Affidavit alleges Zimmerman confronted Martin [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Affidavit alleges Zimmerman confronted Martin


stormspotter
04-13-2012, 06:13
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/12/affidavit-alleges-george-zimmerman-confronted-trayvon-martin/?test=latestnews

The fix is in. :whistling:

callihan_44
04-13-2012, 06:19
this doesnt sound good, but will it trump witness testimony?

RustyShackelford
04-13-2012, 07:29
What do you mean "fix"? You don't think that Z followed/profiled/confronted/killed the unarmed Trayvon (sp?) ??

Why is that?

FLIPPER 348
04-13-2012, 07:50
The fix is in. :whistling:


Do you have issues with the truth?? The 911 recording says it all.

stormspotter
04-13-2012, 08:11
Do you have issues with the truth?? The 911 recording says it all.

The 911 tape shows Zimmerman said "OK" when the dispatcher said not to follow Martin. Until an eye witness comes forward and says he did not stop following Martin, we will have to wait till everything comes out in court.

:wavey:

RustyShackelford
04-13-2012, 09:23
How many of these supposed witnesses saw the whole encounter beginning-to-end? This Z guy looks like he got himself into some hot water by pursuing some innocent civilian* and then fatally shooting him. That's what the police are supposed to do. They don't look kindly upon others filling their shoes.

stormspotter
04-13-2012, 09:54
How many of these supposed witnesses saw the whole encounter beginning-to-end? This Z guy looks like he got himself into some hot water by pursuing some innocent civilian* and then fatally shooting him. That's what the police are supposed to do. They don't look kindly upon others filling their shoes.

I've been involved locally with neighborhood watch and the police want people to call if they see anything out of the ordinary. If an area has had an increase in crime, a lot of calls to the PD are not uncommon. Police have also asked that someone be followed, but not approached, and report their location. That MAY be why Zimmerman did not go directly to his vehicle, but was looking for an address to give to the dispatcher.

Did Zimmerman stop when dispatcher told him to. His reply of OK leads us to believe he did, but no one knows for sure except him.

If, and it's a big IF, Martin then followed Zimmerman and attacked him, because he felt disrespected or whatever, then Zimmerman MAY be justified in his shooting.

All that is sure right now is that Race Baiters and politicians are the ones pushing this case.

Hopefully he will get a fair trial, but only time will tell.

RustyShackelford
04-13-2012, 12:13
I've been involved locally with neighborhood watch and the police want people to call if they see anything out of the ordinary. If an area has had an increase in crime, a lot of calls to the PD are not uncommon. Police have also asked that someone be followed, but not approached, and report their location. That MAY be why Zimmerman did not go directly to his vehicle, but was looking for an address to give to the dispatcher.

Did Zimmerman stop when dispatcher told him to. His reply of OK leads us to believe he did, but no one knows for sure except him.

If, and it's a big IF, Martin then followed Zimmerman and attacked him, because he felt disrespected or whatever, then Zimmerman MAY be justified in his shooting.

All that is sure right now is that Race Baiters and politicians are the ones pushing this case.

Hopefully he will get a fair trial, but only time will tell.

Just because there seems to be an acknowledgement by the killer (or shooter, if you're sensitive) that he would cease his pursuit, doesn't make it so. In fact, I would bet it is highly unlikely that this wanna-be-authoritarian stopped tracking his prey down. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Z already had his hand on his weapon through the entire process. He followed, and encountered this kid who is/was completely innocent of crime. The kid was just walking around. Until you* can prove he was involved/indulged in criminal activity, he was just some unarmed guy that found a killer all hopped up on adrenaline and tough-guy-authority.

I wonder how this would have gone down if Z had just shouted out to the guy "Hey! What are you doing? Are you lost?" when he felt there was need for investigation.

Hollering out to someone on public property is not a crime. Acting like you are judge/jury/executioner and killing some kid is. And that's why there are charges. Don't make this Z into a martyr just yet. So far he's only a weak pathetic murderer.

