Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You know koshergirl, if you want to neg rep me, at least do it when I'm being a dick.As I stated earlier, it's possible that was when Police finally got around to dealing with his phone. (5 days later) It was in custody, as I understand.Why would the police dial 911 from Martin's phone?The 911 call from Travon's phone is dated March 2, inthemiddle.
It was in police custody at that time, as far as I know.
It might have been to get the number? Supposition at this point.
Within the exact minute a phone call outbound to 911 was placed, an incoming came in from Sanford police department. 12:45PM. According to Trayvon's phone records.
Ah. You make a very good point.Not called, just dialed. It's possible he tried to call 911 but never pushed "call."No, it would have shown on his phone records.It's hard to believe the police would dial 911 on purpose. I wonder if his phone had a last number dialed feature and that's what they were trying to determine.
Besides, we heard from his girlfriend the phone went dead when she believed he was pushed. (or heard something to that effect) - likely when the incident occurred.
See my timeline earlier.
It would be interesting to know why it was called from his phone days after he died.
These legal scholars and amateur detectives do not have a clue what evidence, chain of custody and memorializing of evidence are.
The burden of proof lays solely ON THE PROSECUTION and the degree of certitude of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt, NOT preponderance of the evidence.
Many believe that the side that has THE MOST evidence will win but especially in criminal court where the burden is on the prosecution and the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt it is THE QUALITY of the evidence, or lack of it, that the prosecution puts up that has to meet the burden of beyond a reasonable doubt.
lol.She is a child and thinks she is important on here.like a wildrose of sorts....You know koshergirl, if you want to neg rep me, at least do it when I'm being a dick.As I stated earlier, it's possible that was when Police finally got around to dealing with his phone. (5 days later) It was in custody, as I understand.
It might have been to get the number? Supposition at this point.
Within the exact minute a phone call outbound to 911 was placed, an incoming came in from Sanford police department. 12:45PM. According to Trayvon's phone records.
You look pretty damn desperate to do that for thoughtful posts like above. Apparently you can't find any other way to get out your aggression.
As I stated earlier, it's possible that was when Police finally got around to dealing with his phone. (5 days later) It was in custody, as I understand.Why would the police dial 911 from Martin's phone?The 911 call from Travon's phone is dated March 2, inthemiddle.
It was in police custody at that time, as far as I know.
It might have been to get the number? Supposition at this point.
Within the exact minute a phone call outbound to 911 was placed, an incoming came in from Sanford police department. 12:45PM. According to Trayvon's phone records.
There is no way that Martin was "chased". Followed, maybe but at 6'3 and 160 with the other guy being 5'6" and 200 pounds, you know who would have won a race between them. Martin could have easily left Zimmerman in the dust.
Hmmm.As I stated earlier, it's possible that was when Police finally got around to dealing with his phone. (5 days later) It was in custody, as I understand.Why would the police dial 911 from Martin's phone?
It might have been to get the number? Supposition at this point.
Within the exact minute a phone call outbound to 911 was placed, an incoming came in from Sanford police department. 12:45PM. According to Trayvon's phone records.
I've thought about your suggestion. But I'm not sure it makes sense in the grand scheme of things. First of all, 911 dispatch centers and police work closely together, but they don't generally work at adjacent desks, if you get my meaning. It's like working in the psyche ward and calling the ER to get them to read the number off the caller ID.
Second, I would think that police officers would tend to frown upon what is essentially abusing the 911 system. Nowadays, emergency response systems are increasingly frustrated by people who call 911 for non-emergency purposes, to include requests for police to respond to possible crime, etc, because of the fact that 911 centers have become so incredibly over-burdened with calls. In many areas, local governments are going to great lengths to make non-emergency numbers known, with most police departments having easy to remember non-emergency numbers, such as "1111" or "0000" or something similar. The trend is to leave 911 more for medical and fire emergencies, and I would expect police departments to have policies in place that would frown upon calling 911 from a phone being held as evidence, and expect that a police officer would be more likely to call their personal cell phone to check the caller ID.
Third, I would think that there being two incoming calls from the Stanford PD suggests that the purpose was not to confirm the number of the phone. After all, it only takes once. So I would expect some different explanation of the records.
Alternatively, I could find it plausible for an officer to power up this phone while still in panic mode, try to dig into the info saved in the phone to identify the number, and inadvertently call 911. They'd, of course, hang up once they realized what they were doing, but would likely invoke a response from the 911 operator to report the cut off call, prompting an immediate report over to the police side of the building, and a subsequent call back. Most of the time, if you call 911 and immediately hang up, you'll be receiving a call back almost immediately to attempt to determine if there's an emergency that you're having difficulty reporting, or also if you're being a prankster.
Again, this is all a big hypothesis at this point. I'll be curious to see if more information eventually comes out about it.
These legal scholars and amateur detectives do not have a clue what evidence, chain of custody and memorializing of evidence are.
The burden of proof lays solely ON THE PROSECUTION and the degree of certitude of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt, NOT preponderance of the evidence.
Many believe that the side that has THE MOST evidence will win but especially in criminal court where the burden is on the prosecution and the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt it is THE QUALITY of the evidence, or lack of it, that the prosecution puts up that has to meet the burden of beyond a reasonable doubt.
Good point. It could be that the criminal aspect falls apart but the Martin family prevails in a civil case, ala OJ. Of course, Zimmerman doesn't have much to pay a judgement with.
Telling someone "we don't need you to do that" is not the same as "stop doing that'.
I'm sorry that you are a liar, or don't understand English.
Oh, I understand that perfectly well, and so would most people. If a cop tells you not to do something, YOU DON'T DO IT!
Unless your Barney Fife Zimmerman, who was just out to show what a crimefighter he was.
GZ Attorney is withdrawing.
If there are no criminal charges brought, I think they'd have a very hard time getting a civil judgement.
