Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Dan O.]

http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/the-missing-230-and-deedees-testimony

The above URL answers your question in detail.

That article is so full of supposition and manufacturered details that it's difficult to determine which parts if any are actual facts.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Have you seen some of the things he called the police about?

No, just that he apparently called them 67 times in 7 years.

A pot hole is one. (You don't call the cops here, you call the city public works)

Beats ringing them to tell them you lost your TV remote (yes that one has happened.)

Oh, and just out of curiosity, how many times have you called the police in the past year? Just the last year.

I've called them......1 time.

How many times have I been out and looking about to see if anything suspicious is happening. I'm sure if I was activity watching the neighbourhood as part or a neighbourhood watch, or not, I'd be ringing them a lot more, for instance the night that someone tossed a street sign into the middle of the road. Instead I just went out and moved it onto the grass where it wasn't a danger to traffic.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

That article is so full of supposition and manufacturered details that it's difficult to determine which parts if any are actual facts.

It has map that is an accurate map of the subdivision, it has the 911 call and time information, and the girlfriends call time information (as far as it has been released to the public).

You can use all that to determine the answer to your question.

Yes, certain assumptions and suppositions are made. If you would like to point out the ones you believe are outlandish or erroneous, I would be interested in seeing if I agree with you or not.

 

[KatieG]

I don't live in the US at all (didn't the flag in my sig alert you to that?)

I'm also not suggesting that it's not legal to walk in a hoodie, even on a dark, cold, rainy night. I'm not even suggesting that it's not legal to look at houses on the way, just noting that if you do, you should be willing to answer questions from the police because doing that is suspicious behaviour.

It's legal to jimmy your car door in the middle of a public parking place too, that doesn't mean that if you try it you're not going to be getting a copuple of friendly cops turn up to find out if you're stealing the thing.

The thing is that there are loads of behaviours that are perfectly legal and innocent, but can be taken as suspicious by others, acting like a burgler casing houses to rob is one of them even if you are really out for a totally innocent walk.

GZ is not, was never, a police officer. He had no obligation to answer questions from just some guy following him.

 

[KatieG]

Once again, for me the behaviour is suspicious not for the individual elements, but for the elements as a total. It's not normal behaviour to walk in the rain on a cold dark night wearing only a hoodie for protection, and looking at the houses you're going past. Again, as pointed out numerous times, yes there could be an innocent explaination, but for people that aren't mind readers and don't have the benefit of hindsight, when does the stranger in a hoodie out walking on a horrid night looking at the houses in the street where there had been previous recent burglaries go from being innocent to being a possible criminal?

If GZ had waves his hand and said, "Nah. it's probably innocent," and not rung the police and instead of TM it had been our friendly burglar Jimmy Jones, leading to someone being burgled, would that have been a good result for you?

It wasn't cold that night. 60-63 degrees is not cold. It was drizzling. Not exactly a gully washer there.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Lol. The suspicious are EVERYWHERE in NYC, Chicago, LA, Orlando, Washington DC, Phoenix, omg EVERY major city on ANY rainy night.....

Your hoodies must be made of different stuff than ours then. Ours are sweatshirt material, it does not make for good rain protection, a good rain storm would saturate it, so either you have very light rain or water proofing in your hoodies.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Minor correction. It was never 11 deg. C. Not sure where that came from, but it's incorrect.

We also don't know exactly how bad it was raining at the time. I doubt very much, based on the historical records for the day. I would say if it was raining at all around 7pm, that it was nothing more than a drizzle.

They are found here.

http://www.wunderground.com/history...tml?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA

Yes, you already posted that, if you bothered noting which posts I was quoting you'd see that I'm over a page behind the end of the thread, that happens when you are trying to answer as many posts as possible and have many people firing them at you. It seems it was about 17 degrees at the time.

 

[RandFan]

I am just tired of people claiming GZ had no reason to call 911. He did have a reason. The NW groups say 'call if you see something suspicious' etc. So yes, let's agree he was justified in calling and move on.

I agree with both things. you stated.

I also think I understand your POV that GZ is culpable simply for following TM while armed.

I think we simply disagree on the level of culpability.

Agreed.

 

[sgtbaker]

It wasn't cold that night. 60-63 degrees is not cold. It was drizzling. Not exactly a gully washer there.

That's relative to what you are used to. I live in Florida and I can tell the difference between tourists and residents by how bundled up they are in our silly excuse for winter. If we have a 50 degrees in the sun type of day, you will see people bundled up in full on winter gear. Lower 60's feels a lot worse when the air is wet. You catch a chill and you can't get rid of it.

 

[PhantomWolf]

The whole case hinges exactly on the complete lack of criminal behaviour reported by GZ so messing with your waistband is now a crime?

And if GZ jumped to the conclusion that skittles was a gun then he should not have even left the car and precipated what happened and left it to the police one way or the other his actions caused this, GZ i the cause of this tragedy

I disagree, the case hinges on who started the physical altercation.

