Several exchanges I’ve had with regular readers have reminded me that it is all too easy to assume that everyone has similar bodies of knowledge, to take such things for granted. One of those bodies of knowledge relates to the law governing self-defense, unarmed and armed. Those who have been following this series may recall that I briefly dealt with issues of deadly force, particularly applying those guidelines to the Martin case in Update 4. A visit to that article might be useful, as would a visit to my series of articles on the rationale for gun ownership, most particularly Article 4 which deals with deadly force issues with great specificity.
However, the issue the concerns us in this article is raised by “Clark County Criminal Cops,” who, in response to Update 9, wrote in part:
The problem is, your arguments are perhaps the most well formed and dispassionate I have seen, So much so that I know you are too intelligent to actually believe, ’All Zimmerman or any citizen needs in order to watch, even follow, approach or speak with another citizen is the desire to do so. None of these actions gives the person being watched, followed, approached or engaged in conversation grounds to attack.’
You can’t tell me that if you we waking home, alone at night and some guy starts following you, watching you, stalking you, that you wouldn’t perceive that as a threat? Now let’s arm the guy and your argument is preposterous. If some tweaker [reference to Zimmerman] is watching me, following me, and then finally approaches me and I see that he is armed, well as they said in Tombstone, he better skin that Smoke Wagon pretty quick.
The issues raised here are important, not only in the Martin case, but in everyday life, but the primary issue is: when is it reasonable and legal to use non-deadly force against another?
In Update 9.2, “Omegapaladin” replied, again in part and quite correctly:
So, if someone follows me on a sidewalk, I am legally justified to attack him? I actually had a car follow me after a basketball game back in high school. Would I have been justified in attacking the driver or running the car off the road? If George is in a place that he is legally allowed to be and Trayvon is in a public place, he could follow Trayvon for hours on end.
Which in turn provoked this reply from “Clark County Criminal Cops:”
‘So, if someone follows me on a sidewalk, I am legally justified to attack him?’ Yes! If an armed man is tracking me in the darkness of night, you bet I will defend myself from his twisted intentions. . .
Please keep in mind that I’m not including the complete comments involved for no reason other than that I’m confining this brief update to a single issue. Those interested in reading the complete comments need merely take the links to the appropriate updates. However, those doing that will discover that “CCCC” also suggested that George Zimmerman was himself under the influence of drugs. My former Confederate Yankee (now closed to all but archival access) co-blogger, Bob Owens, provides an appropriate response to that line of thought at his self-named blog. It’s brief, definitive, and certainly worth your time.
THE RULES:
In our free society, everyone has the absolute freedom to watch anyone they like for any reason or no reason. I may, if I wish, sit on a park bench and idly watch people as they sit on park benches, walk, run or bicycle by, or frolic in the park. They may do the same. In fact, we can sit on opposite benches and watch each other through binoculars if that pleases us.
By the same token, anyone may decide that they like the direction the person in front of them is walking or driving, and in effect, “follow” them. They may also actually choose to follow them for any reason or no reason. The person being “followed” might not like it, but if that is all that is happening, no crime is being committed, and self-defense is not implicated, and that’s a good thing indeed, for it allows the maximum liberty for all.
If you’re walking down a city sidewalk, or even in a mall, a great many people are “following” you. It’s likely that most or all of them could care less about you, and by mere chance simply need to walk in the same direction, but that’s reality. Again, self-defense absolutely does not apply, and if, in a fit of paranoia, you suddenly round on the person behind you, grab their lapels, slam them against the nearest building and demand to know why they are following you, you have committed assault and they are now within the law if they use force to fend you off.
Of course, if you notice that the same person appears behind you day after day, and clear patterns emerge, patterns that cannot reasonably be attributable to mere chance, stalking laws might be applied, but that is quite another issue—it has no application whatever in the Martin case–and an article for another time. The point is that in a free society, the law is generally very careful about restricting and criminalizing what is usually nothing more than perfectly common and innocuous behavior.
None of this means that you shouldn’t be watchful and aware of your surroundings. The old saying applies: “just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you.” There is, however, always a clear difference, in logic and the law, between being unreasonably paranoid and reasonably vigilant (which is the root word of “vigilante” by the way: one who is watchful).
