IT DOESN'T MATTER Whose Voice It Was!

Dec 20, 2012
677
12
Florida
#1
The prosecution in the Zimmerman/Martin case is showing its desperation. Not having any real evidence to show that George Zimmerman did not act in self-defense, they are trying to contrive up an issue around the screams heard in the background of the 911 tape.

Their expert has said it sounds like the screams of a young person, which would point to Trayvon Martin being the screamer (although Zimmerman himself was only 28, an age many people would consider "young").

The expert witness from the defense said it's undeterminable.

Fact is, it could easily have been either one of these two guys, or even both of them. Zimmerman could have been screaming because he was being beat on by a 6 foot three inch thug, and pummeled with fists. Martin could have screamed when he first got sight of the gun (after having already attacked Zimmerman, and still attacking him while trying to rip the gun from him), and could also have screamed after being shot. Not everyone who gets shot dies right away. Some people even get shot multiple times, and survive.

All in all, it could have been either or both, neither of which has any bearing on the truth or false of Zimmerman's self-defense claim.
 
Last edited:
Jul 26, 2009
5,666
406
Opa Locka
#2
He pulled a gun and ended up on the wrong side of a fight/flight response. While I agree with the point you're making, the self defense argument doesn't fly.
 
Dec 20, 2012
677
12
Florida
#3
He pulled a gun and ended up on the wrong side of a fight/flight response. While I agree with the point you're making, the self defense argument doesn't fly.
1. He "pulled a gun" in compliance with Florida law which presribes for him to pull a gun. If you have a problem with that, then you have a problem with Florida law, not George Zimmerman (or anyone else who legally carries a gun and pulls it, and uses it when necessary)

2. Like the trial prosecution, you also show NO basis for a charge that Zimmerman did not act in self-defense. If you think there is one, let's hear it. Burden of proof is on the accuser.
 
Jul 26, 2009
5,666
406
Opa Locka
#4
1. He "pulled a gun" in compliance with Florida law which presribes for him to pull a gun. If you have a problem with that, then you have a problem with Florida law, not George Zimmerman (or anyone else who legally carries a gun and pulls it, and uses it when necessary)
He pulled the gun then got beat. If anything your 'thug' was in compliance with the Castle Doctrine. Why Zimmerman is even using the self-defence defence for a fight he picked is beyond me. Why the prosecution is more worried about irrelevant screaming then arguing this point is equally baffling.
 
Dec 20, 2012
677
12
Florida
#5
He pulled the gun then got beat. If anything your 'thug' was in compliance with the Castle Doctrine. Why Zimmerman is even using the self-defence defence for a fight he picked is beyond me. Why the prosecution is more worried about irrelevant screaming then arguing this point is equally baffling.
Witnesses ("John & Austin Brown) told police it was the other way around. He got beat and THEN pulled the gun. Where did you get your information from ? Al Sharpton ?

And where did you get the idea that Zimmerman picked a fight ? I've never heard that one before. Perhaps the prosecution isn't arguing a "point" about Zimmerman picking a fight is because he didn't do that. Nothing "baffling" here at all. He's a security guy who's out doing his job. You got a problem with people doing security work (and in accordance with official Florida Security
standards ? >> Observe & Report)
 
Dec 20, 2012
677
12
Florida
#6
IT DOESN'T MATTER What the Dispatcher Said!

Not only are posters in this forum, et al saying that Zimmerman is guilty because he left his truck when he was ordered by the dispatcher not to, but so are pundits all over the TV cable news stations.
EARTH TO IGNORANT COMMENTATORS: The police dispatcher has no authority whatsoever to tell George Zimmerman what to do. As it was, the dispatcher only said "we don't need you to do that". OK. And at the same time, George Zimmerman (or anyone else doing security work) doesn't need the dispatcher to tell him what the dispatcher does or doesn't need. The only thing the dispatcher (or other police spokesman) might usefully tell a security person is to not do anything illegal. Great. But we all already know that. That's understood.

And George Zimmerman certainly was not doing anything illegal by leaving his truck, and following Trayvon Martin. Quite the contrary, he was acting in accordance with the standard procedures prescribed by the state of Florida, in the 40 hour course that the state gives, to get applicants qualified to receive the state's Security Officer Class D license.

The basic idea prescribed by the state is for guards (or anyone doing security) to OBSERVE & REPORT. In the case of suspects who are moving about, this requires a security person to follow that suspect so as to continue to observe him/her. If the trial prosecution tries to villianize Zimmerman for following Martin, it will be one of the dumbest tactics ever employed by a prosecution. A prosecution team entitled "Florida" using information that the state of Florida officially refutes, in its licensing procedure. If they don't try to employ it, it will mean they have a bit more brains than some of the TV cable news big mouths.