* is not applied directly to those replied to

Lethaltxn
04-13-2012, 12:19
Just because there seems to be an acknowledgement by the killer (or shooter, if you're sensitive) that he would cease his pursuit, doesn't make it so. In fact, I would bet it is highly unlikely that this wanna-be-authoritarian stopped tracking his prey down. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Z already had his hand on his weapon through the entire process. He followed, and encountered this kid who is/was completely innocent of crime. The kid was just walking around. Until you* can prove he was involved/indulged in criminal activity, he was just some unarmed guy that found a killer all hopped up on adrenaline and tough-guy-authority.

I wonder how this would have gone down if Z had just shouted out to the guy "Hey! What are you doing? Are you lost?" when he felt there was need for investigation.

Hollering out to someone on public property is not a crime. Acting like you are judge/jury/executioner and killing some kid is. And that's why there are charges. Don't make this Z into a martyr just yet. So far he's only a weak pathetic murderer.

* is not applied directly to those replied to

Lots of assumptions here. You shouldn't ass-u-me.

RustyShackelford
04-13-2012, 12:39
Much of it is indeed fact. The rest may even come to light during the trial. Outside of some random post/confession on Facebook from the teen about how he was departing to burgle or rob on the night of his murder, what are you hoping to see come to light?

JBnTX
04-13-2012, 12:45
All the details don't matter one hoot.
Zimmerman sealed his doom when he got out of his vehicle.

His job was to observe and report.
After calling the police his job was finished.

I'll bet security companies all over the country are telling their
employees, "see, this is why you don't get involved".

Woofie
04-13-2012, 12:45
Just because there seems to be an acknowledgement by the killer (or shooter, if you're sensitive) that he would cease his pursuit, doesn't make it so. In fact, I would bet it is highly unlikely that this wanna-be-authoritarian stopped tracking his prey down. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Z already had his hand on his weapon through the entire process. He followed, and encountered this kid who is/was completely innocent of crime. The kid was just walking around. Until you* can prove he was involved/indulged in criminal activity, he was just some unarmed guy that found a killer all hopped up on adrenaline and tough-guy-authority.

I wonder how this would have gone down if Z had just shouted out to the guy "Hey! What are you doing? Are you lost?" when he felt there was need for investigation.

Hollering out to someone on public property is not a crime. Acting like you are judge/jury/executioner and killing some kid is. And that's why there are charges. Don't make this Z into a martyr just yet. So far he's only a weak pathetic murderer.

* is not applied directly to those replied to

Why don't you assume Zimmerman innocent until proven guilty? You've given Martin the benefit of the doubt.

RustyShackelford
04-13-2012, 13:03
Zimmerman sealed his doom when he got out of his vehicle.

His job was to observe and report.
After calling the police his job was finished.

I'll bet security companies all over the country are telling their employees, "see, this is why you don't get involved".

Why others don't see it this way (rationally) is beyond a mystery to me. But maybe more than a few are similarly inclined to pursue otherwise innocent persons just based on stereotypes etc.

Why don't you assume Zimmerman innocent until proven guilty? You've given Martin the benefit of the doubt.

Z, indeed, pursued/tracked/entered conflict with the person he moments later shot and killed.

Suppose you were walking around on public property (or even someone else's property) and were guilty of nothing. You can even wear a hooded sweatshirt if you prefer. I won't judge you. Then, some guy decides he doesn't like the look of you (maybe some guy preconceived by opinions based on race, perhaps) and comes up starting to give you the business. You are unarmed and this guy starts getting violent (or at least antagonist towards you) with you. Are you going to defend yourself? Even if all you can do is punch him in the face when he grabs onto you (or maybe brandishes his weapon)? What if you are now in an encounter with a man you know to be hostile and armed? All you can do is win the physical battle to save your life. You try, really you do. Trying to end the encounter that was brought upon you. You didn't want it, but.....

BLAM!!!

Now your life culminates in a pool of your own blood (and maybe some of the blood you were able to exact from your murderer during you initial attempt to defend your life).

I don't really expect a poignant response.

Woofie
04-13-2012, 13:14
Why others don't see it this way (rationally) is beyond a mystery to me. But maybe more than a few are similarly inclined to pursue otherwise innocent persons just based on stereotypes etc.



Z, indeed, pursued/tracked/entered conflict with the person he moments later shot and killed.

