Unarmed teen shooting: the debate rages on...

[Seth]

I know you said not to respond to this but I just wanted to say something.

I'm pretty sure Zimmerman understood that the dispatcher somewhat preferred that he not follow Martin, but "We don't need you to do that" is a very weak expression. If the dispatcher had really felt strongly about it, s/he should have been more direct and forceful instead of pussy-footing around about it. I'm not saying Zimmerman was right in ignoring the dispatcher's words (if that's what he did), but if the dispatcher had meant to say, "Don't do that!", s/he should have said exactly that. Instead, we've got this limp-wristed, ambiguous double-speak that just muddies the waters.

It's a matter of interpretation on zimms part. I mean, did he get any training in how to follow orders if in case he does come across some trouble and perceives a burglary was about to take place? Police have procedures when they follow a suspect, did zimm get trained to do the same? Also, the dispatcher maybe didn't know how thick headed zimm was and felt no need to "stern" his voice and perhaps thought zimm was not going to take risky actions all by himself.

Kind of reminds me when I tell my kids "Now don't do that, it's not nice". Not sinking in. A little louder. "I said DON'T DO THAT, it's not nice!" Still not sinking in. "FOR FUCKS SAKE WILL YOU STOP DOING THIS". Finally they hear and know what you mean.

I believe I told you before that "advice" or "directives" from police dispatchers are NOT LEGALLY BINDING ORDERS of any kind. Neither dispatchers nor police officers have any legal authority to tell you not to do something you believe you need to do when faced with potential criminal activity. All they can do is give you advice and tell you what THEY will do if you break the law doing what you think is the right thing to do. Zimmerman is a citizen who has full authority to act in a reasonable manner in enforcing the law, as is true of EVERY citizen, irrespective of what some non-lawyer police dispatcher chooses to dispense as advice. Dispatchers are trained NOT to tell citizens what to do, but only, as in this case, to tell the citizen that the police do not need them to do anything but perhaps hang around to talk to the officers when they arrive. This is because a dispatcher must NEVER, and has no legal authority to "deputize" a citizen and direct them to take some law-enforcement action. Police officers DO have that authority, and indeed most states have laws that both REQUIRE a person to assist a police officer if commanded to do so and absolve the citizen of criminal and civil liability if the officer tells the citizen to do something that is not within the officer's legal authority, such as "You're deputized, you hold your gun on this guy and if he moves, shoot him, I'm going to chase the other guy." This order is not lawful in that the officer may not have legal authority to shoot the suspect in custody himself, but if he deputizes a citizen and gives him that order, and the bad guy moves and gets shot by the citizen, it is the OFFICER who will be on the hook, and the citizen will be absolved because he followed the orders of the police officer.

That is precisely why modern police departments in urban areas NEVER, EVER deputize citizens by policy. It does happen, very rarely, in remote rural communities where there is no police backup available and citizens are sometimes called on to assist the police or sheriff, but the vast majority of officers are extremely reluctant to exercise the authority to deputize someone they don't know precisely because of the above risks.

By the same token, police officers do not have the authority to tell a citizen that they cannot take lawful action on their own in enforcing the law in the absence of police officers. Thus, Zimmerman had full authority to do what was reasonable and lawful up until the police arrived, at which point his further involvement on his own would be seen as interfering with the police, but until they arrive, he has lawful authority to act within reason, and lawful authority to defend himself if the suspect turns on him and attacks him, which appears to be exactly what happened. He was under NO COMPULSION to ignore, avoid, back off or stop following an individual he believed was up to no good.

Whatever advice some dispatcher gives you on the phone can be safely ignored if you believe that you have a better understanding of what is going on at the moment because you are there and they are not and you perceive a need to act within the law.

And that's just how it is, and should be, because no dispatcher can know everything the person on the scene knows and thus cannot make a proper judgment about what to do, even if they had any legal authority to do so, which they don't.

[Tero]

What's the movie with: we dont need no stinking badges!?

Zimmerman had no training for his volunteer "job".