So when can you use force? Only when a reasonable person in the same circumstances would reasonably believe that they were about to be attacked, or were being attacked. If it is absolutely clear to you that someone is about to attack, you are not required to allow them to land a blow before defending yourself, just to be absolutely certain of their hostile intentions. That blow could seriously injure you or render you unconscious and at their mercy. Of course, once anyone strikes you, there is no question about the legitimacy of and immediate need for self-defense.
In any case, you must be able to clearly articulate the things the person you attacked did to make you—a reasonable person—believe that you were about to be attacked by that person. You can’t just hit first and ask questions later.
An attacker can communicate their intentions in a variety of ways. Let’s say that someone is following you one night as you walk down a lonely, poorly lit sidewalk. You cross the street, they cross the street. You turn a corner, and they follow. You walk faster, and they walk faster, and soon, they break into a run and begin to close the distance between you. Any reasonable person might believe they were in danger, and if overtaken, might reasonably use force to defend themselves.
There are a variety of other things–smart things–one should do in such a case before using force—if possible. Reaching other people, entering a building where others are present, putting solid objects between you, asking your pursuer what they want and demanding they stop. If they refuse to answer or refuse to stop, the case for self-defense is strengthened, and if they verbally communicate their intent to cause you harm, it’s even stronger. In this sort of case, what’s happening fundamentally changes. At some point, it’s no longer a situation of someone being followed, but of being actively pursued, and in that case, any reasonable person would believe they were in danger.
But again, we must be cautious. Perhaps the person walking down the street behind us is simply going the same way. Perhaps they’ve just had a fight with their wife and aren’t really aware of where they’re going or who is around them. Perhaps they’re hoping to catch up to you to ask directions. Perhaps they’re handing out invitations to a neighborhood homeowner’s meeting—or they’re a Mormon missionary–and you just decked them. Oops. Have fun explaining that to the police.
THE MARTIN CASE:
CCCC suggested that Martin must have perceived Zimmerman as a threat, and that adding a firearm completely changes things and provides carte blanch for self-defense. The currently available evidence indicates that Martin was aware that Zimmerman was watching him. However, it is far more likely–again, given the currently known evidence–that Martin ran from Zimmerman, who was sitting in his motionless vehicle at the time, because of his guilty conscience and/or need to conceal evidence of his drug use than out of any real fear. In fact, the evidence indicates that Martin not only approached Zimmerman after he was aware that Zimmerman was watching him, but actually circled Zimmerman who remained in his vehicle as Martin did. This would hardly seem to indicate real fear of an imminent assault, and a man doing nothing more than sitting in a motionless vehicle is hardly communicating a threat. Genuine fear would cause a reasonable person to go out of their way to avoid the object of that fear, would it not?
But for the sake of argument, let’s allow that Martin ran out of fear alone. Let’s even concede that it was somehow a reasonable fear. At that point, Martin was only about a block from his temporary home and Zimmerman was heard on the 911 recording getting out of his vehicle and jogging after him, trying to keep him in sight (not pursuing him, but merely trying to keep him in sight so he could report his position to the responding police). He quickly lost Martin, who had a substantial head start, and within 30 seconds could easily have been home, indoors, out of sight of Zimmerman and the responding police. The evidence also indicates—and let’s remember that at the initial bond hearing, Dale Gilbreath, the special prosecutor’s investigator, admitted that the prosecution had no information to discount Zimmerman’s account–that Martin could have had no idea that Zimmerman was armed, and that he become aware of this only during the actual struggle and only seconds before being shot.
If Martin truly were in fear of assault, hiding and approaching Zimmerman would not be a rational thing to do, yet the evidence indicates that’s precisely what he did rather than immediately and finally run to the safety of home. The evidence also indicates something quite interesting: Martin removed the ear buds to his cell phone he had been using to speak with “DeeDee,” and the large button affixed to the chest of his hoodie (which was clearly visible on the chest of his hoodie in the 7-11 security camera footage as he left the 7-11) and put them in his pockets prior to confronting Zimmerman. They were both found in his pockets. Here’s a screenshot of the PDF of the relevant Sanford Police evidence form.
