PDA

View Full Version : Did George Zimmerman's Father Talk To Police?



Qtec
04-05-2012, 01:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Did George Zimmerman's Father Talk To Sanford Police The Night of Trayvon Martin's Shooting?

It certainly appears that he did, as Lawrence O'Donnell uncovers in this segment.

Robert Zimmerman, retired Virginia Supreme Court magistrate and father of George Zimmerman, has been making the rounds for media interviews with Fox News exclusively. He's cloaked in shadow, of course, so he isn't identified. In those interviews, he was asked whether the police knew he was a retired magistrate and whether that might have had an impact on their decision to let George Zimmerman go free that night without taking his clothes or keeping his gun, or doing any of the usual investigation that police do when they find a dead kid laying on his stomach with his hands underneath him.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Zimmerman's answer to the question was a denial and not a denial. He said, "No one knew that I was a retired magistrate judge. I didn't mention it to the police. I didn't mention it to the state attorney's office."</span>

<span style="color: #990000">How interesting that he would specifically say he didn't mention it, without any denial that he spoke to them. </span>Do you think that the police might have known who George Zimmerman was before they showed up that night, simply because he had called them 48 times in the past two months? Do you think it's possible, maybe even probable, that George Zimmerman had bragged about having a daddy who was a retired magistrate judge, or that he might have mentioned it that night when his daddy came to the police station to talk to the state attorney and police but didn't mention that he was a retired judge?

It seems to me, as it did Lawrence O'Donnell, that Zimmerman's statement that he didn't "mention it" to the police or city attorney implies that he was speaking to them. That night. And whether he mentioned it or not, I'd say it's more probable than not that they knew who Zimmerman was, and who his daddy was. </div></div>

link (http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/did-george-zimmermans-father-talk-sanford-p)

I guess O'Donnell hasn't heard about this.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><u>The day after the shooting, George Zimmerman, according to his father, returned with at least three police officers to the Retreat at Twin Lakes, back to that grassy area where plaintive cries for help had gone unanswered.</u> The investigators, accompanied by someone with a video camera, wanted him to re-enact the events of the night when the two strangers had stood their ground.

<span style='font-size: 17pt'><u>Mr. Zimmerman’s father watched from nearby.</u></span> “They started where his vehicle was,” he recalled. “They walked him down the sidewalk and to the end of the sidewalk, to the street where he got an address and then walked him back towards his vehicle, near where the incident occurred.” </div></div>

Q

Qtec
04-05-2012, 01:10 AM
Here is a great interactive of the scene of the shooting. Notice the 7/11 is not that far from his house.

Also notice where the body was found.

link (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/02/us/the-events-leading-to-the-shooting-of-trayvon-martin.html?ref=us)

Q

Soflasnapper
04-07-2012, 06:12 PM
Very nice presentation; thanks for linking it!

Apparently, 'running toward the back entrance' was also 'running to the house of his father.'

Qtec
04-08-2012, 02:11 AM
Thanks. Its informative and IMO only adds to show that Z is not telling us the whole truth.

In his first call, he says the kid on Retreat View circle, even closer to his house! He says the kid comes towards him, then takes off running in the direction of the back entrance, next to his house!

How did he get back to the spot that he was killed?

listen (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgR7gCxXQYg)

Q

Qtec
04-08-2012, 03:12 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mr. Zimmerman initially tells the dispatcher that he is parked near a “cut through.” </div></div>

Its posible that Z cut him off. That the cut through he was at was on Twin Trees and that he was walking back towards the Retreat view Circle on the South side [ as map] when T turned the corner and was confronted by Z.

Another thing that doesn't add up is the part where he lost him. If you are in a car, how can you lose someone who is on foot?

It stinks IMO.

Also, Z seemed to me to be either stoned or a bit 'slow'.

Q

Qtec
04-08-2012, 03:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">George was walking back to his truck when Trayvon appeared from behind. </div></div>

How does that fit in with the crime scene?

If Z was walking back to his car, T would have approached him from the front!

We also have the girlfriend's evidence.

Lots of questions and no answers at this time. I don't want to sentence a guy without a trial but there are so many things here that don't add up.

Q


Another thing that bothers me about this case is the screaming. Its not normal.

IMO, a possible scenario is that Z approach T.
He pulled his gun.
The kid fought for his life, screaming because someone was trying to kill him.

If Z was following T and ambushed him, its T who has the right to use deadly force, not Z.






