Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[KatieG]

http://www.myfoxorlando.com/story/18839930/sanford-police-chief-bill-lee-fired#ixzz1yNUIAhEq


Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee fired

 

[crimresearch]

Please do try and keep up with the thread ...

Did you really think anyone would fall for that??
http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Zimmerman_Martin_shooting.pdf

"Mr. Zimmerman was not acting outside the legal boundaries of Florida Statute by carrying his weapon when this incident occurred. He was in fact on a personal errand in his vehicle when he observed Mr. Martin in the community and called the Sanford Police Department."

http://www.minnpost.com/christian-s...zimmerman-and-why-did-he-shoot-trayvon-martin

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-03-23/...ercover-officer-investigation/3?_s=PM:JUSTICE

http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/state/...-describe-watch-leader-blamed-for-teens-death

http://www.minnpost.com/christian-s...zimmerman-and-why-did-he-shoot-trayvon-martin

 

[Rare Truth]

http://www.myfoxorlando.com/story/18839930/sanford-police-chief-bill-lee-fired#ixzz1yNUIAhEq


Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee fired

*awwww* <sniff>


He will be missed.

 

[crimresearch]

No but it does possibly change the standard of care.

No. It doesn't. I seriously don't think you understand what those words mean.

Standard of care is a requirement to follow acceptable courses of treatment to a reasonable degree.

Duty of care is for those in a position of authority over others to set such a standard.

George was in no position of authority over Trayvon, or anyone else, and even those who do hold such positions don't give up the right to defend their lives.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Did you really think anyone would fall for that??

Did I think you would fall for an official press release from the sanford PD ? No, you are way to clever for that !



What exactly about the official police statement stating George Zimmerman was acting in the role of a neighborhood watch member did you not understand ?

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Zimmerman_Martin_shooting.pdf

Oh yes, that's muuuuuch better

From said PDF:

Why did Mr. Zimmerman have a firearm in his possession while acting in the role of a neighborhood watch member?

 

[Cylinder]

I suppose the new document dump is beginning:

Tracy Martin initial missing person call

SPD connects the dots and calls Martin back

 

[crimresearch]

Isn't it also rendered moot by the fact that in spite of all accusations to the contrary, there is 0 evidence he tried to do anything but "observe and report"?

The prosecutors can try to bring in that GZ 'shoulda-coulda-woulda' up unto a point.

They cannot bring in utter fantasies about him having some official military/law enforcement rank and training (and therefore vicarious duty/liability) that simply doesn't exist.

 

[crimresearch]

Did I think you would fall for an official press release from the sanford PD ? No, you are way to clever for that !



What exactly about the official police statement stating George Zimmerman was acting in the role of a neighborhood watch member did you not understand ?



Oh yes, that's muuuuuch better

From said PDF:

And that question was asked and answered, by the Chief in the official statement from the City Manager, unlike your spur of the moment unofficial PIO press release. 'To: News Media - From Sgt. So-and-So' Yeah, that's exactly as official as the Constitution or something.

Official Statement from the City, quoting the Chief: It was perfectly legal, and Zimmerman wasn't acting in that role

You can knock off the fraudulent 'clever editing' tactics any time now.

 

[Cylinder]

I guess Tracy Martin was the advent of the khaki shorts description. Some of the officers must have got their notes mixed up.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

And that question was asked and answered, by the Chief.

It was perfectly legal, and he wasn't acting in that role

You can knock off the fraudulent smear tactics any time now.

If at first you don't succeed, deny, deny, deny !

No one claimed it was illegal, so you can stop with the strawman.

The title of the question was:
Why did Mr. Zimmerman have a firearm in his possession while acting in the role of a neighborhood watch member?
As much as I don't understand it .... nowhere in the response does it say he wasn't acting in that role

 

[This is The End]

I don't think that 2 second pause was when GZ pulled out his gun and TM 'surrendered' and then screamed again and was shot is what happened. If you think it fits the facts and works for you, ok then.

Yelling help does not contradict or prevent the "what if" scenario I presented in any way at all. It could have all went down like that no matter what Z was saying during that time.

He could have been singing a song and it still went down like that.

I seriously don't understand why you think Z saying a word has anything at all to do with the "what if" scenario that was presented.

My only conclusion can be that you for whatever reason do not want to believe it.


Fight occurs.

M is winning handedly.

Z finally gets gun.

M sees it and gives up.

Z yells help one final time and shoots him anyway.


It is very showing that you want this scenario to not be possible by using such an obscure argument as "It couldn't have happened because Z was vocalizing with his mouth at the time!".

ETA: And just in case anyone not following the thread tries to jump to conclusions I will add this disclaimer for the Nth time:

And, again, even if this scenario couldn't apply, I am trying to point out that there are scenarios where Z does not have to be a genius to leave out one or two minor details and stick to it.

People were seriously making the claim that after they listened to how dumb Z and his wife sound in the jailhouse calls, that he must have been too dumb to not tell the whole truth about what happened that night when interviewed immediately that night.

Don't forget this is in response to all of the assumptions that Z would have to be a genius to make up a solid story.

In my "what if" scenario all he has to do is say everything that happened exactly as it went down, except for one small but important detail, that M gave up when M saw the gun.

This is to show that there are scenarios where Z would not have to be a genius to make up a solid story and stick to it.

In fact, I'm not even sure why some of you are making that argument.

 

[This is The End]

He became physically involved when he got out of his truck and started following him.

I don't think that term means what you think it means.

