17y/o Killed By Neighborhood Watch/CHL

[mamabearCali]

...in the first weeks of this ordeal, we were told that Z continued to follow M several minutes after the dispatcher told him they didn't need for him to do that...that's how it got put into the affidavit...and it remains to be seen if it really happened that way or if that detective today was accurate with his answers...listening to the 911 tape, you can hear Z huffing and puffing and out of breath as he tells the dispatcher that "he's running"...and that's when the dispatcher asks if he's following M... and he admits that he is...
...if YOU were on the phone to 911, carrying with CHL, and got out of your car to follow M, and chased him, as you were giving a description, direction, and location...you MAY or MAY NOT have been "playing police"...however, my describing that is NOT" a deliberate attempt to make it appear that Z was somehow doing something wrong"...it is a clear ACCUSATION that Z was SURELY doing something wrong...because he was a Neighborhood Watch captain...and he had been trained NOT to follow,chase, or confront...merely to observe and report...making NO contact with a suspicious person...that is why it was wrong for him for sure...and only MIGHT have been wrong for someone not trained in that manner...it has nothing to do with his carrying under CHL...it's all about him doing what he knew not to do...thereby creating the whole situation wherein a confrontation and the events following could play out....

Stupid to follow him, yes. Wrong, well if it was your car that had things stolen out of it you migt appreciate a person trying to get a closer look at a suspicious person. Against the law to get out of the car--no. Aggression rising tithe point that Mr. Martin was justified in beating his head into the ground--absolutely not!

As for creating a situation where something could occur....going to through a dark alley instead of going the long way home does the same thing, but I don't see anyone saying the person attacked in the alley caused the situation.

[ScooterSissy]

...in the first weeks of this ordeal, we were told that Z...that's how it got put into the affidavit...and it remains to be seen if it really happened that way or if that detective today was accurate with his answers...listening to the 911 tape, you can hear Z huffing and puffing and out of breath as he tells the dispatcher that "he's running"...and that's when the dispatcher asks if he's following M... and he admits that he is...
...if YOU were on the phone to 911, carrying with CHL, and got out of your car to follow M, and chased him, as you were giving a description, direction, and location...you MAY or MAY NOT have been "playing police"...however, my describing that is NOT" a deliberate attempt to make it appear that Z was somehow doing something wrong"...it is a clear ACCUSATION that Z was SURELY doing something wrong...because he was a Neighborhood Watch captain...and he had been trained NOT to follow,chase, or confront...merely to observe and report...making NO contact with a suspicious person...that is why it was wrong for him for sure...and only MIGHT have been wrong for someone not trained in that manner...it has nothing to do with his carrying under CHL...it's all about him doing what he knew not to do...thereby creating the whole situation wherein a confrontation and the events following could play out....

Odd that you are very quick to assign motive to Zimmerman's actions (he was playing police), but get defensive if someone does the same with your accusations. I have to admit, I don't know for sure if your assertion is an attempt to make it sound as if he was doing something wrong or not, but it sounds like it to me.

That said, if we're going to stick to to facts, "playing police" is an opinion, not a fact.

I just listened to the tape again. "He's running" referred to Martin. At that point, the 911 operator asked if he's following, and he replied yes. The operator said we don't need you to do that, and said OK. A few seconds later he said "He ran".

From the 911 call, it sounds pretty clear, he was following, but at a distance, and broke off following when asked to do so. Nothing about chasing, and certainly no claim to be playing policeman.

I've never seen anything from anyone at the scene that indicated Zimmerman "continued to follow M several minutes after the dispatcher told him they didn't need for him to do that" other than speculation by news articles. If the affidavit used speculation from the media, shame on them.

[speedsix]

...he knew better than to get out of his vehicle and follow, chase, or confront...to the point where someone would even think of running from him...he wasn't Mr. Average Citizen...going against what he'd been trained NOT to do...is what his wrong is...

...someone else, with no such training...might not have been wrong at all...just ignorant of the possibilities...

...if your child cut through a dark alley instead of going the long way home, and you had coached him/her about the dangers of the alley and that you didn't want them there under any circumstances...and they got into trouble there...would not your anguished cry be "You KNEW better...I TOLD YOU...you had NO BUSINESS there"....if the child had NOT cut through the alley, the situation would not, could not have happened there... GZ CAUSED the situation...TM would not have done ANYTHING that night but finish his iced tea and Skittles...and the game...if GZ hadn't gotten out of his vehicle and followed/chased him, putting him in a state of alarm and fear...