Sanford Police Department Evidence Form PDF
Notice where the police found these items, particularly the button. Why would Martin remove that button and put it in his pocket? The most likely reason is because he knew he was about to get into a fight—he was going to initiate it—and didn’t want to lose the button and/or didn’t want such a distinctive identifier visible. After all, he didn’t known Zimmerman, and he must have believed Zimmerman didn’t know him.
The evidence indicates that Martin approached Zimmerman, who had minutes earlier lost sight of Martin and believed he was gone, and demanded to know why Zimmerman was following him (Zimmerman was then merely walking back to his vehicle and a meeting with the responding police). At that point, neither had violated the law or indicated intent to attack the other. Zimmerman replied by asking what Martin was doing there. At that point, there was likely still no obvious intent to assault, though it might safely be believed that Martin was not behaving in a friendly manner. However, when Martin broke Zimmerman’s nose without warning, Zimmerman clearly had grounds for self-defense.
This is what the best available evidence indicates. Until the moment Martin struck Zimmerman, neither had violated the law relating to assault, and self-defense was not implicated. Both were perfectly able to approach and converse with the other, and if the encounter had remained in the conversation stage, self-defense would never have become involved. Of course, we now know that Martin was violating the law through his drug use at the time.
One might assert that things are other than I’ve stated here, but the evidence–as it is currently known–does not support other interpretations, and once again, please remember that the special prosecutor’s investigator has admitted that to be the case while under oath.
FINAL THOUGHTS:
Reality is as I stated it: one may watch others, walk where they please, approach others, speak with them, ask them questions and do any other thing that is not specifically illegal. It is only when their conduct goes beyond such harmless expressions of individual freedom and clearly indicates to a reasonable person that a physical attack is imminent—or when an attack has begun–that self-defense may reasonably be employed. Being suspicious or afraid is not sufficient for suspicions and fears may be unreasonable and unfounded. The law requires more—always.
“Geez officer, he kept followin’ me and yellin’ somethin’ at me and he wuz wearin’ that dark outfit. How wuz I supposed to know he wuz a Mormon missionary before I broke his nose?”
Oooops + handcuffs.
What exactly is the evidence that Martin circled back? And if he did, what evidence do you have that Martin threw the first blow. Zimmerman’s claim if self defense is based entirely on his credibility, Sorry, if I no longer believe the lying liar when he lies to me.
Well, I would take the fact that the prosecution stated it had no information contradict Zimmerman’s accounts as pretty telling. What evidence or information do you have that the prosecution does not?
CCCC- Zimmerman has the injuries to prove he was attacked. There were no injuries to Zimmerman’s hands to indicate that he attacked Martin in any way. The police took photos of Zimmerman’s injuries, and his hands at the police station that night. Zimmerman has a medical report explaining his injuries. OTOH, Martin has scraped/bruised knuckles proving that he was using his hands to attack Zimmerman.
I think you are being dishonest in saying “you no longer” believe Zimmerman, as you have made it clear all along that you never believed him. It’s once again interesting that when facts and logic are displayed, as was with this article, some only can resort to name calling such as “lying liar.” Once again, you have no proof that Zimmerman lied, at any time, including at the bail hearing. He never spoke at that hearing, and was never sworn in to speak at all, about anything. Remember even the judge called him a “potted plant.”
Dear Sandy:
Welcome back and thanks for the excellent response. I’ll address the issue of the bond money and “DeeDee’s” interview on Friday. What some seem to fail to realize (or ignore) is that the police–if they’re competent–do not merely take anyone’s word for it. The Sanford Police believed George Zimmerman’s account for four primary reasons:
(1) It was logical and reasonably fit the time line/geography/the range of responses reasonably expected of human beings in similar circumstances.
(2) All of the physical evidence and the witness statements supported it (or at the very least did not preclude it).
(3) Zimmerman cooperated fully with the police.
(4) Zimmerman passed a PSE (lie detector) examination. It’s true this is not admissible in court, and quite properly so, but police officers would see this sort of thing–taken with all of the other evidence–as essentially a final confirmation of what they found.