 

[Travis]

I am just tired of people claiming GZ had no reason to call 911. He did have a reason. The NW groups say 'call if you see something suspicious' etc. So yes, let's agree he was justified in calling and move on.

Um, no. There was no reason to think anything "suspicious" was going on.

 

[KatieG]

I disagree, the case hinges on who started the physical altercation.

No, it doesn't. Not under American law. That's why we have trials. You can keep saying that but it doesn't make it true.

 

[Noztradamus]

I believe the presumption is he got to the gate and finished his conversation in that vicinity, perhaps walking around that general area. Heading back to his truck is nebulous, and could have involved a very meandering route.

Zimmerman doesn't really have time to get to the gate and back to the altercation by the timed end of Martin's phone call to his gf.

Secondly, at 19:14:54, Zimmermans starts to agree to meet the cops at the mail boxes, but if he's on his way to the back gate he's at least 2-3 minutes away from them. Why not suggest meeting the cops at the rear exit, less than half a minute away?

Thirdly, that makes a lot of sense. He believes Martin is making for that rear exit. To use it Martin would have to cross Retreat View Circle. But Z has had the full length under view since 19:13:49 (according to the WAGST reconstruction). So if Zimmerman tells the cops he'll meet them at the rear exit, he never crosses path with Martin. The cops arrive two minutes later, Zimmerman tells them that the suspect hasn't left yet, and if they call out the Tactical Response Team, the K-9 squad, and the Police Helicopter, they can sweep Retreat at Twin Lakes Community for the perp who was looking around.

 

[sgtbaker]

Um, no. There was no reason to think anything "suspicious" was going on.

I think that's an easy claim to make, after the fact, when we all know for certain that Trayvon was there for legitimate reasons and was not actually, "up to no good." However, to sit and assume that you know what Zimmerman saw and how he perceived it and insist that there was nothing for Zimmerman to be suspicious about, is completely failing to see your own bias.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Then that guy in the truck follows you

Since TM lost GZ before he even reached the path to the back gate, I doubt that TM knew whether GZ was following or not.

and you ring up your girlfriend to say you are scared because someone is following you.

She appears to have rung him.

You try to get away

At the time she was ringing TM, GZ was telling the 911 Dispatcher he'd lost TM, that's not exactly TM trying to get away.

then he pursues you harder.

Or if the interpretation of the statements I was just looking at is correct, GZ may have returned to his truck, and while waiting for the police, TM returned and demand to know why GZ was following him, GZ said he wasn't, then TM headed off again, GZ decided to keep an eye on him, and headed about the house the other way, was seen by TM and another confrontation occured.

Yes it's speculation, but then most things are currently, but it fits a few bits of evidence. It'd also explain how come TM didn't make it home in the time he had while GZ didn't know where he was, and would explain differences between the statements and the 911 call.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

http://blog.ctnews.com/crimewatch/2011/12/21/know-how-to-report-suspicious-activities/

For years one of the cornerstones of Neighborhood Watch has been the reporting of suspicious activities and individuals to the police....

What exactly is a “suspicious activity”?

A stranger loitering in your neighborhood or a vehicle cruising the streets repeatedly; someone peering into cars or windows

ETA:
http://www.google.com/search?q=neighborhood+watch+report+suspicious+activities

Feel free to find numerous references admonishing you to call the authorities for suspicious activities like loitering.

Um, no. There was no reason to think anything "suspicious" was going on.

I think I have sufficiently demonstrated that under the definitions provided by neighborhood watch groups, GZ was perfectly justified in calling 911 to report 'suspicious' activity.

 

[often mrunderstood]

No, it doesn't. Not under American law. That's why we have trials. You can keep saying that but it doesn't make it true.

Under American (Florida preferably) law, please describe what circumstances allow one to legally initiate a physical altercation.

 

[often mrunderstood]

Please help me recall a detail, and my apologies if it has been clarified recently. Was the call to police from GZ to 911 or the local police non-emergency number?

 

[sgtbaker]

Please help me recall a detail, and my apologies if it has been clarified recently. Was the call to police from GZ to 911 or the local police non-emergency number?

Local non emergency.

 

[PhantomWolf]

GZ has actually killed someone

No dispute there.

all TM did was go to the shop and wear a hoodie.

This is still in dispute, he also may have commited Assault and Battery, Assault with Intent to Injury, Grevious Bodily Harm, and other offences if he attacked GZ for basically foolowing him.

GZ also had no authority to stop tm neither is he a Police officer nor did he act in any official capacity.

There is no evidence that GZ did stop TM or even attempted to.

He has made a stupid mistake and sometimes mistakes ahve to be paid for.

It's bes to actaully identify mistakes based on evidence and not speculation you pulled out of your butt however.