[kiki5711]

I believe I told you before that "advice" or "directives" from police dispatchers are NOT LEGALLY BINDING ORDERS of any kind. Neither dispatchers nor police officers have any legal authority to tell you not to do something you believe you need to do when faced with potential criminal activity. All they can do is give you advice and tell you what THEY will do if you break the law doing what you think is the right thing to do. Zimmerman is a citizen who has full authority to act in a reasonable manner in enforcing the law, as is true of EVERY citizen, irrespective of what some non-lawyer police dispatcher chooses to dispense as advice. Dispatchers are trained NOT to tell citizens what to do, but only, as in this case, to tell the citizen that the police do not need them to do anything but perhaps hang around to talk to the officers when they arrive. This is because a dispatcher must NEVER, and has no legal authority to "deputize" a citizen and direct them to take some law-enforcement action.

Zimm should have taken dispatcher seriously, as any common sense person would do, especially being one self appointed "neighborhood watchman" and in the area for potential harmful interaction.

This is because a dispatcher must NEVER, and has no legal authority to "deputize" a citizen and direct them to take some law-enforcement action

Zimm was not out that night in this particular situation walking about as nonchalant citizen. He was there for a purpose, so therefore should be bind by some sort of directive and training in any given circumstances that may arise for the purpose of his mission.

He wasn't just lolly gagging around, hopping and skipping through the neighborhood. He was there for a purpose.

[kiki5711]

What's the movie with: we dont need no stinking badges!?

Zimmerman had no training for his volunteer "job".

It certainly looks that way. He was a lose cannon waiting to blow.

[maiforpeace]

What's the movie with: we dont need no stinking badges!?

Zimmerman had no training for his volunteer "job".

[FBM]

I know you said not to respond to this but I just wanted to say something.

I'm pretty sure Zimmerman understood that the dispatcher somewhat preferred that he not follow Martin, but "We don't need you to do that" is a very weak expression. If the dispatcher had really felt strongly about it, s/he should have been more direct and forceful instead of pussy-footing around about it. I'm not saying Zimmerman was right in ignoring the dispatcher's words (if that's what he did), but if the dispatcher had meant to say, "Don't do that!", s/he should have said exactly that. Instead, we've got this limp-wristed, ambiguous double-speak that just muddies the waters.

It's a matter of interpretation on zimms part. I mean, did he get any training in how to follow orders if in case he does come across some trouble and perceives a burglary was about to take place? Police have procedures when they follow a suspect, did zimm get trained to do the same? Also, the dispatcher maybe didn't know how thick headed zimm was and felt no need to "stern" his voice and perhaps thought zimm was not going to take risky actions all by himself.

Kind of reminds me when I tell my kids "Now don't do that, it's not nice". Not sinking in. A little louder. "I said DON'T DO THAT, it's not nice!" Still not sinking in. "FOR FUCKS SAKE WILL YOU STOP DOING THIS". Finally they hear and know what you mean.

I believe I told you before that "advice" or "directives" from police dispatchers are NOT LEGALLY BINDING ORDERS of any kind. Neither dispatchers nor police officers have any legal authority to tell you not to do something you believe you need to do when faced with potential criminal activity. All they can do is give you advice and tell you what THEY will do if you break the law doing what you think is the right thing to do. Zimmerman is a citizen who has full authority to act in a reasonable manner in enforcing the law, as is true of EVERY citizen, irrespective of what some non-lawyer police dispatcher chooses to dispense as advice. Dispatchers are trained NOT to tell citizens what to do, but only, as in this case, to tell the citizen that the police do not need them to do anything but perhaps hang around to talk to the officers when they arrive. This is because a dispatcher must NEVER, and has no legal authority to "deputize" a citizen and direct them to take some law-enforcement action. Police officers DO have that authority, and indeed most states have laws that both REQUIRE a person to assist a police officer if commanded to do so and absolve the citizen of criminal and civil liability if the officer tells the citizen to do something that is not within the officer's legal authority, such as "You're deputized, you hold your gun on this guy and if he moves, shoot him, I'm going to chase the other guy." This order is not lawful in that the officer may not have legal authority to shoot the suspect in custody himself, but if he deputizes a citizen and gives him that order, and the bad guy moves and gets shot by the citizen, it is the OFFICER who will be on the hook, and the citizen will be absolved because he followed the orders of the police officer.

