Martin could have said: I’m staying with my father who lives nearby. If you’ve got a problem with that I’ll call the police and you can explain why you’re watching and following me.
Zimmerman could have said that Martin looked suspicious the way he was looking around the neighborhood and that he’s called the police due to a rash of burglaries.
conversation ensues. Doesn’t even have to be pleasant as long as nobody starts swinging.
Well to start with I never mentioned giving out a name or address. And he was 17 not 10 so your mother centric advice to children really doesn’t apply. he was more than capable of carrying on a conversation.
To not believe that, you have to disbelieve both Zimmerman and DeeDee. They both said that Martin lost Zimmerman and when they encountered each other that Martin was the first one to speak. but go ahead, it is a free country. Or do you just have an issue with the word confronted?
I personally think they encountered each other accidentally after Zimmerman walked past Martin in the dark. I don’t think most people realize how dark it was. I actually calculated how many minutes after sunset it was and checked my back yard at that time and it was totally black except by my porch light and I think most people’s porch light was off. Martin could sit down on the south side of a fence and be invisible.
Zimmerman didn’t see Martin until he was walking back to his truck in this scenario. I think this is consistent with both what Zimmerman and DeeDee said, but I’ve seen full statements.
You comments seen to imply that Martin was an child and was incapable of making rational decisions.Don’t talk to strangers. Pretty good advice when he was 8. He was 17 years old and 6’3". If your description of him is correct, then Tracy Martin was derelict in leaving him at Green’s house in charge of Green’s son.
Kids that fit your description shouldn’t be allowed to wonder around alone in a strange town. Martin’s parents were apparently comfortable with not supervising him. Why do you insist that Martin should have been treated like an infant?
Here is the google map of the neighborhood. If you switch to street view you can see that the gate at the east entrance is closed while the north gate is open. I have seen video where the north gate is closed however. There doesn’t appear to be a place for a guard. The northwest corner of the subdivision has no fence.
Shouldn’t the onus be on Zimms to defuse the situation seeing as how he was the one doing the following?
Wouldn’t it be better to ask “are you visiting someone in the neighbourhood” than “what are you up to”?
And also - according to what you seem to be saying the progression was basically
a) Trayvon - why are you following me
b) George - what are you up to
c) Trayvon - blammo
That seems to imply a high level of agression that is not present in Trayvon’s history up until then. Maybe I’ve lived a sheltered life, but to me, relatively sane people don’t behave this way. And Trayvon does seem to be relatively sane.
What seems more likely is
c) George somehow grabs or blocks Trayvon,
d) Trayvon fights back, whacks, pushes, elbows or whatever George
e) George pulls out gun and bang.
And further - while Trayvon’s question was the first the Dee Dee heard, it doesn’t mean that it was the first part of the exchange… (maybe something was said or indicated that Dee Dee didn’t pick up) - not neccessarily likely, but also unsurprising considering she was listening via a handphone microphone.
Buh? Your narrative is “Martin showed up and confronted Zimmerman after Zimmerman lost him.” Dee-dee said that Martin would only “walk fast” to get away from Zimmerman, but would not be persuaded to run, and that he asked not “Why were you following me?” but “Why are you following me?”
How twisted up do you have to have things to suggest that this describes Martin showing up to confront Zimmerman?
I already know what Google maps show. Without a timestamp the pictures are useless, since it wouldn’t be unusual to leave a gate open at rush hour. The question is whether sugaree is correct and the gate is routinely left open all the time rather than down for repair at some times. The condition of the south gate suggests it isn’t.
I’d already addressed the guard question. Full time security guards are very expensive.
The that you don’t understand it doesn’t surprise me.
Retreat at Twin Lakes hadn’t signed up for that protocol, so your objection is irrelevant as usual.
JoelUpchurch, see post 711.
You are confused. I didn’t say that. If you read my scenario, I said nobody confronted anybody. I use the word encountered. Basically their meeting was an unfortunate accident. I was just responding to someone else’s comments on another scenario.
I’m sorry, but I need some more information. Specifically what do you want me to look at?
Not quite. They had been provided neighborhood watch handbooks, containing the same protocols, by the Sanford police.
And their was nothing that said that Twin Lakes or Zimmerman were required to conform to them. Of course, Zimmerman wasn’t even watching that night. He was on his way to Super-Target.
When do vigilantes ever conform with institutional guidelines?
Report but don’t follow suspicious persons. Not George.
911: We don’t need you to follow him. Fuck that, these assholes always get away.
Neighborhood watch volunteers should not carry weapons. George was always watching and always carrying.
Result: Dead kiid.
That’s your cite for easy access to RATL.
“It’s a gated community, but you can walk in and steal whatever you want,” Rashada’s wife, Quianna, said.
He doesn’t have to be breaking a law for his actions to be relevant.
The fact that he had reason to be aware of what SOPs for NW should be, coupled with the fact that he didn’t follow them speaks to his state of mind.
He was carrying a weapon and proceeded after someone who he thought might have been armed and up to no good even though Zimmerman had reason to know that doing so was both unnecessary and contraindicated. :smack:
That’s the, “He went looking for trouble,” bit, I s’pose.
Idk what exactly what it says about his state of mind, but it offers us a glimpse of what gears were spinning in there.
If Zimmerman’s story is true, Martin made the first attack, so the onus would be on Martin, not to defuse the situation, but to refrain from escalating it from an unpleasant verbal exchange to physical violence.
No, I didn’t include Trayvon in the progression at all.
That’s possible. The prosecution would have to prove that Zimmerman grabbed Martin first. Not “this seems more likely” but “this has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt”. And I am not aware of any evidence at all, to date, that would prove that.
Regards,
Shodan
And you’re pretty familiar with Treyvon’s history, are you?
The onus is on both. Trayvon doesnt get a free ride.
Maybe. Does that guarantee Trayvons response would be different?
Based on what info? According to media, Trayvon had glock admiration of some type. Does this translate to aggression tendencies? People seem to assign this to Zim for having a gun. Why the double standard?
More likely? Based on what? Misinformation by the media? What will tell the story here is the autopsy. If the angle of entry is level, then it would seem the two were parallel (unlikely based on Zims report of being on the bottom of the struggle). If Trayvon was on top and Zim was prone (straddle not lying on top as is typically the case with head banging), the GSW would have an upward entry.
But let us add one more thing. In any interpersonal exchange (under these circumstances), when there is not cooperation, anxiety increases. Adding the information linked by Terr, if Zim had info of increased crimes (which Trayvon didnt have), Zim could easily take the lack of cooperation of Trayvons case as suspect. If Trayvon did then deck Zim, what would make Zim think he is visiting and not someone there to commit another crime?