Yes, one investigator wanted to press a lesser charge than that chosen by the Special Prosecutor, but as I’ve already noted, this is not unusual. Some police officers always want to make an arrest and let the courts sort it out later. This is negligence. Officers are paid to exercise professional discretion and not make arrests they reasonably know are not justified. Wiser heads prevailed, and the system worked. The case was properly reviewed by the local prosecutor who agreed that Florida law didn’t support a prosecution. It was only the political firestorm fanned by all of the usual suspects including the POTUS and FLOTUS that put this routine, unremarkable case on the front pages.
A significant part of my thinking is in this case is informed by my police experience. Just like the Sanford Police, I would not have asked for charges in this case because Florida law simply doesn’t support them and because the law relating to self-defense takes primacy here. As I’ve noted several times, there may yet be evidence presented that would change the facts as they are currently known, and if so, could conceivably change my mind, but that remains only a possibility.
Thanks again!
@sandy..”CCCC- Zimmerman has the injuries to prove he was attacked…” That’s nice, but that’s not what I asked not was it?
I asked two questions…”What exactly is the evidence that Martin circled back?” The fact the two were involved in a physical confrontation isn’t in dispute. How that occurred is.
I also asked,”…what evidence do you have that Martin threw the first blow.” You haven’t answered that question, either.
The fact that right before the Zimmerman killed the teenager, he was losing that fight, is less clear, but I tend to believe that. But since there are no time stamps on Zimmerman’s scratches, we none of the evidence you mentioned is evidence of who started the fight. And the minor cuts Zimmerman has in the pictures, as well as he refusal of any real medical treatment don’t seem content with being beaten to within inches of your life.
“Once again, you have no proof that Zimmerman lied, at any time, including at the bail hearing.” Actually I do., I have heard him lie on multiple occasions during the more than 40 calls to 911 to report suspicious black males, And it seems clear he was trying to purposefully hide the subject of his conversations with this wife. He spoke in code, and while not an outright lie, is still a major display of dishonesty for personal gain.
Perhaps you were raised to not see that knowingly trying to hide more than a hundred thousand dollars you allowed the court to think you were not in possession of is a sign of high moral character, I don’t.
CCCC,
I would like to comment on your two questions. The answer is that there is no evidence to “prove” that Martin circled back. But, when you look at the timeline and compare it against the location of where Zimmerman parked, where Martin’s temporary residence is, and where Martin was killed, it really leaves you with one of three possibilities:
1. Martin hid and either came out of hiding or was discovered when Zimmerman got off the phone,
2. Martin ran, then walked (according to DeeDee) when he got close to his home. Zimmerman caught up with him and the chase ended where Zimmerman’s call ended, or
3. Martin circled back when he realized that Zimmerman was off his phone and wasn’t a cop.
Now, #2 is DeeDee’s version; #3 is Zimmerman’s. No one is claiming #1, so it is unreasonable to assume it occurred. So, you just have to ask if you believe that Zimmerman caught up with Martin when Martin had a 90 second head start, was already close to his home when he started walking, and, according to DeeDee, a minutes pass once Martin starts walking before Zimmerman is back behind him.
As for who threw the first punch. Again, there is no proof which one threw the first punch, but you cannot assume something when the evidence doesn’t suggest it. There is no eye-witness, nothing in DeeDee’s interview, and no marks on Martin’s body to suggest that Zimmerman hit, or tried to hit, Martin first. There is evidence that Martin hit Zimmerman, so it is more reasonable to assume he threw the first punch.
Mike,
Zimmerman did not end the call with a definite place to meet the cops. He never puts himself but his truck, none of the things you express with absolute certainty are in fact certain. That was what had bothered me about your narratives from the beginning. I point out the very logical concept that Zimmerman not telling the cops to meet him a specific place is because he wasn’t sure were he will be, and I am call arrogant for providing that alternative theory, yet when you state that Zimmerman’s location was certainly next to his truck, that isn’t considered arrogant.