[mamabearCali]

...he knew better than to get out of his vehicle

...if your child cut through a dark alley instead of going the long way home, and you had coached him/her about the dangers of the alley and that you didn't want them there under any circumstances...and they got into trouble there...would not your anguished cry be "You KNEW better...I TOLD YOU...you had NO BUSINESS there"....if the child had NOT cut through the alley, the situation would not, could not have happened there... GZ CAUSED the situation...TM would not have done ANYTHING that night but finish his iced tea and Skittles...and the game...if GZ hadn't gotten out of his vehicle and followed/chased him, putting him in a state of alarm and fear...

I would be enormously upset with my little one, however I would not say that they were the instigator by simply being there if someone jumped them while in the alley.

As for him"knowing better than to get out of his vehicle" maybe he did, maybe he didn't. However those instructions are precautions to keep a person safe--not legal requirements. Disregarding the saftey guidelines of the neighborhood watch if he was on duty is grounds for dismissal from the watch, not an illegal act. If Mr. Martin has proceeded home instead of jumping Mr. Zimmerman he would have enjoyed his iced tea and skittles. Without Martin's aggression on Zimmerman all we have are two people walking about a neighborhood suspicious of each other.

[speedsix]

...in the first weeks of this ordeal, we were told that Z...that's how it got put into the affidavit...and it remains to be seen if it really happened that way or if that detective today was accurate with his answers...listening to the 911 tape, you can hear Z huffing and puffing and out of breath as he tells the dispatcher that "he's running"...and that's when the dispatcher asks if he's following M... and he admits that he is...
...if YOU were on the phone to 911, carrying with CHL, and got out of your car to follow M, and chased him, as you were giving a description, direction, and location...you MAY or MAY NOT have been "playing police"...however, my describing that is NOT" a deliberate attempt to make it appear that Z was somehow doing something wrong"...it is a clear ACCUSATION that Z was SURELY doing something wrong...because he was a Neighborhood Watch captain...and he had been trained NOT to follow,chase, or confront...merely to observe and report...making NO contact with a suspicious person...that is why it was wrong for him for sure...and only MIGHT have been wrong for someone not trained in that manner...it has nothing to do with his carrying under CHL...it's all about him doing what he knew not to do...thereby creating the whole situation wherein a confrontation and the events following could play out....

Odd that you are very quick to assign motive to Zimmerman's actions (he was playing police), but get defensive if someone does the same with your accusations. I have to admit, I don't know for sure if your assertion is an attempt to make it sound as if he was doing something wrong or not, but it sounds like it to me.
A. I'm NOT being defensive...I'm making it VERY CLEAR that I'm not "trying to make it appear"...I'm flat-out SAYING it...LOUDLY...
That said, if we're going to stick to to facts, "playing police" is an opinion, not a fact.

A.. "playing police" is an INFORMED opinion...based on all the reports and facts of the situation and what he said and did...and my experiences with both concerned citizens and "wannabees"...and having experience sorting out and settling the problems those "playing police" cause...
I just listened to the tape again. "He's running" referred to Martin. At that point, the 911 operator asked if he's following, and he replied yes. The operator said we don't need you to do that, and said OK. A few seconds later he said "He ran".

From the 911 call, it sounds pretty clear, he was following, but at a distance, and broke off following when asked to do so. Nothing about chasing, and certainly no claim to be playing policeman.
A. nothing in the tape says how far away he was from M...close enough that M felt threatened and ran...nothing in the tape says that he "broke off"...he said "OK"...and I guess you didn't hear that he was out of breath and seemed to be running himself...as evidenced by his voice...
I've never seen anything from anyone at the scene that indicated Zimmerman "continued to follow M several minutes after the dispatcher told him they didn't need for him to do that" other than speculation by news articles. If the affidavit used speculation from the media, shame on them.

A. the reports we got on this early on may have come from news articles, the police, or a link posted here...but they were given to us...and the prosecutor evidently dreamed the same dream...for it to be in the affidavit...it wouldn't have been any more or less true if you had seen it...it was part of the information we've been given...we'll find out if it was true or false in the trial, I'm sure...

