George Zimmmerman, Murder 2 and a "Depraved Mind"

"John" and Austin Brown. Don't you know the BASICS of this case ? (known for months). Try reading the thread.

See post # 104

 

I wouldn't place any bets based on that opinion. The only "circumstance" that matters is Trayvon attacking George. Prosecution need to prove that didn't happen. They can't.

 

Only one thing you need to "swat". George Zimmerman's contention that he acted in self-defense. If you think you can swat that, let's hear it. All this other stuff, all throughout the thread, is hot air NONSENSE.

 

None of that is relevant.

 

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 knowledgable 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, wheras 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 as well)

 

To start with, Zimmerman was not a paid security guard. He was a volunteer watchman. He called in to support suspicious behavior, not a crime. I agree that had Martin been committing a crime, Zimmerman should have gotten in a better position to watch and then be a witness to the crime in progress. The police were on their way. Zimmerman had nothing to identify himself as any sort of security personnel, such as a sign on his vehicle or a uniform, so it would make perfect sense that Martin saw him as some creepy old guy watching him. When the creepy old guy started to follow him it would only make sense that Martin would feel threatened.
My question to you is, what about Martin made Zimmerman think he was suspicious? Martin was walking through the neighborhood and talking on his phone. What's suspicious about that? Also, you called Martin a moving suspect. What crime was Martin suspected of committing? Do we really want neighborhood watchmen shooting our kids because they seem suspicious for walking through the neighborhood?

 

Z was not security personnel, does not have a security license and was not acting in the capacity of a security guard when this went down.

 

Is having a weapon brandished at you a self defense situation?

 

George wasn't a security guard..

Imagine a man so stupid that instead of getting a second job to pay his rent .. he gets two large dogs and joins a gym.

 

As I said, by the end of the trial if Zimm says the sky is blue the jury will walk to the window and look out just to check and make sure.

If Z's credibility is destroyed, so's his self defense claim.

 

Thank you for exposing his outrageous lies. Excellent work!

 

Protectionist has been corrected dozens of times.. George was NOT a cop or a "security guard"..

 

unless you can use it to your advantage then he is....right? you know i'm right....lolz!

 

He did, he prevented the loss and damage to himself.