Q.

Soflasnapper
04-08-2012, 10:36 AM
Supposedly Z was on his back, with TM pounding his head into the pavement repeatedly, as of the gunshot.

Within seconds of hearing the gunshot, witnesses saw TM on his face side down, with Z over him on his back, with TM's feet toward the sidewalk.

This requires that after TM was shot, he rose up or was pushed up all the way opposite how he was facing, and instead of landing on his back, landed on his front. Possible, but I find that unlikely. Depends upon how much the gunshot immediately incapacitated TM or not.

Qtec
04-09-2012, 02:22 AM
For me its more important what happened before the confrontation. Did you see this. link (http://billiardsdigest.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=381145#Post381145)

Q

Qtec
04-09-2012, 03:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Supposedly Z was on his back, with TM pounding his head into the pavement repeatedly, as of the gunshot. </div></div>

Under the SYGL, its the kid who is the one entitled to protection , not Z the aggressor. IMO the screams came for the kid, who wrestling for the gun that Z was trying to shoot him with.



Father says Z went for his cellphone!!!!!!!!!

Yeah, right.

"They always get away". said Z.

Not this time.


The phone calls and the fathers words do not match up with the crime scene IMO.

Will Z plead the 5th? I cannot imagine him on the witness stand.

Q

Gayle in MD
04-13-2012, 12:38 PM
Zimmerman is lying. Zimmerman's own call to the Police, proves his own guilt, you can hear his breathing increase after he got out of his vehicle to follow Trayvon, jusat as I imagine the policeman on the phone with Zimmerman, could tell, and which prompted him to ask Zimmerman, "Are you following him"?

The Neighbor's accounts of what they heard and saw seconds later, prove that Zimmerman lied to cover his ass, after he killed Trayvon.

Trayvon's girlfriend's account of what she heard happening over the cell phone, right up to the moment that Zimmerman attacked Trayvon, prove that Zimmerman was after Trayvon.

Everything points to a vigilante murder, and Zimmerman's father, and brother's interviews, and the irregular behavior of the police, who blacked out their original charge of Man Slaughter from the arrest documents, written on the night of the murder, make the murder case against Zimmerman, even stronger.

Second Degree Murder charge, is the right charge, IMO.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZpsCc8IRHY&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0hD0hAzB54&feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYf2xTvJpzU&feature=related

Soflasnapper
04-13-2012, 01:55 PM
I lean to the conclusions you state as fact, maybe 60-40. But I don't think there is anything conclusive in the evidence so far as to amount to proof.

For instance, was Z's automobile right there or close by where Martin was found dead? If so, that helps support Z's story. If down the block or around the corner from the auto, then not so much. Where was it found? Isn't it true that no one has said one way or another at this point?

Same thing with Z's alleged injuries, whether and how well they were documented on the scene by the paramedics or fire dept. who came to the scene (and if there were follow up x-rays or a doc or hospital visit the next day). If they are as claimed (video evidence is contradictory on this), that helps Z's case, and if not, harms it.

Same thing with whose voice it is screaming for help. Contradictory claims that need judging from neutral parties' reports or competing adversarial advocates' arguments. Again, if it is Z's voice, helpful to his self-defense claims, and if not, harmful.

As for the lead detective there, he wanted 2nd degree manslaughter, not murder 2. Seems the manslaughter charge is more tenable.

Gayle in MD
04-13-2012, 02:38 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I lean to the conclusions you state as fact, maybe 60-40. But I don't think there is anything conclusive in the evidence so far as to amount to proof.

For instance, was Z's automobile right there or close by where Martin was found dead? If so, that helps support Z's story. If down the block or around the corner from the auto, then not so much. Where was it found? Isn't it true that no one has said one way or another at this point?

<span style="color: #CC0000">One can hear his breathing increase while he is on the phone with the police, and he continues to pant, after the policeman tells him not to follow Trayvon. It is clear, he left his vehicle, and is following Trayvon, even though he was told not to do so, and catches up to him, according to the statements that neighbors made in their 911 calls, and as he is following Trayvon, he is saying, "These expletives deleted always get away. We can hear him judgeing Trayvon, for what? For walking in the rain? What was Trayvon doing? Talking to his girlfriend, on his way home from the Seven Eleven, to watch sports with his dad, with no gun, just Skittles and Tea? Big threat! IMO, that is documentation of Z's sicko attitude, and of his irrational thinking.</span>

Same thing with Z's alleged injuries, whether and how well they were documented on the scene by the paramedics or fire dept. who came to the scene (and if there were follow up x-rays or a doc or hospital visit the next day). If they are as claimed (video evidence is contradictory on this), that helps Z's case, and if not, harms it.