Suppose you were walking around on public property (or even someone else's property) and were guilty of nothing. You can even wear a hooded sweatshirt if you prefer. I won't judge you. Then, some guy decides he doesn't like the look of you (maybe some guy preconceived by opinions based on race, perhaps) and comes up starting to give you the business. You are unarmed and this guy starts getting violent (or at least antagonist towards you) with you. Are you going to defend yourself? Even if all you can do is punch him in the face when he grabs onto you (or maybe brandishes his weapon)? What if you are now in an encounter with a man you know to be hostile and armed? All you can do is win the physical battle to save your life. You try, really you do. Trying to end the encounter that was brought upon you. You didn't want it, but.....

BLAM!!!

Now your life culminates in a pool of your own blood (and maybe some of the blood you were able to exact from your murderer during you initial attempt to defend your life).

I don't really expect a poignant response.

You obviously have some special knowledge of what happened that the eye witness and responding officers are ignorant of. In addition to:

Why don't you assume Zimmerman innocent until proven guilty? You've given Martin the benefit of the doubt.

I also ask "How is it you were endowed with this special knowledge?"

Lethaltxn
04-13-2012, 13:16
Much of it is indeed fact. The rest may even come to light during the trial. Outside of some random post/confession on Facebook from the teen about how he was departing to burgle or rob on the night of his murder, what are you hoping to see come to light?

No, you've managed to take what few details we are aware of, draw a conclusion using emotion and present it as fact. You're arguments, like many others, aren't rational.

I hope the truth, no matter what it may be, comes out. Then I'll proceed to make comments based on fact rather than emotion.

RustyShackelford
04-13-2012, 13:20
What was Martin guilty of? Darkness of skin? Like I said, if there's some incriminating evidence that the young man was out to commit crimes (Facebook posts have been used more than once to establish that sort of thing) then hopefully it will all come out in trial.

As for the eyewitnesses, what's their story? They saw the whole thing, or tuned their attention to the sight of Martin on top of Z? How did it get to that point? There was, before that part even happened, at least the pursuit of the teen by the armed Z. Even the authorities that Z was able to hail told him to cease his efforts. Yet, somehow, he still fatally wounded the person he was tailing.

Lethaltxn
04-13-2012, 13:28
What was Martin guilty of? Darkness of skin? Like I said, if there's some incriminating evidence that the young man was out to commit crimes (Facebook posts have been used more than once to establish that sort of thing) then hopefully it will all come out in trial.

As for the eyewitnesses, what's their story? They saw the whole thing, or tuned their attention to the sight of Martin on top of Z? How did it get to that point? There was, before that part even happened, at least the pursuit of the teen by the armed Z. Even the authorities that Z was able to hail told him to cease his efforts. Yet, somehow, he still fatally wounded the person he was tailing.

You're using emotion again as an argument.

JBnTX
04-13-2012, 13:29
You obviously have some special knowledge of what happened that the eye witness and responding officers are ignorant of.



No special knowledge us required.

If Zimmerman would have followed the proper procedures, none of this would have happened. Period.

He had NO business getting out of his vehicle.
Observe and report, that's the extent of his involvement.

All the witnesses and all the details are a moot point.
The prosecutor is going to hang him out to dry all because he got out of his vehicle and got involved.

I'll even bet there's a piece of paper signed by him when he got that job instructing him not to get involved. Observe and report only.

And based on the amount of prior calls to police, there's probably more than a few police officers/dispatchers that told him not to do what he did.

Lethaltxn
04-13-2012, 13:33
No special knowledge us required.

If Zimmerman would have followed the proper procedures, none of this would have happened. Period.

He had NO business getting out of his vehicle.
Observe and report, that's the extent of his involvement.

All the witnesses and all the details are a moot point.
The prosecutor is going to hang him out to dry all because he got out of his vehicle and got involved.

I'll even bet there's a piece of paper signed by him when he got that job instructing him not to get involved. Observe and report only.

And based on the amount of prior calls to police, there's probably more than a few police officers/dispatchers that told him not to do what he did.

I'll concede he really shouldn't have gotten out of his vehicle. However, getting out of his car isn't illegal nor is stupidity.

RustyShackelford
04-13-2012, 13:39
I'll concede he really shouldn't have gotten out of his vehicle. However, getting out of his car isn't illegal nor is stupidity.