As for the police dispatchers, they are not to be regarded as authorities or even knowledgeble when it comes to security. The cops on the beat know far less about security than security professionals do, and they have very little knowledge of individual sites where guards do their work, compared to the guards (or neighborhood watch folks) who usually know their sites inside out. Guards are defenders of stationary posts, whereas cops are mobile responders who respond to radio calls. If there would be any advice handed out, it might be from the guards to the police, not the other way around.

(Protectionist is a 38 year veteran of professional security work, a current holder of a Florida Security Officer Class D license, a Florida Concealed weapon license, and a former holder of other Florida Security licenses)
 
Dec 20, 2012
677
12
Florida
#10
:rolleyes:

Pro tip, never post a chain. You will ALWAYS look like an idiot regardless of the subject.
The OP was copy-pasted from my OP in another forum, where the posters DID talk about Zimmerman leaving his truck. So the word "this" in the quote > "Not only are posters in this forum", was referring to another forum, not Political Fray. Not altering it for PF, was just a slight oversight on my part. I can live with it. :giggle:
 
Last edited:
Aug 9, 2012
311
41
North Texas
#11
Zimmerman didn't do anything illegal in leaving his truck, but when he stalked an unarmed minor and ended up shooting that minor, then he should be held accountable for his actions.

I think Second Degree Murder is overreach. He appears to be guilty of Manslaughter.

782.07 - - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate
782.07 Manslaughter; aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult; aggravated manslaughter of a child; aggravated manslaughter of an officer, a firefighter, an emergency medical technician, or a paramedic.—
(1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(2) A person who causes the death of any elderly person or disabled adult by culpable negligence under s. 825.102(3) commits aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(3) A person who causes the death of any person under the age of 18 by culpable negligence under s. 827.03(3) commits aggravated manslaughter of a child, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
 
Aug 9, 2012
311
41
North Texas
#12
Zimmerman is responsible for instigating a situation where he ended up shooting an unarmed minor and should be held accountable for it under Florida Manslaughter statutes.

782.07 - - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate

If guilty, he would get a minimum of 9.25 years under Florida law. I think that is excessive, but that's what we get with "zero tolerance", minimum penalty laws.

Florida Crimes: Manslaughter
If convicted of Manslaughter, a judge is required to impose a minimum prison sentence of 9¼ years in prison and can impose any additional combination of the following penalties:

Up to 15 years in prison.
Up to 15 years of probation.
Up to $10,000 in fines.
 
Dec 20, 2012
677
12
Florida
#13
Zimmerman didn't do anything illegal in leaving his truck, but when he stalked an unarmed minor and ended up shooting that minor, then he should be held accountable for his actions.

I think Second Degree Murder is overreach. He appears to be guilty of Manslaughter.

782.07 - - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate
FALSE! Florida law spefically defines "stalking" as a "malicious" activity and a "repetitive" one, neither of which is the case here. It also cant be shown that Zimmerman harassed Martin. It also is irrelvant that Martin was a minor. There is nothing for Zimmerman to be held accountable for, and perhaps should be given a award for stopping a thief from committing burglaries, as well as his commendable volunteer service to his community, in general.

2011 Florida Statutes

Title XLVI
CRIMES Chapter 784
ASSAULT; BATTERY; CULPABLE NEGLIGENCE View Entire Chapter

784.048 Stalking; definitions; penalties.—

(2) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

784.048 - - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate

Also, since Zimmerman's action was in self-defense (let the prosecution PROVE it wasn't), he therefore is not guilty of manslaughter, or any crime.
 
Dec 20, 2012
677
12
Florida
#14
Zimmerman is responsible for instigating a situation where he ended up shooting an unarmed minor and should be held accountable for it under Florida Manslaughter statutes.

782.07 - - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate

If guilty, he would get a minimum of 9.25 years under Florida law. I think that is excessive, but that's what we get with "zero tolerance", minimum penalty laws.

Florida Crimes: Manslaughter
"Instigating" ? How do you justify that ? Since he followed state of Florida Security Officer Class D license standard operating procedure, to the letter. I've never seen anyone show a shred of evidence that Zimmerman did anything outside of this proper procedure, so if you think you have some evidence that he did (if you know what that D license procedure is), let's hear it.