<span style="color: #CC0000">I don't think so. Several of the neighbors said that Zimmerman was on top of Trayvon right after the gun shot, and the cries stopped immeddiately, when the shot went off, and that they were not cries from a grown man, but from a kid.

IMO, since it is clear from Z.'s own words, that he had tried and convicted this young man without any knowledge of him doing anything at all wrong, and Trayvon knew he was being followed, according to his girlfriend's statements, who was talking with him at the time, and heard most everything, up to the altercatioon by Zimmerman, and Trayvon felt threatened, and was concerned, and she stated, and she heard Z. approach Trayvon, adkin him what he was doing there, and immediately, she heard his earpiece become dislodged right after she says that she heard Z. ask T. "What are you doing here?" Now this man doing the asking, is armed, has convicted Trayvon in his mind, could have already have his gun drawn, as far as we know, and Trayvon, is not armed, but walking down the street talking to his girlfriend.

Does Trayvon have a right to defend himself against an armed man who is confronting him in a threatening way, when Trayvon isn't doing anything wrong, and the armed man is the aggressor, and the police have told Z. clearly, not to follow Trayvon, and he does it anyway, while expressing ugly language about Trayvon, bitching that T. might get away, and saying other irrational, unfounded, nasty statements about T. ?

Pretty hard facts against Z., IMO.</span>

Same thing with whose voice it is screaming for help. Contradictory claims that need judging from neutral parties' reports or competing adversarial advocates' arguments. Again, if it is Z's voice, helpful to his self-defense claims, and if not, harmful.

<span style="color: #CC0000">The experts on that say it was not Z. After hearing how they can tell that, which I have heard, I think they, and the neighbors, who heard the altercation, are on the same page about that. The cries for help, according to both the neighbors and the experts, are on the side of.... it was not a grown man, and it was not Zimmerman's voice, the latter stated by the voice experts. </span>

As for the lead detective there, he wanted 2nd degree manslaughter, not murder 2. Seems the manslaughter charge is more tenable. </div></div>

<span style="color: #CC0000">Well, I don't know because as we all know, we don't have all of the information, but clearly, he didn't want Z. to walk away scott free, without any charges, so the call of which charge will float, will be, I think, up to the judge, who hears the charges, and looks at the evidence, but either way, the fact that the detective had seen Zimmerman, and the body, and wanted charges against Zimmerman, indicates to me, that Zimmerman was guilty of a crime.

IMO, they were wrong to allow Zimmerman to leave, with his gun, when there was a dead teenager, unarmed, in a body bag, who had been unarmed, and Zimmerman was the only one who was armed.

So what changed their mind? Finding out that his father was a former judge, maybe? Or maybe some of them had gotten to know Zimmerman over the many times he had contacted the police?

I have had some experience with people who think they are not subject to the law, because they have a relative who is in a position of some sort of political power. I believe, that describes Zimmerman's overall behavior, precisely. Goes off half cocked, all huffy, because he has had that sort of personality, the idea most of his life, that Da Da can get him off. These are exactly the kind of people in our society, who take this sort of new "Stand You Ground" law, as a green light to do what they were already somewhat likely to do, in the first place.

But again, as we all know, we have not heard all of the evidence, but IMO, from what I have read and heard, so far, this was a vigilante murder, an unhinged, emotionally unstable man, who thought he was above the law, and hence, flipped out, on emotions, and hate, instead of using rational thinking skills. A loose cannon.

Just my opinion, of course, but I predict, Zimmerman will be proven guilty, of either man slaughter, or of 2nd degree murder.

G.</span>

Soflasnapper
04-13-2012, 07:07 PM
I think the evidence is less than conclusive, because there is a lacuna in anything known. That is, what happened after the phone calls ended has no real evidence that we've seen or heard.

The one eye witness, 'John,' if that's a real name, described TM on top of Z pummeling him, with Z hollering for help.

Clearly, others say to the contrary, but those couple of experts hired by the Orlando Sentinel are not going to have their opinions entered into evidence (or at least haven't so far). Plus, I've read TM's father first denied it was his son's voice.