...if an average person sees a suspicious person on the street of their neighborhood, it's normal that they would call in and report it to the police...

....it is NOT normal that they would leave the safety of their vehicle, and begin to follow that individual through the neighborhood...pursuing to the point that they alarmed that person and he began to run from him...and the advice from most normal people would be not to do that, and that you had no need, responsibility, or authority to do that...
...if you had been specifically trained NOT to do that...it would be even MORE not normal if you did it...

...he did wrong...and he started the whole problem...had he done what he was trained to do...Martin would have had no contact with him, nor he with Martin...it's so simple that a child could understand it...

[RottenApple]

...he knew better than to get out of his vehicle and follow, chase, or confront...to the point where someone would even think of running from him...he wasn't Mr. Average Citizen...going against what he'd been trained NOT to do...is what his wrong is...

...someone else, with no such training...might not have been wrong at all...just ignorant of the possibilities...

...if your child cut through a dark alley instead of going the long way home, and you had coached him/her about the dangers of the alley and that you didn't want them there under any circumstances...and they got into trouble there...would not your anguished cry be "You KNEW better...I TOLD YOU...you had NO BUSINESS there"....if the child had NOT cut through the alley, the situation would not, could not have happened there... GZ CAUSED the situation...TM would not have done ANYTHING that night but finish his iced tea and Skittles...and the game...if GZ hadn't gotten out of his vehicle and followed/chased him, putting him in a state of alarm and fear...

Immaterial. GZ had every LEGAL right to be there and to get out of his vehicle. You can argue wether it was foolish or not, but you don't get to blame GZ for doing what he LEGALLY was allowed to do.

As has already been indicated, GZ claims that when the 911 dispatcher told him (in regards to following TM) "we don't need you to do that", he started back to his vehicle. And as the prosecution has already admitted there is no evidence to the contrary, there's no reason not to believe him.

I'd also point out that GZ was not ordered, commanded, or instructed to break off pursuit and return to his vehicle. The 911 dispatcher said, "we don't need you to do that", to which GZ replied, "Ok". There is also the unanswered question as to whether a 911 dispatcher in Sanford, FL has the authority to order, command, or instruct anyone to do anything. In many municipalities, 911 dispatchers are civilians either employed by the city/county/state or a private contractor. They typically are not emergency service personnel like firefighters or police officers and ave no more legal authority to give orders, commands, or instructions (and expect them to be obeyed) than my 13 year old son does.

Speedsix, I respect your opinions & knowledge on a great many things. I've read a lot of your posts on this forum and gained a lot of knowledge thanks to you. But in this case I believe you to be (pardon the pun) dead wrong. You keep blaming GZ for something he was legally allowed to do and that is just plain wrong. If it turns out that GZ did indeed continue pursuit of TM and GZ instigated the fight between them before shooting TM, then I'll apologize profusely. But so far, all publicly available evidence shows that GZ did nothing LEGALLY wrong.

[speedsix]

...he knew better than to get out of his vehicle

...if your child cut through a dark alley instead of going the long way home, and you had coached him/her about the dangers of the alley and that you didn't want them there under any circumstances...and they got into trouble there...would not your anguished cry be "You KNEW better...I TOLD YOU...you had NO BUSINESS there"....if the child had NOT cut through the alley, the situation would not, could not have happened there... GZ CAUSED the situation...TM would not have done ANYTHING that night but finish his iced tea and Skittles...and the game...if GZ hadn't gotten out of his vehicle and followed/chased him, putting him in a state of alarm and fear...

I would be enormously upset with my little one, however I would not say that they were the instigator by simply being there if someone jumped them while in the alley.

As for him"knowing better than to get out of his vehicle" maybe he did, maybe he didn't. However those instructions are precautions to keep a person safe--not legal requirements. Disregarding the saftey guidelines of the neighborhood watch if he was on duty is grounds for dismissal from the watch, not an illegal act. If Mr. Martin has proceeded home instead of jumping Mr. Zimmerman he would have enjoyed his iced tea and skittles. Without Martin's aggression on Zimmerman all we have are two people walking about a neighborhood suspicious of each other.