Note: doesn't matter if Zimmerman himself, was a licensed guard or not. The simple existence of the license and the Florida 40 hour course, is enough to establish a substantial definition of propriety.

Also, both facts that Martin was a minor and unarmed, are irrelevant.
 
Oct 25, 2012
3,775
614
Louisville, Ky
#15
"Instigating" ? How do you justify that ? Since he followed state of Florida Security Officer Class D license standard operating procedure, to the letter. I've never seen anyone show a shred of evidence that Zimmerman did anything outside of this proper procedure, so if you think you have some evidence that he did (if you know what that D license procedure is), let's hear it.

Note: doesn't matter if Zimmerman himself, was a licensed guard or not. The simple existence of the license and the Florida 40 hour course, is enough to establish a substantial definition of propriety.

Also, both facts that Martin was a minor and unarmed, are irrelevant.
When someone is told not to approach by those in authority, yet they ignore this in favor of pursuit, they have instigated any forthcoming situation. The fact that his victim was an unarmed minor is most certainly relevant....ask the prosecutor.
 
Aug 9, 2012
311
41
North Texas
#16
"Instigating" ? How do you justify that ? Since he followed state of Florida Security Officer Class D license standard operating procedure, to the letter. I've never seen anyone show a shred of evidence that Zimmerman did anything outside of this proper procedure, so if you think you have some evidence that he did (if you know what that D license procedure is), let's hear it.
I'm content to let the court make it's case. $20 says Zimmerman goes down for Manslaughter. Bet?


Also, both facts that Martin was a minor and unarmed, are irrelevant.
Really? My, how Florida has changed since I left. Actually, I think even Floridians will think it's wrong for a wannabe cop to go around chasing down innocent American kids and shooting them, but as stated above, I'm content to let the Judge and Jury rule on it.
 
Dec 20, 2012
677
12
Florida
#17
When someone is told not to approach by those in authority, yet they ignore this in favor of pursuit, they have instigated any forthcoming situation. The fact that his victim was an unarmed minor is most certainly relevant....ask the prosecutor.
Both of those statement are 100% wrong. "Told" ? HA HA. Do you do everything anyone tells you to do ? The police dispatcher has neither the authority or the knowledge to tell a security person what to do, except to obey the law, which Zimmerman was doing, as well as observing correct security procedure, as defined by the state of Florida. Zimmerman instigated nothing. He was doing security, and he was doing it properly. The dispatchers "advice"was completely wrong (as police and their dispatchers so often are, in security matters)

As for Trayvon being a minor, I couldn't care less what goofball rap the prosecutors think they have about T being a minor. He was a tall (6'3") guy, capable of inflicting serious bodily harm upon someone, and he did just that. Clear cut case of self-defense.

http://politicalfray.com/current-events/3947-doesn-t-matter-what-dispatcher-said.html#post43429
 
Last edited:
Dec 20, 2012
677
12
Florida
#18
I'm content to let the court make it's case. $20 says Zimmerman goes down for Manslaughter. Bet?
There is no way that a bet can be done in this forum without posters giving up their anonymity. Lucky for you.

Really? My, how Florida has changed since I left. Actually, I think even Floridians will think it's wrong for a wannabe cop to go around chasing down innocent American kids and shooting them, but as stated above, I'm content to let the Judge and Jury rule on it.
1. Nothing that Zimmerman did indicates him as a "wannabe cop".

2. What you call "chasing down" is actually simple Observe & Report standard procedure as defined by the state of Florida, which you, the Sanford police dispatcher, and some other people in this forum appear to be oblivious to.

3. You haven't shown a shred of evidence that Trayvon was "innocent", when 2 eyewitnesses reported him committing a violent crime of battery and attempted murder, and Zimmerman's injuries are consistent with that as well.

Strike 1. Strike 2. Strike 3.

I'm content to let the Judge and Jury rule on it, too.
 
Last edited:
Dec 20, 2012
677
12
Florida
#20
Good. Okay, if you don't want to put up a cash bet, we can just call it a gentleman's bet. Are you game?
Sure. But neither of us can really know what the outcome will be, which could be determined by prejudicial feeling of the jurors, bad judging, and things yet to be seen, rather than just pure right and wrong.

I could easily see Zimmerman being 100% innocent and still be convicted, if the trial goes wacky. It's like the Jody Arias trial. Yeah, it looks bad in her case, but I never really saw any positive proof that she might not have been defending herself at the moment she shot the guy dead, regardless of all the other stuff. But they still convicted her. And dozens of innocent people have been freed from prison, after DNA showed they were innocent. Trials aren't infallible.
 

Similar Discussions