I'm not so sure about that WildCat. I think you might be the one that does not know what it means in that context.

do not "get physically involved with any activity you report"

In that sentence you are getting physically involved with an activity, not with a human or humans.

Following or approaching the activity would be physically involved.

For instance, a basketball game is an activity. If you started playing the game you would be "physically involved" in it, even though you are yet to make contact with another player or the ball.

Or, more close to the topic, if you called in a robbery hostage situation. Trying to personally talk down, negotiate, or even approaching the hostages, would be "getting physically involved" even though you never make contact with any humans.

I seriously doubt it means otherwise or else they would not have to follow it up with "or apprehen[d] any suspicious persons". Which has a separate direct object.

Why else would "physically involved" specifically refer to "activity" and "apprehend" specifically refer to "person".

 

[Cylinder]

I seriously don't understand why you think Z saying a word has anything at all to do with the "what if" scenario that was presented.

The problem is that there is no evidence that it occurred and the evidence at hand points fairly convincingly in another direction. It is possible. It's also not likely.

 

[This is The End]

The problem is that there is no evidence that it occurred and the evidence at hand points fairly convincingly in another direction. It is possible. It's also not likely.

Obviously there is no evidence that "what if" scenario occurred! This thread wouldn't be 15,000 posts if there was!

That "what if" scenario is, by it's very definition and requirement, a scenario where Z is guilty and would have to only leave out a minor detail of his story. Used to contradict claims that Z is too dumb to have gotten away with anything.

That is all it is.

 

[crimresearch]

If at first you don't succeed, deny, deny, deny !

No one claimed it was illegal, so you can stop with the strawman.

The title of the question was:
Why did Mr. Zimmerman have a firearm in his possession while acting in the role of a neighborhood watch member?
As much as I don't understand it .... nowhere in the response does it say he wasn't acting in that role

Nonsense. 'Legal' was from the chief, not from me. Are you going into CT land now?

In the real world, 'on a personal errand' means exactly the opposite of in his NW 'role'. He was not acting in that role, and you've got nothing except desperate spinning at this point.

 

[LTC8K6]

It is disappointing that, in spite of his steadfast commitment to fairness and waiting for the results of a review of the Sanford Police Department and its investigation of the Trayvon Martin case, City Manager Bonaparte has chosen to exercise his rights under the employment contract to terminate my employment without cause.

I continue to stand by the work performed by the Sanford Police Department in this tragic shooting, which has been plagued by misrepresentations and false statements for interests other than justice. As the case progresses through the justice system, the evidence will show that our investigation was a proper effort to find the truth and follow the law. This has already been validated by evidence that has since become public as well as by comments from the special prosecutor.

I appreciate the opportunity I have had to serve all the people of the City of Sanford, the City Employees and especially the men and women of the Sanford Police Department.

Bill Lee is still on GZ's side, it seems.

 

[crimresearch]

Bill Lee is still on GZ's side, it seems.

One of the iron clad memes early in this thread was that the SPD completely dropped the ball, never did even the flimsiest investigation, collected no evidence, interviewed no witnesses, refused to talk to the friends and family, and gave George a total pass.

Like peeling back the layers of an onion, all of those assertions have turned out to be media hype and outright fabrications, time and time again.

It now seems that SPD did everything by the book, *documented it all* and only stopped where the law said they had to stop.

How is that being on George's 'side' other than by default of not being on someone else's 'side'?

 

[sgtbaker]

The problem is that there is no evidence that it occurred and the evidence at hand points fairly convincingly in another direction. It is possible. It's also not likely.

If it helps to clarify a misunderstanding, as an outside reader, I did initially thought that OnlyTellsTruths was trying to push a new theory. But reading back over it, he/she was creating a story to show that Zimmerman does not need to be a criminal mastermind to leave out one part of the story and still have all the evidence supporting his version. I don't think it was intended to be based on actual plausibility. I don't even think it was meant to be a speculation, just a hypothetical, for argument sake.

 

[LTC8K6]

One of the iron clad memes early in this thread was that the SPD completely dropped the ball, never did even the flimsiest investigation, collected no evidence, interviewed no witnesses, refused to talk to the friends and family, and gave George a total pass.

Like peeling back the layers of an onion, all of those assertions have turned out to be media hype and outright fabrications, time and time again.

It now seems that SPD did everything by the book, *documented it all* and only stopped where the law said they had to stop.

How is that being on George's 'side' other than by default of not being on someone else's 'side'?

I don't know, it wasn't my idea.

 

[Cylinder]

If it helps to clarify a misunderstanding, as an outside reader, I did initially thought that OnlyTellsTruths was trying to push a new theory. But reading back over it, he/she was creating a story to show that Zimmerman does not need to be a criminal mastermind to leave out one part of the story and still have all the evidence supporting his version. I don't think it was intended to be based on actual plausibility. I don't even think it was meant to be a speculation, just a hypothetical, for argument sake.

Right, I've acknowledged that previously. The point is that the little lie has to fit the evidence. One can claim that a simple pause would have worked, but you have the screams. So you add the pause plus faked screams. Then you have the uncertainty of observation. No-one eyewitnessed the fatal shot, but W6 observed the fight seconds before the fatal shot. Guess what narrative that fits?

OK maybe he lied about who started the conversation. Wait, on the phone with DeeDee...

OK maybe Zimmerman landed the first blow. No marks on Martin...

OK maybe he made up the concrete claim. W6 saw them on the concrete...

OK maybe he lied about his path. Witnesses heard the altercation progress along the top of the T....