...I never said that it was an illegal act...I DID say that a person doing what he knew better than to do to the point that another person became afraid of him and ran started the whole problem...those instructions and his participation in the NW knowing of them was his tacit agreement to abide by them...that puts on him a higher degree of moral responsibility to follow them than someone who read them, and said "No, I don't want to be a part of NW"...much higher...


"precautions to keep a person safe..." "safety guidelines"...very true...responsible people see the value in them and follow them...not throw caution to the wind and wade on in...

...it's not a legal or illegal issue...it's very simply this: if Z had done what Z had been trained to do, and what he knew he should do...we wouldn't have the topic for discussion...nothing would have happened between the two...he did good to call it in...the rest of what he did set the stage for trouble...and that wasn't his business to do...

[57Coastie]

...it's so simple that a child could understand it...

I guess that's it -- it's over. Thank goodness.

(Of course I am reminded time and again that I am not a child, every time I goof up my computer and have to call on my young granddaughter to fix it.)

Jim

[mamabearCali]

A. the reports we got on this early on may have come from news articles, the police, or a link posted here...but they were given to us...and the prosecutor evidently dreamed the same dream...for it to be in the affidavit...it wouldn't have been any more or less true if you had seen it...it was part of the information we've been given...we'll find out if it was true or false in the trial, I'm sure...

...if an average person sees a suspicious person on the street of their neighborhood, it's normal that they would call in and report it to the police...

....it is NOT normal that they would leave the safety of their vehicle, and begin to follow that individual through the neighborhood...pursuing to the point that they alarmed that person and he began to run from him...and the advice from most normal people would be not to do that, and that you had no need, responsibility, or authority to do that...
...if you had been specifically trained NOT to do that...it would be even MORE not normal if you did it...

...he did wrong...and he started the whole problem...had he done what he was trained to do...Martin would have had no contact with him, nor he with Martin...it's so simple that a child could understand it...

Wrong, abnormal....according to you. But notice, not illegal. Jumping someone however IS illegal, wrong, and an abnormal response to finding someone following you at a distance.

Just because you find his actions to be abnormal does not mean other do as well. Once upon a time when we were younger and stupider my DH and I saw three people vandalizing a neighbors car, they ran off on foot, Chris left our car and went 10 yards around a building to get a better look at the felons that did it. Was it stupid, yep, would I do it again NO! However he was able to get a good description of them and their car because of it. Now if one of those guys had jumped my husband would you have said "he caused the beating because he got out of his car?"

[speedsix]

...he knew better than to get out of his vehicle and follow, chase, or confront...to the point where someone would even think of running from him...he wasn't Mr. Average Citizen...going against what he'd been trained NOT to do...is what his wrong is...

...someone else, with no such training...might not have been wrong at all...just ignorant of the possibilities...

...if your child cut through a dark alley instead of going the long way home, and you had coached him/her about the dangers of the alley and that you didn't want them there under any circumstances...and they got into trouble there...would not your anguished cry be "You KNEW better...I TOLD YOU...you had NO BUSINESS there"....if the child had NOT cut through the alley, the situation would not, could not have happened there... GZ CAUSED the situation...TM would not have done ANYTHING that night but finish his iced tea and Skittles...and the game...if GZ hadn't gotten out of his vehicle and followed/chased him, putting him in a state of alarm and fear...

Immaterial. GZ had every LEGAL right to be there and to get out of his vehicle. You can argue wether it was foolish or not, but you don't get to blame GZ for doing what he LEGALLY was allowed to do.
A.I DO get to blame GZ, this is a public forum and my life experience teaches me that when you interface with another person in an unusual way to the point they feel like running...blame can be assigned...
As has already been indicated, GZ claims that when the 911 dispatcher told him (in regards to following TM) "we don't need you to do that", he started back to his vehicle. And as the prosecution has already admitted there is no evidence to the contrary, there's no reason not to believe him.
A.as has already been indicated, reports were posted earlier that Z said that he followed for several minutes after the dispatcher said not to, until he lost sight of M ...
I'd also point out that GZ was not ordered, commanded, or instructed to break off pursuit and return to his vehicle. The 911 dispatcher said, "we don't need you to do that", to which GZ replied, "Ok". There is also the unanswered question as to whether a 911 dispatcher in Sanford, FL has the authority to order, command, or instruct anyone to do anything. In many municipalities, 911 dispatchers are civilians either employed by the city/county/state or a private contractor. They typically are not emergency service personnel like firefighters or police officers and ave no more legal authority to give orders, commands, or instructions (and expect them to be obeyed) than my 13 year old son does.
A.we all know that the police dispatcher has no legal authority to tell us anything...but it reminded GZ of something he already knew by being in the Sanford PD-sponsored NW...he was to take NO PHYSICAL ACTION...just observe and report and let the police take it from there...and the elapsed time between his OK and the end of the call would have put him back at his vehicle, if he'd walked there immediately...instead, he was somehow involved in an incident nowhere near his vehicle...
Speedsix, I respect your opinions & knowledge on a great many things. I've read a lot of your posts on this forum and gained a lot of knowledge thanks to you. But in this case I believe you to be (pardon the pun) dead wrong. You keep blaming GZ for something he was legally allowed to do and that is just plain wrong. If it turns out that GZ did indeed continue pursuit of TM and GZ instigated the fight between them before shooting TM, then I'll apologize profusely. But so far, all publicly available evidence shows that GZ did nothing LEGALLY wrong.

