Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Dcdrac]

One detail I've not seen discussed - did George Zimmerman call 911 AFTER the shooting?

Judging by the number of calls on youtube plenty of people were calling 911 when the shots were fired and just after

 

[crimresearch]

who is *his*? There might be a detail I am overlooking or forgetting.

Trayvon's number. It is in the police report from that night, that implies his phone was working.
Why didn't the police redial the last caller, and weigh the girlfriend's story against Zimmerman's then and there?

Why didn't they look in Contacts for family to notify? I thought the original story was that the family was left wondering for a considerable length of time, even though this was not a John Doe.

 

[crimresearch]

One detail I've not seen discussed - did George Zimmerman call 911 AFTER the shooting?

The police apparently arrived within a very short time of the actual shooting. One of the callers mentions seeing their flashlights within seconds.

 

[sgtbaker]

Trayvon's number. It is in the police report from that night, that implies his phone was working.
Why didn't the police redial the last caller, and weigh the girlfriend's story against Zimmerman's then and there?

Why didn't they look in Contacts for family to notify? I thought the original story was that the family was left wondering for a considerable length of time, even though this was not a John Doe.

I am asking the same questions, I just didn't know they got Trayvon's number off of it.

 

[sgtbaker]

Zimmerman had no legal obligation to not follow Martin, but the dispatcher absolutely suggested/advised/informed not to do so. It's funny that we would read between the lines when it comes to Zimmerman inferring a request to follow Martin, but we must stick to the exact literal interpretation of the dispatcher's words when he advised him not to so as to mitigate how serious the request was.

I am not even saying that he was following because the dispatcher said that, I said it's a possibility, so there is no contradiction in me bringing up that the dispatcher said one thing or the other. There is, however a contradiction in the way everyone treats one request over the other, when it comes to "proving" Zimmerman's guilt.

You've got it backwards. I see Zimmerman as a loose cannon because he was in blatant disregard or willfully ignorant of the responsibilities associated with his role.

He wasn't patrolling as neighborhood watch when this went down. I can't sit and explain why he decided to get out of the car because I am not in his head, all I am saying is he could have heard "let me know if he does anything else," as a request to "be their eyes and ears" till the police got there.

 

[curi0us]

Well this ain't the place for that, you will have to wait for the trial.

Not sure if serious. Sarcasm is hard to spot in print.

 

[sgtbaker]

I honestly don't think its confirmation bias. Do you deny that just saying "okay" is ambiguous?

And if there's a different way to interpret "Call me and I'll tell them where I'm at" other than "I'm going to be on the move", I'm open to the possibilities.

Generally, in my experience when I give a request or make a suggestion to someone and they say, "okay," it's an indicator that they do not disagree. That doesn't guarantee that Zimmerman behaves the same way, I am just saying how I generally experience that type of communication.

In the phone call, he is trying to describe where his is, somewhere past the mailbox. Perhaps there is more than one car parked on the road, perhaps there is more than one mailbox on the road. In my neighborhood, the houses look very similar and the numbers are difficult to see. Usually, I just tell people to call me when they get to my neighborhood and I stand outside and wave at them, as they come down the road.

At 2:08 in the phone call, Zimmerman says he's running. At 2:11 you can hear him getting out of the car. At 2:16 you can hear wind hitting the phone and his voice sounds like he is walking. At 2:23 the dispatcher asks if he is following... at 2:28 Zimmerman says, "okay." At 2:43 the wind stops and it no longer sounds like he is walking. For the rest of the phone call, it honestly doesn't sound like he is moving at all and the phone call goes on for another minute and a half.

 

[curi0us]

I am asking the same questions, I just didn't know they got Trayvon's number off of it.

I'm wondering about the same things. Here is the police report I know of:
http://cnninsession.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/martinpolicreport.pdf

I see a redacted address and phone number for TM but when/where they got that isn't clear to me.

 

[This is The End]

I've wondered about that, since the police report shows that they had Trayvon's phone number that evening, which I presume they would have to push some buttons to get from his phone.

Couldn't they have looked at 'Recent Calls', or in the directory for 'Mom' or 'Dad'?

That is still a key point.

They had the phone; why did they not contact the father until the next day?

Why did the father not hear anything from neighbors. No one knew the Ms I guess.

Why did the GF not contact the family? It is possible she was a secret or forbidden friend. Or perhaps she is not a GF at all, perhaps she and TM had just met.

 

[This is The End]

It's not a lie. I questioned it earlier in this discussion.
I don't see why, "we don't need you to do that," is to be taken as a legal order not to follow, but "Yeah, we've got someone on the way, just let me know if he does anything else," can't possibly be taken as a request to keep an eye on him till the officer gets there.

Because one has nothing to do with the word "follow" and the other one specifically has to do with the word "follow"?? That's not that complicated.

"Let me know what he does" has nothing at all to do with "follow".

"We do not need you to follow him" is completely about "follow".

 

[sgtbaker]

Because one has nothing to do with the word "follow" and the other one specifically has to do with the word "follow"?? That's not that complicated.

"Let me know what he does" has nothing at all to do with "follow".

"We do not need you to follow him" is completely about "follow".