What you have to realize is that if there is any alternative scenario that exculpates Z, unless it can be conclusively knocked down, it serves as adequate reasonable doubt, and must be taken as the fact by the jury.

To me, unless Z takes the stand and is entirely non-credible in his story, or of course breaks down and confesses Perry Mason style, his story will stand unless something is proven false, and then false in one, false in all is the other rule as to testimony.

Gayle in MD
04-13-2012, 07:50 PM
I dont know if you saw the two female neighbors, but they were by far the most specific, and the most convincing, IMO, of any of the eye, or ear, witnesses.

I believe he (Zimmerman) is a LIAR, and I think he will hang himself with his own lies when he takes the stand.

I base that view on my instincts about Z. and his family, after listening to his father's several interviews, and watching and listening to his younger brother being interviewed.



I certainly don't see any way that the Stand Your Ground, defense, will suffice, in this case, according to what I've seen and read.

Additionally, I think he would have to take the stand, in order to claim self defense, just my opinion.



Surely, Stand Your Ground, and a claim of self-defense, will be his game, but I think it will fail, even though he will probably end up getting two shots at it, before all is done.
What will the detective say, for example, about changing the original instinct to charge Zimmerman with a crime?

If his father turned up at that police station during that time, it's all over, IMO.

Additionally, I think this case will hinge on three recorded sentences....

"Are you following him?"

"Yes."

"We don't need you to do that."

and the testimony of Trayvon's girlfriend, and those two neighbors I mentioned.

If Zimmermann had not followed that boy, Trayvon would be alive today, and if Zimmerman was the aggressor, as he stalked that boy, at the very least, then his actions brought about the confrontation.

How can you claim self-defense, when you were the agressor, you were the cause of the situation escalating into a confrontation, and you were the only one with a weapon?

Zimmerman was not the victim in this, he caused the whole thing. And how can he claim the Stand Your Ground, when he was the stalker toting a gun, and spounting off slurs as he went? zimmerman was clearly irrational. His brother was irrational in his statements, caught hiimself up, and his father steped on his own lies during one interview that I heard, as well.

Anyway, it's going to be a long time before we have any more information, I think. But, I still stand my ground, lol, on my prediction. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif



G.

Soflasnapper
04-14-2012, 12:13 PM
Not to overly belabor these points (although I could! LOL!), but GZ's story, if found credible by the jury and if the facts are not able to be shown to be something a bit different than his account, puts him out of SYG territory entirely, and back into old fashioned self-defense.

Even before SYG, by the time you are hit in the face, decked, and have the other person on top of you wailing away at your head or pounding it on the pavement, there is no chance to safely escape the situation without violence. It's always been the case that you may declare self-defense as an affirmative defense against a criminal charge in a case like that, up to and including the use of deadly force, based on a belief of imminent death or severe bodily injury.

So in my view, it will all come down to whether GZ's story can be shown false by some evidence. If it cannot, and the basic storyline has to be taken as fact, then I don't think there is enough in the provocation of following and confronting to disallow his claimed self-defense in a 'he started it' argument. Even though it's quite true that GZ's actions precipitated the confrontation. But by the storyline, in a lawfully permitted way-- catching up with him to (probably) try to keep him on the grounds so the police could arrive without his getting away.

Just as TM was lawfully there, so too could GZ walk up to him, armed or not, and ask what he was doing there, as GZ belonged there as well. Then if GZ was attacked, with sufficient violence to have fear for his life, his use of deadly force is not disbarred, and rather, legitimate self-defense.

I do not believe GZ, but I've yet to find conclusive evidence in what has been released to the record so far, sufficient to overcome his presumed innocence and adequately refute his alternate explanations. Really, there is only the presumption that an armed person shouldn't kill an unarmed person, which is not a bad rule, but not a principle of law.

Gayle in MD
04-15-2012, 07:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not to overly belabor these points (although I could! LOL!), but GZ's story, if found credible by the jury and if the facts are not able to be shown to be something a bit different than his account, puts him out of SYG territory entirely, and back into old fashioned self-defense.

<span style="color: #CC0000">My understandiing as well, and no worry about belaboring, I enjoy the debate. </span>

Even before SYG, by the time you are hit in the face, decked, and have the other person on top of you wailing away at your head or pounding it on the pavement, there is no chance to safely escape the situation without violence.

