn't listening till they can make it about them.
Well, with whites cramming the welfare rolls and jails with meth addicts gone bad, maybe they should start - first by getting off their high horse.

Sorry, I made a spelling mistake. Sorry you don't understand my statement. However when one race blames another for everything, and not look at their race then there will always be a problem between race. If you are saying I should get off my high horse, then you didn't read other post I wrote. You have no idea what my concerns are because you did not read. It is going to take more than one race to listen, we all have to listen to one another if there is going to be change. I find it interesting that you judge me and you don't even know what race I may be, however I made an observation and we will agree to disagree.

by angela_nw Thu May 24, 2012 6:56 pm

Gizmo711 wrote:
I have been around a very long time, I seen it all, as one would say. I was estacic when I finally saw that most of this hatred was leaving with new generations...I just wonder when it is finally going to end. Yes, people will hold predjudice but when a person in charge (i.e., LE) continues to go in the same old direction, it is very discouraging.

If you think about it, this country has been populated by non-"native americans" for about 500 years .... 150 years ago we had the Civil War ... then, 50 years ago we had the Civil Rights movement. Now, a lot of things are not as I would have predicted (hoped) them to be --- in the 70s I learned about recycling and sustainability - if you had told me then that people would be driving around in big gas-guzzling SUVs 40 years hence I would not have believed you. In the 60s we all marched for Civil Rights -- if you'd told me things would be as they are today - situations like Trayvon getting killed & no one goes to jail --- or countless other situations of power imbalance --- I would simply not have believed you. Apparently, change comes real slow, and a lot of things have actually gotten worse in the past 50 years I think rather than better, for many people, and society as a whole.

by Porky Thu May 24, 2012 7:09 pm

So anyway, am I the only one who is seeing his vocal distaste for some of the police as part of the narrative why he refused to wait for the cops? He just did not trust the cops to catch this guy and was hell bent on catching him in the act. Can that be said be a motive? Is this what the Prosecutor means when she says depraved mind?

by Freckles Thu May 24, 2012 7:10 pm

Gizmo said-
clipped-
" But this case wasn't a case about black on black or white on white. A young man was murdered and the police did nothing about it. It was about to be swept under the rug. This case did not fit a SYG law yet the SPD was ready to call it such. So, yes, Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson stepped in, that is what they do when an injustice was done. They are activists, they march and rally at injustices. There are plenty of leaders in each community to step up but they choose not to. The community should get after them if they want change. But to blame it on Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson is just another injustice.

Neither one would have stepped in had Zimmerman been arrested like he should have. Things like this happen all the time and we don't see Al Sharpton or Jessie Jackson. The injustice was that the SPD let a killer go home and called it a SYG rule, which was so obvious that it did not belong in this case. So yes, they stepped forward and they did get some results. We have leaders all over the world that will stand up for their own when an injustice has been done. But it seems that something wrong is founf with everything in this case except where the blame should fall.....George Zimmerman killed and unarmed teenager for no reason, he pursued Trayvon, and stalked him and then killed him and he should pay. I thank heaven for Al Sharpten and Jessie Jackson AND Crump for making this happen. An injustice to one is an injustice to all....."

Yes. You have said this well.
I await the day the Jacksons/Sharptons can scream just as loudly for ALL people who are being mistreated. Why limit it to just one race or perhaps one religion, one economic or social group?

Equality in application of our laws should apply evenly to ALL citizens.

(I felt relieved to see justice for John Goodman for that broke though the economic status. Waiting to see about John Edwards.)

by Freckles Thu May 24, 2012 7:13 pm

Porky wrote:So anyway, am I the only one who is seeing his vocal distaste for some of the police as part of the narrative why he refused to wait for the cops? He just did not trust the cops to catch this guy and was hell bent on catching him in the act. Can that be said be a motive? Is this what the Prosecutor means when she says depraved mind?

No; IMO, GZ took the law into his own hands(wrongly) because he wanted to be a police officer, he wanted to prove he was as good as they were, he wanted to show them he WAS one with them. JMO. Trouble was: GZ was NOT one of them. He lacked the badge, the training, the authority, and mostly, the ability to follow directions.