That is precisely why modern police departments in urban areas NEVER, EVER deputize citizens by policy. It does happen, very rarely, in remote rural communities where there is no police backup available and citizens are sometimes called on to assist the police or sheriff, but the vast majority of officers are extremely reluctant to exercise the authority to deputize someone they don't know precisely because of the above risks.

By the same token, police officers do not have the authority to tell a citizen that they cannot take lawful action on their own in enforcing the law in the absence of police officers. Thus, Zimmerman had full authority to do what was reasonable and lawful up until the police arrived, at which point his further involvement on his own would be seen as interfering with the police, but until they arrive, he has lawful authority to act within reason, and lawful authority to defend himself if the suspect turns on him and attacks him, which appears to be exactly what happened. He was under NO COMPULSION to ignore, avoid, back off or stop following an individual he believed was up to no good.

Whatever advice some dispatcher gives you on the phone can be safely ignored if you believe that you have a better understanding of what is going on at the moment because you are there and they are not and you perceive a need to act within the law.

And that's just how it is, and should be, because no dispatcher can know everything the person on the scene knows and thus cannot make a proper judgment about what to do, even if they had any legal authority to do so, which they don't.

Ah. Good point(s). Dispatchers have no legal authori-tah to tell him what to do and what not to do in the first place, so he is not bound by any law to obey? Can dispatchers give even direct orders to those in uniform? Seems like they wouldn't, unless they happened to also be police officers higher-ranked than the uniform, and I don't think that type man the phones very often. Huh. I've never thought about that before.

[kiki5711]

And that's just how it is, and should be, because no dispatcher can know everything the person on the scene knows and thus cannot make a proper judgment about what to do, even if they had any legal authority to do so, which they don't.

Why call the dispatcher in the first place then? unless it was for some kind of alibi mix (just in case he end up shooting someone".

The dispatcher, with her/his experience know things like this usually end very badly.

Zimm wasn't calling the store manager for info, he was calling the police dispatcher. It's pretty obvious they're not going to tell him "yea, you sound positive, go and get the suckker even if you have to kill him".

They're going to tell him what the best route is to take, and on that night suggestion was "we don't need you to do that". That was a reasonable suggestion (for zimms safety as well) and if zimm had followed it, I don't think a confrontation would have taken place.

Now let's say, if zimm stayed in his car, and martin approached his car in a violent manner, then "no doubt" he would of had a clear "self defense" case.

It's not about following orders, it's about making a common sense decision when you're in doubt. Clearly dispatchers have tons of experience dealing with people and can tell where a situation is leading and they make a strong suggestion. zimm didn't have to follow direction from dispatcher as far as legality goes, but he should have if he had any common sense at all, or was at least trained how to deal with situations.

Whatever, happened that night, he brought it on himself, killed another human being, and is now trying to use "SYG" law to get away with it.

[Coito ergo sum]

Physician records are not public until the patient signs a release, so that is why you wouldn't have heard about it until now.

wouldn't you think that is the first thing he'd want released amidst all the contreversy?

Why? People like you, who have their mind made up, don't believe his physician is honest anyway. And, you don't even believe the same descriptions in the police reports, or the images taken at the police station.

His main concern is his legal defense. Public relations is secondary. The State wants to fry him, or lock him up for decades. That's a bigger worry than whether you think he's a gunslinging coward.

and people like you who have the whole scenario played out and sealed in stone. At least I try to look at the whole story as more info comes out, but NOT YOU. And I bet you're going to say that I never said anything but was made up my mind about zimmerman. That's all you SEE. You are like a horse with blidners on.

You've accepted just about every false allegation made here. You were quoting the "racist" statements falsely reported in the news even after the actually 911 transcript came out. You've alleged that Zimmerman ignored the 911 operator's instructions, when the 911 tape says EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE. You're the one who claimed he was a coward for even carrying a gun, and that he was some kind of a nut for being in a neighborhood watch group (even though the same are sanctioned by and coordinated with the police). You've claimed he wasn't injured at all, even though he was. And, you've claimed he started the fight with Martin after chasing him down,even while there is not shred of evidence to show Zimmerman did that. There is having an open mind, and then there is letting your brain fall out. You seem to have gone well past the latter.