<span style="color: #CC0000">True, but even in that case, if that was the case, your actions must be reasonable and appropriate, under the conditions prevailing.

Here is where Z gets into trouble, because Trayvon was innocent of any wrong doing and T. was wrongly accused by Z., the aggressor, as far as we know right now.</span>

It's always been the case that you may declare self-defense as an affirmative defense against a criminal charge in a case like that, up to and including the use of deadly force, based on a belief of imminent death or severe bodily injury.

<span style="color: #CC0000">Lots of information contributes to making that judgement, and Z was the one who we know for sure, sounded and acted like he was "Out to get" Travon. </span>

So in my view, it will all come down to whether GZ's story can be shown false by some evidence. If it cannot, and the basic storyline has to be taken as fact, then I don't think there is enough in the provocation of following and confronting to disallow his claimed self-defense in a 'he started it' argument.

<span style="color: #CC0000">I think that is the point about which we don't agree. People are expected to do the least harm possible, the action must match the threat, in how they protect themselves, and just showing a gun to Trayvon, or maybe, just a shot that wouldn't kill him, could have served the same purpose of Z saving his own ass, IF his story was true, so I believe that man slaughter would still fit the crime, even if Trayvon had stopped and turned ad confronted Z, Z was the one who was presenting a possible threat from the very minute he condemned that boy in his own mind. </span>
Even though it's quite true that GZ's actions precipitated the confrontation. But by the storyline, in a lawfully permitted way-- catching up with him to (probably) try to keep him on the grounds so the police could arrive without his getting away.

<span style="color: #CC0000">And which he was directed by the police, not to do! </span>

<span style="color: #CC0000">Tough call, but using un-necessary force, after being the aggressor, also isn't legal. You have to prove that if you didn't kill the person, you would likely have died. I don't see how Z can possibly prove that, against a seventeen year old kid, who was just walking home from the Seven-eleven, with Skittles and Tea, and really, Z had no right to even follow that young man in the first place. </span>

Just as TM was lawfully there, so too could GZ walk up to him, armed or not, and ask what he was doing there, as GZ belonged there as well. Then if GZ was attacked, with sufficient violence to have fear for his life, his use of deadly force is not disbarred, and rather, legitimate self-defense.

<span style="color: #CC0000">I don't agree with this point. The laws don't support vigilantism, not even the SYG law, IMO. </span>

I do not believe GZ, but I've yet to find conclusive evidence in what has been released to the record so far, sufficient to overcome his presumed innocence and adequately refute his alternate explanations. Really, there is only the presumption that an armed person shouldn't kill an unarmed person, which is not a bad rule, but not a principle of law. </div></div>
<span style="color: #CC0000">
I agree with most your points, but I don't agree that anyone has a right to follow and confront another person, contribute to a potentially dangerous encounter, rather than leaving it in the hands of law enforcement, and then kill the innocent person when they defend themself against being confronted and accused, without taking the consequences for being the confronting agent, particularly, when Z was told, not to follow. Did Trayvon have any rights?

Vigilantism, isn't legal, that I know of, which I think proves this case outside of the Stand Your Ground law.

Additionally, only one of them had been arrested before for going off his rocker, inappropriately,... Z. And I believe I read it was during an encounter with the police?



I still think a jury, after listening to Zimmerman's own words on the taped call Z made to the non-emergency police number, not 911, with all of the expletives, gives us ample proof that he condemned that boy in his mind without any reason to do so, proof of profiling, may not be racial profiling, provable, but that was definite profiling, proven in his statements.

I think a jury will find Z guilty, but they may not choose second degree murder, it might end up being Man Slaughter.

As for Stand Your Ground, correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand SYG law in Florida, if it holds up in the opinion of the judge, then there isn't any trail at all, so if this arrest holds, that in and of itself, would remove SYG from the case, before it goes to trial, and additionally, I don't think the prosecutor would have filed the charges, if there was any chance of this being a STG case.

I am assuming that this prosecutor has a lot more information which proves Zimmerman's lies, and a lot of it will be medical proof that he was not hurt badly. Heck, some people get nose bleeds when they get riled up, his nose surely doesn't look like it was broken to me.

I also think his so called "Injuries" were not serious injuries.

We know one or two things, for sure, only one person targeted, followed, and profiled, and was in the confrontational frame of mind, and, only one person assumed, and wrongly decided and inappropriately placed guilt, and was totally wrong in his presumption, and that person was the killer, and we have proof of his mind set at the time.