He was working on his own agenda.

by Porky Thu May 24, 2012 7:14 pm

Freckles wrote:Gizmo said-
clipped-
" But this case wasn't a case about black on black or white on white. A young man was murdered and the police did nothing about it. It was about to be swept under the rug. This case did not fit a SYG law yet the SPD was ready to call it such. So, yes, Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson stepped in, that is what they do when an injustice was done. They are activists, they march and rally at injustices. There are plenty of leaders in each community to step up but they choose not to. The community should get after them if they want change. But to blame it on Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson is just another injustice.

Neither one would have stepped in had Zimmerman been arrested like he should have. Things like this happen all the time and we don't see Al Sharpton or Jessie Jackson. The injustice was that the SPD let a killer go home and called it a SYG rule, which was so obvious that it did not belong in this case. So yes, they stepped forward and they did get some results. We have leaders all over the world that will stand up for their own when an injustice has been done. But it seems that something wrong is founf with everything in this case except where the blame should fall.....George Zimmerman killed and unarmed teenager for no reason, he pursued Trayvon, and stalked him and then killed him and he should pay. I thank heaven for Al Sharpten and Jessie Jackson AND Crump for making this happen. An injustice to one is an injustice to all....."

Yes. You have said this well.
I await the day the Jacksons/Sharptons can scream just as loudly for ALL people who are being mistreated. Why limit it to just one race or perhaps one religion, one economic or social group?

Equality in application of our laws should apply evenly to ALL citizens.

(I felt relieved to see justice for John Goodman for that broke though the economic status. Waiting to see about John Edwards.)

Does this count?

http://jessejackson.net/jesse-jackson-politics/jesse-jackson-view-on-same-sex-marriage

by Gizmo711 Thu May 24, 2012 7:22 pm

angela_nw wrote:
Gizmo711 wrote:
I have been around a very long time, I seen it all, as one would say. I was estacic when I finally saw that most of this hatred was leaving with new generations...I just wonder when it is finally going to end. Yes, people will hold predjudice but when a person in charge (i.e., LE) continues to go in the same old direction, it is very discouraging.

If you think about it, this country has been populated by non-"native americans" for about 500 years .... 150 years ago we had the Civil War ... then, 50 years ago we had the Civil Rights movement. Now, a lot of things are not as I would have predicted (hoped) them to be --- in the 70s I learned about recycling and sustainability - if you had told me then that people would be driving around in big gas-guzzling SUVs 40 years hence I would not have believed you. In the 60s we all marched for Civil Rights -- if you'd told me things would be as they are today - situations like Trayvon getting killed & no one goes to jail --- or countless other situations of power imbalance --- I would simply not have believed you. Apparently, change comes real slow, and a lot of things have actually gotten worse in the past 50 years I think rather than better, for many people, and society as a whole.

I believe that one day there will be change. Maybe not in our days or our childrens day or even in their childrens days but eventually change will come. I also believe that eventually there will be one tongue spoken. I noticed on a show the other day that no matter what country one is from, there tongue may be different but the wording is exactly the same. Mixed children now are the majority by .04 percent, that tells me something. So maybe not in the next hundred years or even 500 years but eventually we will become all one race with one tongue. Maybe then the color of ones eyes will create problems, or whatever. But I pray that one day there will be no killings just because a person is different. Or that one feels superior to another. Not one of us had a choice to be what we wanted to be when born, therefore no one has the right to judge or hate someone for what they are.

People will always be people, there will always be crime, and we may always hate our neighbors for letting their dog bark all night. But I hope we learn to live together one day.

Some rich people believe they will be rich where they go when they leave here. To me that is a sick way of thinking, we came into this world naked and we will leave this world the same way. Although I do not consider myself a fanatic of religion, I do believe and I am God fearing, so I make my decisions in life accordingly.

I hope one day we will no longer have people like George Zimmerman walking amongst us. To judge a person by the way they are dressed or the color of their skin is to think that we are better than them and we are not. The sooner people realize this the better it will be.