[maiforpeace]

Now the prosecutors are complaining about another Florida law that basically forces all evidence to be made public...saying that Zimmerman won't have a chance at a fair trial since he's already being tried by the media members of Rationalia.

[Coito ergo sum]

What did he think he was going to accomplish by following martin? "a superman saves the day" in the morning paper?

He thought Martin was a burglar. He probably figured he'd deter a burglary, or deter someone from casing a house for burglary. Maybe he did.

that only shows that he's delusional/paranoid/and not fit for the job of neighborhood watch. It could have been anyone from the neighborhood, walking in the back, not dressed to well, and then what, zimmerman decided who's a potential burglar and who's not?

His job is to notify the police not be a superman.

That assumes a factual scenario -- that Martin was just innocently walking along the sidewalk in the neighborhood, rather than what Zimmerman says on the 911 tape, "This guy looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around looking about." And, "Yeah, a dark hoodie like a gray hoodie. He wore jeans or sweat pants and white tennis shoes. He’s here now … he’s just staring. "

Dispatcher, "He’s just walking around the area, the houses? OK." Zimmerman: "Now he’s staring at me."

Zimmerman also says, "Something’s wrong with him. Yep, he’s coming to check me out. He’s got something in his hands. I don’t know what his deal is."

Zimmerman tells the dispatcher where to send the cops: "Yeah. You go in straight through the entrance and then you would go left. You go straight in, don’t turn and make a left. He’s running."

Zimmerman then starts to run after him. But, the dispatcher says, "we don't need you to do that." Zimmerman says "o.k."

The dispatcher asks what entrance to the community Martin was running to, and Zimmerman tells her "the back entrance." And, then the dispatcher asks for Zimmerman's name, and Zimmerman replies "George. He ran."

From 2:25 into the call, to 4:07 when it ends -- that 1 minute and 42 seconds - there is no pursuit by Zimmerman.

If you've looked at the google maps overview of the neighborhood, you'll see that the total distance Martin had to travel was about 300-400 feet. Let's say it was 500 feet, or about 167 yards. Cal it 1 1/2 soccer field lengths. 1 minute 42 seconds to travel one and 1/2 soccer fields (being generous as to distance). Obviously, Martin didn't go to the fiance's house.

[Coito ergo sum]

Now the prosecutors are complaining about another Florida law that basically forces all evidence to be made public...saying that Zimmerman won't have a chance at a fair trial since he's already being tried by the media members of Rationalia.

That's rich. The prosecution is trying to say that they don't like the idea of following a Florida law that helps prevent them from hiding evidence, because it wouldn't be in the best interests of the defense? Yeah, fucking right. You can be sure, if the prosecution wants something, it's not because it helps the guy they're trying to put in jail.

Famous attorney Alan Dershowitz wrote something the other day: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/drop ... -1.1080161

A medical report by George Zimmerman’s doctor has disclosed that Zimmerman had a fractured nose, two black eyes, two lacerations on the back of his head and a back injury on the day after the fatal shooting. If this evidence turns out to be valid, the prosecutor will have no choice but to drop the second-degree murder charge against Zimmerman — if she wants to act ethically, lawfully and professionally.

There is, of course, no assurance that the special prosecutor handling the case, State Attorney Angela Corey, will do the right thing. Because until now, her actions have been anything but ethical, lawful and professional.

She was aware when she submitted an affidavit that it did not contain the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. She deliberately withheld evidence that supported Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense. The New York Times has reported that the police had “a full face picture” of Zimmerman, before paramedics treated him, that showed “a bloodied nose.” The prosecutor also had photographic evidence of bruises to the back of his head.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/drop ... z1vW5hKdI8

But none of this was included in any affidavit.

Now there is much more extensive medical evidence that would tend to support Zimmerman’s version of events. This version, if true, would establish self-defense even if Zimmerman had improperly followed, harassed and provoked Martin.