This will be a very interesting trial. At the least, I hope this terrible tragedy shines a spot light on how this SYG law promotes the wrong presumptions and attitude by some in our society who are not wrapped too tight to begin with.

Z was being a gun happy, wannabe policeman, vigilante, IMO. I don't think he is a stable, well adjusted person.

G.</span>

Soflasnapper
04-15-2012, 11:04 AM
[...]if it holds up in the opinion of the judge, then there isn't any trail at all, so if this arrest holds, that in and of itself, would remove SYG from the case, before it goes to trial, and additionally, I don't think the prosecutor would have filed the charges, if there was any chance of this being a STG case.


That's my take on the law as well. If it applies, no case, whether criminal or CIVIL, can even be brought against that person. And I agree the special prosecutor wouldn't charge if she thought it applied. But the key is the judge, now about to be changed out because of a conflict. Whoever is the judge may disagree with the prosecutor, making for a very brief (also known as 'no') trial.

But let's be accurate. 'The POLICE' did NOT 'direct' (or order) Z to do or not do anything. The call was not even to the 911 dispatcher, and if it had been (rather than to a non-emergency information line answerer who did take the call), that still would not be a police person (but a civilian), without any power to order anyone to do anything. But the key here is, 'we don't need you to do that' is different from telling him not to do it.

A true direction or order would go like this: 'are you following him?' 'Yes.' 'STOP following him, and return to your vehicle immediately to await police arrival.' Although that would have been an actual direction to stop, and an order to do so, that STILL would not be binding on Z, nor an order by the police.

Gayle in MD
04-15-2012, 11:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[...]if it holds up in the opinion of the judge, then there isn't any trail at all, so if this arrest holds, that in and of itself, would remove SYG from the case, before it goes to trial, and additionally, I don't think the prosecutor would have filed the charges, if there was any chance of this being a STG case.


That's my take on the law as well. If it applies, no case, whether criminal or CIVIL, can even be brought against that person. And I agree the special prosecutor wouldn't charge if she thought it applied. But the key is the judge, now about to be changed out because of a conflict. Whoever is the judge may disagree with the prosecutor, making for a very brief (also known as 'no') trial.

But let's be accurate. 'The POLICE' did NOT 'direct' (or order) Z to do or not do anything. The call was not even to the 911 dispatcher, and if it had been (rather than to a non-emergency information line answerer who did take the call), that still would not be a police person (but a civilian), without any power to order anyone to do anything. But the key here is, 'we don't need you to do that' is different from telling him not to do it.

A true direction or order would go like this: 'are you following him?' 'Yes.' 'STOP following him, and return to your vehicle immediately to await police arrival.' Although that would have been an actual direction to stop, and an order to do so, that STILL would not be binding on Z, nor an order by the police. </div></div>

<span style="color: #990000">I heard that also, that the call was not to the emergency 911 dispatcher. However, I continue to hear others say that it was.

I am not sure whether or not it is law ennforcement who answers both the emergency, and non emergency lines in Florida, however, in her released document, the prosecutor references that call, and she writes that he called 911, with no designation as to whether or not it is an emergency line, but I thought 911 was always emergency.

Additionally, IMPO, I don't think that is going to be the crux, regardless of whether or not the dispatcher said, "Don't" or "We don't need you to" He cleasrly was following T., proves he had profiled T., and made horrendous statements about Trayvon, preceeding the murder.

Z had no legal right, and a complete lack of authority to approach anyone, who would have been walking through that neighborhood, at that time, and proceed to demand answers from them. Who does this guy think he is? Even if he had been on Neighbor watch, which he wasn't, Neighborhood Watch, does not give authority to do anything but call the police.

The fact that he did this, when he knew the police were on their way, is the part which I believe is far more damaging to Z. That makes him look like he was looking for trouble with the young teenager,, and he words, certainly prove that much.

Poor judgement, that led to a dead, innocent young kid, with his whole life in front of him.

Unless there is an all white OJ sort of jury, I don't think Zimmerman is going to get off, just on the basic facts that we already know, and by that I mean the statements in the prosecutor's charging document, and the statements by Z., on that taped phone call. Those statements are going to hang him, IMO.
G.</span>

cushioncrawler
04-15-2012, 03:56 PM
OJ woz and iz innocent. We all know that. Simpson did it.
mac.