Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Natural Born Skeptic]

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/... it doesn't even have to be entirely factual.

 

[sgtbaker]

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



Two paragraphs after that:

Yes and if you actually listened to the call, no where does the dispatcher say any of that, but hey, since we have the affidavit making the claim, that's all we need. Let's just skip the trial, call him guilty, lock him in a room, and throw away the room.

 

[sgtbaker]

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?

Like I said in that post, I was playing a word game. Piecing apart the exact words of the dispatcher and manipulating them to mean what I want them to mean. I know a lot has been said, in this thread and I don't expect you to remember everything I specifically said or my meaning behind everything I may imply. I do feel that the dispatcher said, "we don't need you to do that," specifically to avoid confrontation between the two. No dispatcher would advise otherwise. My only point is, there is a chance that Zimmerman didn't get out of the car, all ready to solve it like Rambo. There is a chance that he thought he was helping by keeping an eye on Trayvon, based on the words the dispatcher said.

 

[KatieG]

Did you read the thread here and how we were making fun of the affidavit and how even it plays into the inaccurate media line of BS. That's an appeal to authority, it doesn't matter what the affidavit says, we have the recording which reveals what was actually said. The affidavit even identified the screaming voice as TM merely on the mothers statements about the recording, even though an eyewitness identified them as GZ, even though GZ said they were his, even though members of the other family said they were his. It's already been discussed that the affidavit doesn't have to even pretend to be even-handed. In fact it's rather obvious from reading it that it doesn't even have to be entirely factual.

Please tell me how someone, whom his brother said, was down on the ground, with a broken nose and his mouth filling with blood, while TM covers GZ's mouth and nose with his hand, scream for 40+ seconds?

Whoever is screaming in that recording may be up for discussion, but if you believe GZ's family members about one thing, how can you justify a statement that flies in the face of reality?

 

[RandFan]

Like I said in that post, I was playing a word game. Piecing apart the exact words of the dispatcher and manipulating them to mean what I want them to mean. I know a lot has been said, in this thread and I don't expect you to remember everything I specifically said or my meaning behind everything I may imply. I do feel that the dispatcher said, "we don't need you to do that," specifically to avoid confrontation between the two. No dispatcher would advise otherwise. My only point is, there is a chance that Zimmerman didn't get out of the car, all ready to solve it like Rambo. There is a chance that he thought he was helping by keeping an eye on Trayvon, based on the words the dispatcher said.

Fair enough. Thanks.

 

[crimresearch]

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.

Nope. See if you can figure out why.

 

[This is The End]

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.

You can get a phone number from a Driver's License in Florida? (Or in any state for that matter?)

Perhaps, but I don't think so.

Nope. See if you can figure out why.

I believe crimresearch is saying that we know that no ID was found on the victim.

It's ok, I don't remember that either.

 

[Dan O.]

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

The SIM can tell you even more than just what you see from the phone. For instance, it is often possible to recover previously deleted text messages from the SIM. But that's an issue for another case.

 

[This is The End]

Did you read the thread here and how we were making fun of the affidavit and how even it plays into the inaccurate media line of BS. That's an appeal to authority, it doesn't matter what the affidavit says, we have the recording which reveals what was actually said. The affidavit even identified the screaming voice as TM merely on the mothers statements about the recording, even though an eyewitness identified them as GZ, even though GZ said they were his, even though members of the other family said they were his. It's already been discussed that the affidavit doesn't have to even pretend to be even-handed. In fact it's rather obvious from reading it that it doesn't even have to be entirely factual.

Yes and if you actually listened to the call, no where does the dispatcher say any of that, but hey, since we have the affidavit making the claim, that's all we need. Let's just skip the trial, call him guilty, lock him in a room, and throw away the room.

So because you were making fun of it that means that the stuff wasn't in the call??

It sure sounds like that's what the police dispatcher says to me.

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.

Both of those quotes are reasonable summaries of the call.

 

[crimresearch]

You can get a phone number from a Driver's License in Florida? (Or in any state for that matter?)

Perhaps, but I don't think so.



I believe crimresearch is saying that we know that no ID was found on the victim.

It's ok, I don't remember that either.

Well, no DL# is listed. A phone # is. And as we know, there is more than one Trayvon Martin in the world, maybe even in Florida. So as a guess, they somehow used his phone to get that much info.

But no, I'm saying there is a reason they didn't call up David Caruso in the middle of the night and refuse to let the cops touch anything until CSI took it all to the lab for 'forensics'.

 

[sgtbaker]

Please tell me how someone, whom his brother said, was down on the ground, with a broken nose and his mouth filling with blood, while TM covers GZ's mouth and nose with his hand, scream for 40+ seconds?

Whoever is screaming in that recording may be up for discussion, but if you believe GZ's family members about one thing, how can you justify a statement that flies in the face of reality?

Can you show me the source for that? The only place I can find anything about Trayvon covering George's mouth was from Tracy Martin telling an interviewer about his talk with the investigator. That version of the story also has Trayvon walking up to George in his truck and asking him why he is following. We know from the recorded call that this didn't happen.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/03/us-usa-florida-shooting-trayvon-idUSBRE8320UK20120403

 

[This is The End]

<snip>

There is a chance that he thought he was helping by keeping an eye on Trayvon, based on the words the dispatcher said.