...if you've carefully read all I've posted on this...and don't read into it other things...you'll see that I am not saying that Z did ONE THING LEGALLY wrong...

...responsible people don't drive as close to the edge of the cliff as they can...they hug the mountain...responsible people don't go off into the night bouncing out of their car and following someone who's not doing anything wrong...alarming them to the point where they run...nevermind what happened later...

...it's not illegal for you to look at someone in public, either...but what will happen if you go to a restaurant and simply legally stare at someone for an extended period of time...be they male or female...even when they appear to be made uncomfortable by your attention...trouble is very likely to happen...and who started it???

...if your wife comes home from her nightly walk and tells you that a man stepped out of his vehicle and began to follow her on the dark street...even to the point that she began to run...would you see that differently??? if your teen came home and told the story that TM could have told before any contact between the two had happened...how would you see that???

...we're awfully hung up on legal/illegal here...and that's not my point...I've stated it enough...you see it...you may not agree...

...we can do a LOT of things that we have a right to do...that AREN'T illegal...but that can start a whole lot of trouble...and to do them can be very WRONG...and legal...at the same time...GZ was wrong...and he knew he had no business getting out and following TM...for any distance, at any speed...and his actions made what followed possible...

...I don't know how to imbed like some can here...my responses are within your post after the A.

[mamabearCali]

...I never said that it was an illegal act...I DID say that a person doing what he knew better than to do to the point that another person became afraid of him and ran started the whole problem...those instructions and his participation in the NW knowing of them was his tacit agreement to abide by them...that puts on him a higher degree of moral responsibility to follow them than someone who read them, and said "No, I don't want to be a part of NW"...much higher...

So throw him out of the NW program--but that does not make what he did illegal or even wrong

"precautions to keep a person safe..." "safety guidelines"...very true...responsible people see the value in them and follow them...not throw caution to the wind and wade on in...

And how many times do we on a near daily basis disregard these guidelines for our own "saftey" Every cut the tags off your mattress? I hope you are not saying that disregard for saftey guidelines should be a crime

...it's not a legal or illegal issue...it's very simply this: if Z had done what Z had been trained to do, and what he knew he should do...we wouldn't have the topic for discussion...nothing would have happened between the two...he did good to call it in...the rest of what he did set the stage for trouble...and that wasn't his business to do...

And if Mr. Martin had gone home, called the police himself, ran to a friends house or did anything else other than turn around a jump someone we would not be seeing this either. The difference of course is Mr. Zimmerman may be unwise, Mr. Martin (by bashing someones head into the ground) committed a crime.

[mamabearCali]

...if your wife comes home from her nightly walk and tells you that a man stepped out of his vehicle and began to follow her on the dark street...even to the point that she began to run...would you see that differently??? if your teen came home and told the story that TM could have told before any contact between the two had happened...how would you see that???

I have had this happen to me....I called the police. I did not turn around and attack the person following me. edited to add..and I am here to tell the tale, which Martin would have been if he had taken that route.

[speedsix]

...it's so simple that a child could understand it...

I guess that's it -- it's over. Thank goodness.

(Of course I am reminded time and again that I am not a child, every time I goof up my computer and have to call on my young granddaughter to fix it.)