I would be more afraid of walking down the street with George Zimmerman than I would be with Trayvon Martin, because Zimmerman believed he had the right to rid this earth of someone that he feared.

by Freckles Thu May 24, 2012 7:26 pm

Twinkle wrote:
Freckles wrote:GZ received instructions to stay in a vehicle and failed to heed the instructions but he took an innocent situation and escalated it.
I just want to address the bolded because I see this being said over and over, all over the internet, and it just isn't true. GZ did not receive instructions to stay in his vehicle prior to leaving his vehicle. Once it became obvious that he was outside of his car and on the move, the 911 operator asked if he was following TM, and when GZ acknowledged that he was, then said "we don't need you to do that". So there was no instruction for him to stay in his vehicle at any time, just an admonishment that he did not need to follow the "real suspicious guy" he was calling to report, and that did not occur until GZ was already out of his car and in pursuit. Moreover, it is GZ's claim that he heeded this advice and was headed back to his car when he was attacked by TM.

You are correct. I apologize for not acknowledging that earlier. For me, it is kind of a wash, however, as I take it to mean about the same thing. Sure. GZ was told he did not need to follow Trayvon;; I suppose he could had returned to his vehicle, stood along the drive, or any number of things. Since his last known location was inside the truck, when he was told he did not need to follow I presumed the instructions to be "return to your vehicle" as he said he was afraid--- but those words were NOT uttered.

Thank you for the clarity and the correction.

by Freckles Thu May 24, 2012 7:37 pm

Gizmo--
Would you rather walk with the guy who holds the munchies or the guy with the gun? I vote Skittles!

by Porky Thu May 24, 2012 7:45 pm

Freckles wrote:
Twinkle wrote:
Freckles wrote:GZ received instructions to stay in a vehicle and failed to heed the instructions but he took an innocent situation and escalated it.
I just want to address the bolded because I see this being said over and over, all over the internet, and it just isn't true. GZ did not receive instructions to stay in his vehicle prior to leaving his vehicle. Once it became obvious that he was outside of his car and on the move, the 911 operator asked if he was following TM, and when GZ acknowledged that he was, then said "we don't need you to do that". So there was no instruction for him to stay in his vehicle at any time, just an admonishment that he did not need to follow the "real suspicious guy" he was calling to report, and that did not occur until GZ was already out of his car and in pursuit. Moreover, it is GZ's claim that he heeded this advice and was headed back to his car when he was attacked by TM.
You are correct. I apologize for not acknowledging that earlier. For me, it is kind of a wash, however, as I take it to mean about the same thing. Sure. GZ was told he did not need to follow Trayvon;; I suppose he could had returned to his vehicle, stood along the drive, or any number of things. Since his last known location was inside the truck, when he was told he did not need to follow I presumed the instructions to be "return to your vehicle" as he said he was afraid--- but those words were NOT uttered.

Thank you for the clarity and the correction.

Most reasonable people when about to do something dangerous and the police say "we do not need you to do that" would stop right there.

by Gizmo711 Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Freckles wrote:Gizmo--
Would you rather walk with the guy who holds the munchies or the guy with the gun? I vote Skittles!

By all means, that was exactly my point. I wouldn't want to be walking with a walking time bomb. So therefore Zimmerman was more of a character to fear than Trayvon could have ever been.

by Gizmo711 Thu May 24, 2012 8:24 pm

Porky wrote:
Freckles wrote:
Twinkle wrote:
Freckles wrote:GZ received instructions to stay in a vehicle and failed to heed the instructions but he took an innocent situation and escalated it.
I just want to address the bolded because I see this being said over and over, all over the internet, and it just isn't true. GZ did not receive instructions to stay in his vehicle prior to leaving his vehicle. Once it became obvious that he was outside of his car and on the move, the 911 operator asked if he was following TM, and when GZ acknowledged that he was, then said "we don't need you to do that". So there was no instruction for him to stay in his vehicle at any time, just an admonishment that he did not need to follow the "real suspicious guy" he was calling to report, and that did not occur until GZ was already out of his car and in pursuit. Moreover, it is GZ's claim that he heeded this advice and was headed back to his car when he was attacked by TM.
You are correct. I apologize for not acknowledging that earlier. For me, it is kind of a wash, however, as I take it to mean about the same thing. Sure. GZ was told he did not need to follow Trayvon;; I suppose he could had returned to his vehicle, stood along the drive, or any number of things. Since his last known location was inside the truck, when he was told he did not need to follow I presumed the instructions to be "return to your vehicle" as he said he was afraid--- but those words were NOT uttered.