For that to be true he would have not heard or comprehended the "we don't need you to follow him" part!

 

[sgtbaker]

So because you were making fun of it that means that the stuff wasn't in the call??

It sure sounds like that's what the police dispatcher says to me.



Two paragraphs after that:



Both of those quotes are reasonable summaries of the call.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9A-gp8mrdw

Here is the complete, unedited phone call. Can you tell me what minute and second the dispatcher tells Zimmerman to wait for the officer? The only time I hear the dispatcher say an officer is on the way is right before he says, let me know if he does anything else.

 

[sgtbaker]

For that to be true he would have not heard or comprehended the "we don't need you to follow him" part!

"Let me know if he does anything else" was before Zimmerman got out of the truck. "Are you following him...we don't need you to do that," was after he got out of the truck. We know he at least heard, "we don't need you to do that," because he responded with, "okay," and then exactly 15 seconds later, the wind stops and he stops walking. Where he stopped, I have no idea but it's clear by the audio that he did stop and the call continues for a minute and a half after he stopped walking.

 

[This is The End]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9A-gp8mrdw

Here is the complete, unedited phone call. Can you tell me what minute and second the dispatcher tells Zimmerman to wait for the officer? The only time I hear the dispatcher say an officer is on the way is right before he says, let me know if he does anything else.

Dispatcher: Okay do you want to just meet with them right near the mailboxes then?
Zimmerman: Yeah that's fine.

Just because Z changed his mind later doesn't mean it didn't happen.


The second quote is the one that relates to our "follow" discussion anyway.

Forget about the first quote, I agree it is not the greatest summary. Do you claim that the second quote is also a mis-representation?

 

[sgtbaker]

Dispatcher: Okay do you want to just meet with them right near the mailboxes then?
Zimmerman: Yeah that's fine.

Just because Z changed his mind later doesn't mean it didn't happen.


The second quote is the one that relates to our "follow" discussion anyway.

Forget about the first quote, I agree it is not the greatest summary. Do you claim that the second quote is also a mis-representation?

Wait so "let me know if he does anything else," can't possibly be mistaken as "keep an eye on him," because nowhere does the dispatcher actually use the word follow, but; would you like to meet near the mailboxes... wait no, at your request we can have the officer call you and you can meet up where ever, is supposed to be taken as, "wait for the officer?"

 

[crimresearch]

BTW, there are 2 things being referred to as the 'affadavit' here.

One is the prosecutor's statement of charges to the court. Short and to the point, nothing really ridiculous about it.

The one above, is merely the probable cause statement, made by cops thousands of times a day, typically in narrative form, typically in fairly plain language, and no requirement that it contain proof of facts yet to be determined.

It merely answers the question, 'What was your PC?'.

A good example of a PC affidavit would be:

Police officer giving his evidence:

"I was proceeding in a Southerly direction, Milord, when I heard uh, strange
sounds coming from the Wardour Place, Mi'lord. A sort of boogie-woogie music
was being played. On further investigation, I saw the defendant standing there
with a guitar and an old hat on the floor collecting pennies. Well, I decided that
uh, he was contravening a breach of the peace, there, as there was a traffic jam
about five miles long behind Wardour Street, wondering what all the uh, fuss was
about, so then I arrested the uh, defendant"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgVW3SGu0Ng&feature=related

 

[This is The End]

This was your claim I was responding to:

The only actual request the dispatcher made of Zimmerman was to "let me know if he does anything else," twice.

When in fact the dispatcher clearly told Z that "we do not need you to [follow M]". Sure sounds like a request to me.

Whoever wrote the affidavit for arrest agrees:

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.

Z was given a very serious sounding suggestion to stop following M by a police dispatcher. This suggestion was given during Z's pursuit of M and was within several minutes of the fatal shot being fired. Z responded to this suggestion with the word "Okay".

 

[This is The End]

<snip>because nowhere does the dispatcher actually use the word follow<snip>

In my eyes it is very mis-leading for you to say that. Just like how I used the word "that" in the first sentence of this post. You know what I meant by "that"; I meant your quote.

The word "that" in "we do not need you to do that" literally means "follow M" in that context. For you to bring up that technically the dispatcher does not say the word "follow" in that sentence (it was used by the dispatcher in the immediately previous sentence) is disingenuous and goes against the proper use of the English language.

Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah
Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.
Zimmerman: Ok

 

[crimresearch]

This was your claim I was responding to:



When in fact the dispatcher clearly told Z that "we do not need you to [follow M]". Sure sounds like a request to me.

Whoever wrote the affidavit for arrest agrees:



Z was given a very serious sounding suggestion to stop following M by a police dispatcher. This suggestion was given during Z's pursuit of M and was within several minutes of the fatal shot being fired. Z responded to this suggestion with the word "Okay".

Again, don't take the detective's statement of probable cause as gospel for anything except clearing the 'more than an articulable suspicion' threshold.