Maybe you're looking at it like getting out of your car at the market or the doctor's office or something. What if you were following someone you judged to look like enough of a delinquent to warrant your surveillance and possible detention. Even though they were engaged in no apparent crime. And even though the officers you called told you to disengage. Does that make it seem like a stupid (and probably illegal) thing to do?

Javelin
04-13-2012, 13:41
All the details don't matter one hoot.
Zimmerman sealed his doom when he got out of his vehicle.

His job was to observe and report.
After calling the police his job was finished.

I'll bet security companies all over the country are telling their
employees, "see, this is why you don't get involved".

Ok JBnTX I can agree with you on this.

Lethaltxn
04-13-2012, 13:43
Maybe you're looking at it like getting out of your car at the market or the doctor's office or something. What if you were following someone you judged to look like enough of a delinquent to warrant your surveillance and possible detention. Even though they were engaged in no apparent crime. And even though the officers you called told you to disengage. Does that make it seem like a stupid (and probably illegal) thing to do?

Stupid yes, however, as I said before stupidity isn't illegal.

RustyShackelford
04-13-2012, 13:51
Stupid yes, however, as I said before stupidity isn't illegal.

Well, getting out of a place you are in no danger (in this case, a vehicle) and (while armed) pursuing a person who has not been deemed a threat, (and with deliberate intent) then accosting that individual, and ultimately fatally shooting that person as they are defending themselves is a crime. One of the charges that you can face from those illegal actions is 2nd degree murder.

It sure is a sticky wicket.

Lethaltxn
04-13-2012, 13:53
Well, getting out of a place you are in no danger (in this case, a vehicle) and (while armed) pursuing a person who has not been deemed a threat, (and with deliberate intent) then accosting that individual, and ultimately fatally shooting that person as they are defending themselves is a crime. One of the charges that you can face from those illegal actions is 2nd degree murder.

It sure is a sticky wicket.

Where is the report at where there is factual evidence he accosted him forcing Martin to defend himself?

RustyShackelford
04-13-2012, 14:00
Where is the report at where there is factual evidence he accosted him forcing Martin to defend himself?

Well, what do you think he did as he exited his safety to approach the person he was told to disengage? Have a polite conversation of: "Hey, guy.... I'm not saying that you're sketchy or I have any reason to suspect you are up to any dirty deeds, but I am curious as to why you're wearing a hoodie. I heard only gangstas wear that particular garb. Would it be okay if you reported to me your intentions and whether you have any forms of contraband...?"

Is that how it all went down?

Lethaltxn
04-13-2012, 14:09
Well, what do you think he did as he exited his safety to approach the person he was told to disengage? Have a polite conversation of:

Is that how it all went down?

Just like you, I DON'T KNOW. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't. Once I have all the facts then I'll know.

brickboy240
04-13-2012, 14:32
Does it matter what WE think?

WE were not even in the friggin state. We are not lawyers and many are not cops, either. None of us are detectives or CSI workers as well.

How about reserving judgement on either side until the trial is over and the evidence has all been heard?

Bottom line....NONE of us know EXACTLY what went down.

Anything said before hand really does not matter.

- brickboy240

RustyShackelford
04-13-2012, 14:34
Does it matter what WE think?

WE were not even in the friggin state.

How about reserving judgement on either side until the trial is over and the evidence has all been heard?

Bottom line....NONE of us know EXACTLY what went down.

Anything said before hand really does not matter.

- brickboy240

Well how fun would the internets be if everyone withheld judgement on all topics across the board? This site would probably only cover weapons. Then what'd we have..?!

:animlol:

samurairabbi
04-13-2012, 14:46
He had NO business getting out of his vehicle.
Observe and report, that's the extent of his involvement.


Review the doctrine known as "disassociation" in many states.

If he gets out of his car to "investigate/follow/track/whatever" and, upon orders/suggestion, discontinues following someone, he has disassociated himself from his original action. Even if his original action is deemed to be flawed, his discontinuance of his flawed action "resets" his legal status; someone cannot maintain the ORIGINAL "following" justifies physical retaliation AFTER that tracking has stopped.

The "full" version of Zim's 911 call CAN be interpreted by a jury to support a claim of this "disassociation".