Thank you for the clarity and the correction.

Most reasonable people when about to do something dangerous and the police say "we do not need you to do that" would stop right there.

It was the manner and tone in which the 911 operator said that to Zimmerman. There was no other way to take it up other than to "stay in your car the police will handle it". That is how everyone took it up and that is exactly what the 911 operator was saying. Zimmerman also knew what he meant but he decided to take matters in his own hands.

by angela_nw Thu May 24, 2012 8:27 pm

Porky wrote:
Twinkle wrote:
"... So there was no instruction for him to stay in his vehicle at any time, just an admonishment that he did not need to follow the "real suspicious guy" he was calling to report, and that did not occur until GZ was already out of his car and in pursuit...."
Most reasonable people when about to do something dangerous and the police say "we do not need you to do that" would stop right there.

ITA and the question of what Zimmerman's "intent" was at that moment has a lot to do with whether or not he had "cocked" his gun (or whatever you say - ignorant here) - as we were guessing we might have heard at end of dispatch call. Very possible that if that is what we are hearing that he had decided that he was going to show somebody (the cops) "How it's done."

by Gizmo711 Thu May 24, 2012 8:29 pm

Freckles wrote:
Twinkle wrote:
Freckles wrote:GZ received instructions to stay in a vehicle and failed to heed the instructions but he took an innocent situation and escalated it.
I just want to address the bolded because I see this being said over and over, all over the internet, and it just isn't true. GZ did not receive instructions to stay in his vehicle prior to leaving his vehicle. Once it became obvious that he was outside of his car and on the move, the 911 operator asked if he was following TM, and when GZ acknowledged that he was, then said "we don't need you to do that". So there was no instruction for him to stay in his vehicle at any time, just an admonishment that he did not need to follow the "real suspicious guy" he was calling to report, and that did not occur until GZ was already out of his car and in pursuit. Moreover, it is GZ's claim that he heeded this advice and was headed back to his car when he was attacked by TM.
You are correct. I apologize for not acknowledging that earlier. For me, it is kind of a wash, however, as I take it to mean about the same thing. Sure. GZ was told he did not need to follow Trayvon;; I suppose he could had returned to his vehicle, stood along the drive, or any number of things. Since his last known location was inside the truck, when he was told he did not need to follow I presumed the instructions to be "return to your vehicle" as he said he was afraid--- but those words were NOT uttered.

Thank you for the clarity and the correction.

Some words do not need to be uttered to precision. Anybody with a half of brain would have known exactly what that 911 operator was saying. And Zimmerman knew what he was saying, that's why he said "OK" in a low voice but chose to continue to follow Trayvon.

Old saying "it's not what you say it's how you say it". The 911 operator was very plain is his command, the next thing he would have had to say was "stay the hell in your car", but he was trying to use a little deplomacy in his command, and that is how most took it up.

by Gizmo711 Thu May 24, 2012 8:31 pm

angela_nw wrote:
Porky wrote:
Twinkle wrote:
"... So there was no instruction for him to stay in his vehicle at any time, just an admonishment that he did not need to follow the "real suspicious guy" he was calling to report, and that did not occur until GZ was already out of his car and in pursuit...."
Most reasonable people when about to do something dangerous and the police say "we do not need you to do that" would stop right there.

ITA and the question of what Zimmerman's "intent" was at that moment has a lot to do with whether or not he had "cocked" his gun (or whatever you say - ignorant here) - as we were guessing we might have heard at end of dispatch call. Very possible that if that is what we are hearing that he had decided that he was going to show somebody (the cops) "How it's done."