A defendant, under Florida law, loses his “stand your ground” defense if he provoked the encounter — but he retains traditional self-defense if he reasonably believed his life was in danger and his only recourse was to employ deadly force.

RELATED: TRAYVON'S DEATH WAS 'AVOIDABLE,' POLICE REPORT SAYS

Thus, if Zimmerman verbally provoked Martin, but Martin then got on top of Zimmerman and banged his head into the ground, broke his nose, bloodied his eyes and persisted in attacking Zimmerman — and if Zimmerman couldn’t protect himself from further attack except by shooting Martin — he would have the right to do that. (The prosecution has already admitted that it has no evidence that Zimmerman started the actual fight.)

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/drop ... z1vW5cM1AA

And, we can all remember when the special prosecutor announced the arrest of Zimmerman, and she stated her job as being "to do justice for Trayvon Martin." Well, her job is to see that justice is done, for BOTH Martin AND Zimmerman. The government wins when justice is done, even if that means freeing the accused. That part seems to be left out of the government's ethical stand.

I would say, if the prosecution objects to having to make evidence public, it's good for the accused that such a rule exists. If it hurt the accused's case, then the prosecution would have no problem with making it public. They seem to be more interested in a conviction than justice, which is fairly common among prosecutors.

[Coito ergo sum]

Ah. Good point(s). Dispatchers have no legal authori-tah to tell him what to do and what not to do in the first place, so he is not bound by any law to obey? Can dispatchers give even direct orders to those in uniform? Seems like they wouldn't, unless they happened to also be police officers higher-ranked than the uniform, and I don't think that type man the phones very often. Huh. I've never thought about that before.

Isn't it immaterial anyway, since there is no evidence that Zimmerman chased Martin, except for a brief moment on the 911 tape, but that Zimmerman obeyed the dispatcher when she said "We don't need you to do that."? I mean -- he didn't chase Martin, during the 1 minute 42 seconds from the time the dispatcher told him not to. If Zimmerman chased him down after the 911 call, we don't have evidence of it, do we?

[Coito ergo sum]

I believe I told you before that "advice" or "directives" from police dispatchers are NOT LEGALLY BINDING ORDERS of any kind. Neither dispatchers nor police officers have any legal authority to tell you not to do something you believe you need to do when faced with potential criminal activity. All they can do is give you advice and tell you what THEY will do if you break the law doing what you think is the right thing to do. Zimmerman is a citizen who has full authority to act in a reasonable manner in enforcing the law, as is true of EVERY citizen, irrespective of what some non-lawyer police dispatcher chooses to dispense as advice. Dispatchers are trained NOT to tell citizens what to do, but only, as in this case, to tell the citizen that the police do not need them to do anything but perhaps hang around to talk to the officers when they arrive. This is because a dispatcher must NEVER, and has no legal authority to "deputize" a citizen and direct them to take some law-enforcement action.

Zimm should have taken dispatcher seriously, as any common sense person would do, especially being one self appointed "neighborhood watchman" and in the area for potential harmful interaction.

You are aware that Zimmerman did, in fact, obey the dispatcher, right? Or, haven't you read the actual transcript?

[Coito ergo sum]

What's the movie with: we dont need no stinking badges!?

Zimmerman had no training for his volunteer "job".

Bogart - Treasure of Sierra Madre. It's one of the most famous misquotes from a movie. Like "Play it again sam," in Casablanca, it was never actually uttered in the movie.

[kiki5711]

That assumes a factual scenario -- that Martin was just innocently walking along the sidewalk in the neighborhood, rather than what Zimmerman says on the 911 tape, "This guy looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around looking about." And, "Yeah, a dark hoodie like a gray hoodie. He wore jeans or sweat pants and white tennis shoes. He’s here now … he’s just staring. "

That is NOT a fact. One perspective, by one delusional/paranoid zimmerman. This is what zimm perceived. however, as we come to know zimm more and more, it shows he does NOT have the best visual of a same circumstance as another normal person would.

"He's just staring" part of his phone conversation, also shows that his paranoia started to escalate.