If you want to play word games, the dispatcher never actually asked him not to do anything as your post implies. LTC8K6 said this:

He's been asked to report what Martin was doing, and where he was going, by the dispatcher.

Why wouldn't he start following Martin?

and you stated:

That is the exact opposite of what really happened. He was asked to not follow M.

I am sorry to tell you but it's not the exact opposite of what really happened. The only actual request the dispatcher made of Zimmerman was to "let me know if he does anything else," twice.

 

[KatieG]

One detail I've not seen discussed - did George Zimmerman call 911 AFTER the shooting?

The police were already on the way.

 

[This is The End]

Because one has nothing to do with the word "follow" and the other one specifically has to do with the word "follow"?? That's not that complicated.

"Let me know what he does" has nothing at all to do with "follow".

"We do not need you to follow him" is completely about "follow".

If you want to play word games, the dispatcher never actually asked him not to do anything as your post implies. LTC8K6 said this:

He's been asked to report what Martin was doing, and where he was going, by the dispatcher.

Why wouldn't he start following Martin?

and you stated:

That is the exact opposite of what really happened. He was asked to not follow M.

I am sorry to tell you but it's not the exact opposite of what really happened. The only actual request the dispatcher made of Zimmerman was to "let me know if he does anything else," twice.

Please read your post again.

The question was:

Why wouldn't he start following Martin?

The answer was:

That is the exact opposite of what really happened. He was asked to not follow M.

Why wouldn't he start following M? Because he was asked not to?

LTC8K6 left out the crucial part of a leading question.

If I made a mistake in pointing that out I apologize. If I worded my response incorrectly I apologize.

 

[This is The End]

I am sorry to tell you but it's not the exact opposite of what really happened. The only actual request the dispatcher made of Zimmerman was to "let me know if he does anything else," twice.

Did you read the affidavit for arrest? It was entirely based upon the fact that Z was asked not to follow. It was even underlined.

http://media.trb.com/media/acrobat/2012-04/69353440.pdf

The police dispatcher informed Z that an officer was on the way and to wait for the officer.

Two paragraphs after that:

When the police dispatcher realized Z was pursuing M, he instructed Z not to do that and that the responding officer would meeet Z. Z disregarded the police dispatcher and continued to follow M who was trying to return to his home.

 

[RandFan]

If you want to play word games, the dispatcher never actually asked him not to do anything as your post implies.

I simply do not understand this parsing. Why should the dispatcher tell Zimmerman what they needed or didn't need? What point does it serve to tell Zimmerman the needs of the police if it isn't to keep the situation from escalating? Who cares what the police "need"? From his tone I think it is reasonable to infer that he was informing Zimmerman that his services were not needed and he did so because the dispatcher knew that there was a potential for risk had Zimmerman followed him. That's the only thing that makes sense to me.

Could you offer a different reason for the dispatchers words?

Can we at least agree that this was not simply an off-the-cuff remark but was intended to help Zimmerman make an informed decision that would keep both GZ and TM safe?

 

[crimresearch]

I simply do not understand this parsing. Why should the dispatcher tell Zimmerman what they needed or didn't need? What point does it serve to tell Zimmerman the needs of the police if it isn't to keep the situation from escalating? Who cares what the police "need"? From his tone I think it is reasonable to infer that he was informing Zimmerman that his services were not needed and he did so because the dispatcher knew that there was a potential for risk had Zimmerman followed him. That's the only thing that makes sense to me.

Could you offer a different reason for the dispatchers words?

Can we at least agree that this was not an off cuff the remark but was intended to help Zimmerman make an informed decision that would keep both GZ and TM safe?

That's been answered before.

Unlike Hollywood, the dispatcher doesn't have enough information to be directing people over the phone. Telling someone that 'we don't need you to...' is pretty standard stuff to keep both the caller and the person they are calling about, safely apart.

Telling a caller, 'Yeah, would you *go* check them out?' without knowing if the suspicious person has a gun is foolhardy.

Which is why the other comments meant 'Let me know if does something like pulls out a gun', not' follow him and let me know everything he does'.

Once it becomes obvious that a person is going to take an action of their own volition, the dispatcher''s prime responsibility is to let the officers and EMS know as much as possible.

 

[Dan O.]

Trayvon's number. It is in the police report from that night, that implies his phone was working.

No. It implies only that the SIM is intact.

 

[crimresearch]

No. It implies only that the SIM is intact.

So intact SIMs can't be used to look up *anything* except the phone number? Snore...

 

[This is The End]

Which is why the other comments meant 'Let me know if does something like pulls out a gun', not' follow him and let me know everything he does'.

That's exactly how I read it too. The "let me know" comments don't have anything to do with "following".

 

[Kestrel]

Trayvon's number. It is in the police report from that night, that implies his phone was working.
Why didn't the police redial the last caller, and weigh the girlfriend's story against Zimmerman's then and there?

Why didn't they look in Contacts for family to notify? I thought the original story was that the family was left wondering for a considerable length of time, even though this was not a John Doe.

In a homicide case, it would be unwise for the police to mess with a victims phone. Better to leave it as found for the forensic experts to examine. The phone number on the report may simply a phone number associated with Trayvon's ID.

The other issue is that the police have procedures for notifying the relatives of victims. They don't just call up a mother and tell her that the kid is dead.