Jim

...having spent a good part of my early life on the street at night putting down trouble that people stirred up gives me a perspective that a lot of others don't agree with...and they surely have the right to either argue with me...or simply ignore me...I get ignored a lot...
...my youngest is 19...he's been sneering at me since he was ten as he helps me with the simplest of computer problems...he can't believe that my first calculator was over an inch thick, had red LED numbers, and couldn't divide...he's had computer since he was in about 7th grade...but I can sharpen a knife...and he can't...so I have him there...

[speedsix]

...I never said that it was an illegal act...I DID say that a person doing what he knew better than to do to the point that another person became afraid of him and ran started the whole problem...those instructions and his participation in the NW knowing of them was his tacit agreement to abide by them...that puts on him a higher degree of moral responsibility to follow them than someone who read them, and said "No, I don't want to be a part of NW"...much higher...

So throw him out of the NW program--but that does not make what he did illegal or even wrong
A. we agree that it wasn't illegal...but it was wrong

"precautions to keep a person safe..." "safety guidelines"...very true...responsible people see the value in them and follow them...not throw caution to the wind and wade on in...

And how many times do we on a near daily basis disregard these guidelines for our own "safety" Every cut the tags off your mattress? I hope you are not saying that disregard for saftey guidelines should be a crime
A. and when we do disregard "these guidelines for our own 'safety' ", whose fault is it when something bad happens?(once it's yours...you can cut the tags off your matress...says so on the tag...sleep well tonight without THAT guilt)

...it's not a legal or illegal issue...it's very simply this: if Z had done what Z had been trained to do, and what he knew he should do...we wouldn't have the topic for discussion...nothing would have happened between the two...he did good to call it in...the rest of what he did set the stage for trouble...and that wasn't his business to do...

And if Mr. Martin had gone home, called the police himself, ran to a friends house or did anything else other than turn around a jump someone we would not be seeing this either. The difference of course is Mr. Zimmerman may be unwise, Mr. Martin (by bashing someones head into the ground) committed a crime.

A...that's not the point of argument here...and, by the way, there's only one story about what happened when they met...Z's...so we don't know who jumped who...and may NEVER know...

[ScooterSissy]

A. the reports we got on this early on may have come from news articles, the police, or a link posted here...but they were given to us...and the prosecutor evidently dreamed the same dream...for it to be in the affidavit...it wouldn't have been any more or less true if you had seen it...it was part of the information we've been given...we'll find out if it was true or false in the trial, I'm sure...

...if an average person sees a suspicious person on the street of their neighborhood, it's normal that they would call in and report it to the police...

....it is NOT normal that they would leave the safety of their vehicle, and begin to follow that individual through the neighborhood...pursuing to the point that they alarmed that person and he began to run from him...and the advice from most normal people would be not to do that, and that you had no need, responsibility, or authority to do that...
...if you had been specifically trained NOT to do that...it would be even MORE not normal if you did it...

...he did wrong...and he started the whole problem...had he done what he was trained to do...Martin would have had no contact with him, nor he with Martin...it's so simple that a child could understand it...

My problem with the way you keep "presenting" things is that you keep throwing in little "extras". What do you mean he had no "authority". It was his gated community. He had just as much "authority" to be in a public area as Martin did.

As for the rest, I challenge you to show a single police report that stated Zimmerman chased Martin. I don't doubt for a minute that you read it somewhere, but that doesn't make it so. Much like the racial slurs that were, then weren't uttered; much like the "he looks black" that was profiling, then turned out to be in response to a direct question; there are lots that many of us read that have since proven to be untrue.

Plus, you keep talking about "training". What training? I've not read that Zimmerman had any special "training" (though he might have). What I have read is that there was an attempt to start a neighborhood watch, and he was the only one that volunteered. It's interesting that when the media wanted to portray him as a vigilante, they stated many times that he was a "self-appointed neighborhood watch leader".

I'll keep repeating. There's nothing indicating he did anything illegal at all. There's plenty indicating that Martin bashed his head against the pavement. That is what got Martin shot. It wasn't being in the neighborhood (or Zimmerman would have surely fired when it was safer), it wasn't being followed (again, that would have been an opportune time to shoot, if that was the motive), and it wasn't because of a confrontationg (or Zimmerman would have drawn and fired before being on the the ground on his back).