What we may have heard was Zimmerman inserting the clip. This type of gun doesn't get cocked. But if he was inserting the clip, that would have made somewhat of a clicking sound.

by Chickenbutt Thu May 24, 2012 8:33 pm

Gizmo, I rarely, if ever, post but I read this and had to say...the def will say that the "we don't need you to do that" was just a suggestion. If the 911 operator wanted GZ to stay in his car, she would have said so.
As we all know, the courtroom is no place for reasonable people.

by Gizmo711 Thu May 24, 2012 8:37 pm

Freckles wrote:Gizmo said-
clipped-
" But this case wasn't a case about black on black or white on white. A young man was murdered and the police did nothing about it. It was about to be swept under the rug. This case did not fit a SYG law yet the SPD was ready to call it such. So, yes, Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson stepped in, that is what they do when an injustice was done. They are activists, they march and rally at injustices. There are plenty of leaders in each community to step up but they choose not to. The community should get after them if they want change. But to blame it on Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson is just another injustice.

Neither one would have stepped in had Zimmerman been arrested like he should have. Things like this happen all the time and we don't see Al Sharpton or Jessie Jackson. The injustice was that the SPD let a killer go home and called it a SYG rule, which was so obvious that it did not belong in this case. So yes, they stepped forward and they did get some results. We have leaders all over the world that will stand up for their own when an injustice has been done. But it seems that something wrong is founf with everything in this case except where the blame should fall.....George Zimmerman killed and unarmed teenager for no reason, he pursued Trayvon, and stalked him and then killed him and he should pay. I thank heaven for Al Sharpten and Jessie Jackson AND Crump for making this happen. An injustice to one is an injustice to all....."

Yes. You have said this well.
I await the day the Jacksons/Sharptons can scream just as loudly for ALL people who are being mistreated. Why limit it to just one race or perhaps one religion, one economic or social group?

Equality in application of our laws should apply evenly to ALL citizens.

(I felt relieved to see justice for John Goodman for that broke though the economic status. Waiting to see about John Edwards.)

Than what we need are more people like Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson, but to say that it should be THEM to do it is unfair because they themselves have had injustices done to them, so to now ask them to come to the defense of ALL would be just unfair. They spent years fighting for equality and in a peaceful way at that. White people don't need an Al Sharpton or Jessie Jackson defending them for an injustice.

by Gizmo711 Thu May 24, 2012 8:43 pm

Chickenbutt wrote:Gizmo, I rarely, if ever, post but I read this and had to say...the def will say that the "we don't need you to do that" was just a suggestion. If the 911 operator wanted GZ to stay in his car, she would have said so.
As we all know, the courtroom is no place for reasonable people.

Did you hear the actual 911 tape? If you did you would plainly hear that it was a command. You say "she" but it was a "male" 911 operator, that leads me to believe that maybe you didn't hear the actual tape.

It was the way it was said that made it a command.

It wasn't like someone telling you that they are going to buy you a present for your birthday and you respond with "you don't need to do that" vs Being asked if you are following someone by a 911 operator and upon saying "yes" and the 911 operator saying "we don't need you to do that". That was a command in a nice manner, but a command none the less.

by marcena2 Thu May 24, 2012 8:46 pm

George made self incriminating statements to police.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/25/us-usa-florida-shooting-idUSBRE84O00020120525

by Tamta Thu May 24, 2012 8:47 pm

Gizmo711 wrote:
Chickenbutt wrote:Gizmo, I rarely, if ever, post but I read this and had to say...the def will say that the "we don't need you to do that" was just a suggestion. If the 911 operator wanted GZ to stay in his car, she would have said so.
As we all know, the courtroom is no place for reasonable people.

Did you hear the actual 911 tape? If you did you would plainly hear that it was a command. You say "she" but it was a "male" 911 operator, that leads me to believe that maybe you didn't hear the actual tape.

It was the way it was said that made it a command.

It wasn't like someone telling you that they are going to buy you a present for your birthday and you respond with "you don't need to do that" vs Being asked if you are following someone by a 911 operator and upon saying "yes" and the 911 operator saying "we don't need you to do that". That was a command in a nice manner, but a command none the less.

We DON'T need YOU to do that.

by Chickenbutt Thu May 24, 2012 9:00 pm

Sorry...will go back into hiding

by Sponsored content