KALD
04-13-2012, 15:31
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/12/affidavit-alleges-george-zimmerman-confronted-trayvon-martin/?test=latestnews

The fix is in. :whistling:
You can certainly tell that is a prosecution affidavit. Considering it makes no mention of the EYEWITNESS who saw Martin attacking Zimmerman.

Another thing that is disturbing is no one seems to mention Zimmerman had every right to be in that neighbor hood and even follow someone ho deemed to be up to no good while reporting it to the police. He was also never ordered to stop following Martin since he(Zimmerman) was doing nothing wrong in following him in the first place and furthermore had every right to be there. He was only told "we don't need you to do that".

Zimmerman is only in jail to placate the race baiting filth like Sharpton, Jackson, Muhammed and Obama. And the simpletons who look to them for leadership and moral guidance.

I certainly hope he gets a fair trial.

Gunboat1
04-15-2012, 19:30
You can certainly tell that is a prosecution affidavit. Considering it makes no mention of the EYEWITNESS who saw Martin attacking Zimmerman.

Another thing that is disturbing is no one seems to mention Zimmerman had every right to be in that neighbor hood and even follow someone ho deemed to be up to no good while reporting it to the police. He was also never ordered to stop following Martin since he(Zimmerman) was doing nothing wrong in following him in the first place and furthermore had every right to be there. He was only told "we don't need you to do that".

Zimmerman is only in jail to placate the race baiting filth like Sharpton, Jackson, Muhammed and Obama. And the simpletons who look to them for leadership and moral guidance.

I certainly hope he gets a fair trial.

Spot on. Bravo.

Neighborhood watch groups have a right to exist. They are a good thing. Zimmerman has a right to belong to one. That is a community service. If, as he says happened, Zimmerman was ATTACKED by lil' Tray-Tray (the 6'3" wannabe thuglet), he had a RIGHT to defend himself with deadly force.

I'm betting on acquittal, with subsequent liberal hand-wringing over stand your ground laws, and some rioting by the race-baiters' constituents.

So far all I have seen and heard points to legitimate self-defense and justice already having been served to Trayvon Martin.

HarleyGuy
04-15-2012, 22:09
At this time we have to assume (because we don't know for sure) that neither Martin nor Zimmerman was in the act of commiting a crime.

What we do know for sure is that Martin was shot dead by Zimmerman's gun.
Martin was walking down the sidewalk...unarmed.
Zimmerman, legally armed was driving down the street and then got out of his car but from there, the rest is still not been determined.
The police dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following Martin and then said "we don't need you to do that".
He did not say "do not do that" or even "stopdoing that".
Neither of these acts are illegal.

Even if Zimmerman had approached Martin and asked who he was and what was he doing in that neighborhood, it was not illegal to do so and Martin could have simply walked away from Zimmerman.
Perhaps Zimmerman attacked Martin, or perhaps Martin attacked Zimmerman.
We don't know which one actually provoked the physical confrontation, and that is what the jury will have to decide, but in either case it's possible that Zimmerman truly felt that his life was in danger.

I was watching a local (Detroit) TV show today and once again, more people are giving their opinions as to what happened based simply on what they've heard, sometimes incorrect information.

I think the prosecutor, for whatever reason, has overcharged Zimmerman with 2nd Degree Murder but then again the final say will be in the juror's hands and hopefully by then the truth will evolve.

samurairabbi
04-15-2012, 22:20
The police dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following Martin and then said "we don't need you to do that".
He did not say "do not do that" or even "stopdoing that".
Neither of these acts are illegal.

Even if Zimmerman had approached Martin and asked who he was and what was he doing in that neighborhood, it was not illegal to do so and Martin could have simply walked away from Zimmerman.

Perhaps Zimmerman attacked Martin, or perhaps Martin attacked Zimmerman.

We don't know which one actually provoked the physical confrontation, and that is what the jury will have to decide, but in either case it's possible that Zimmerman truly felt that his life was in danger.


Before the presiding judge clamped down on releasing info, we did get to hear the ENTIRE talk between Z and the dispatcher. After dispatch gave the "We don't need you to do that", Z continued talking on the call for about 90 seconds, and from his breathing, seemed to NOT be exerting himself, as he would have been in a brisk walking pursuit. Z was heard to say "I can't see him" late in the phone call. Phone contact was broken before the confrontation occurred.