You claim this respect for what is actually evidence and not mere speculation, yet you and all those who are outraged that I challenge you have only speculation that Martin threw the first punch. I ask for evidence of this, and what am I given? I am told that the lack of evidence (that Zimmerman hurt Martin) is actually evidence. That because Martin had no injuries, other than the fatal gunshot and scrapes consistent with punching Zimmerman he must have thrown the first punch. I bet that if I were to throw a punch at our resident boxer, Floyd Mayweather, he would be able to dodge said punch, and were to he to defend himself, I bet I would be the only one with injuries. Mayweather’s lack of injuries would be evidence of nothing more than having dodged my punch. Even if were able to land a punch, I doubt it would injure him. Yet, can I go up to Floyd start an altercation and then kill him because he is able to defend himself effectively? Can I go up to Floyd and reach for my gun and expect him not to mount whatever defense he can?
Could Martin have thrown the first punch, absolutely. Would that punch have been unprovoked by Zimmerman? That I don’t believe. Even if Martin did double back to confront Zimmerman rather than just run home, Florida’s Stand your Ground Law Doesn’t require him to retreat. Had he killed Zimmerman and told police it was because he was threatened by Zimmerman, he would not have been given the benefit of the doubt that George was given, even after investigators determined he (Z.) was armed. And you would not be defending him.
In order to defend Zimmerman killing Martin, you have to believe that nothing he did lead to the confrontation, yet the only story we have from Zimmerman is his call to police and that shows us that he inserted himself into Martin’s life, that had he not shown interest in and followed Martin, Martin would not have noticed him. Had Zimmerman not become suspicious of a person who he had not observed breaking any laws, had not not followed Martin, none of this would have happened.
And, since it has been made clear, to me at least, that this community is not interested in alternate theories, or even interested in actual facts. Because the actual facts don’t include a statement from Zimmerman, and yet his version of what happened his referred to here often. Zimmerman’s injuries are often cited, yet the fact that these injuries were not enough to require medical attention that night, even after being described as one blow from turning him into a vegetable they are repeated over and over.
Mike, I respect your views on the Erik Scott shooting, but my fears about your motivations in refusing to seen any possibility that Zimmerman’s actions were not justified have been realized. Zimmerman admits to killing Martin, that is not in dispute. What caused him to do so is. I am more than willing to accept the possibility that his actions were in self-defense, but have yet to hear any evidence to support that. Despite evidence that Zimmerman was the aggressor (ie chasing Martin) and no evidence that Martin was interested in anything other than getting away from Zimmerman, you only see one possibility here.
And, like I said, I have a pretty good idea why you can only see it that way. And a pretty good idea why your readers do as well. And the level of personal and emotional investment you and they have in this case is something I just don’t share. While I am a strongly oppose a society that allows its members to shoot and kill the unarmed, I have more than enough of that happening right here in Las Vegas and don’t see the value in debating the Zimmerman shooting with anyone who has no interest in alternative theories.
So, your and your readers can claim victory. They have succeeded in proving that debating with people whose views are based on things they can’t or won’t admit is useless. But, know this, I surrender, not because your arguments suddenly have any merit, but because merit isn’t what motivates your arguments. I am clearly not wanted here, and I have no interest in being anywhere I am not wanted.
Dear CCCC:
You are indeed welcome here. I don’t believe anyone is “claiming victory.” Regardless of the eventual outcome of this case, there aren’t going to be any winners. There will simply be no victory to claim. To whatever degree I’ve been accurate in my analyses of the evidence, I will take some small satisfaction, but that will be tempered by the knowledge that there will never be a happy ending in this case, not for the Zimmermans, the Martin family, or for the public.
I see the case as I do because of the evidence and my many years of direct experience in dealing with such cases. As I’ve often said–and very much mean–if and when additional evidence is made public that requires a change in my analysis, I will make it without reservation. As I’m sure you’ve noticed, I’ve observed that to whatever degree Zimmerman misled the court on the Internet account (and that matter remains murky), he acted foolishly, but I suspect that in this too, there is much to be revealed.
The point: I do go where the evidence takes me and will continue to do so, in this or any other case about which I write.
Thanks again for your comments, and take care.
To clarkcountycriminalcops –
You have reiterated that you have asked the following two questions, but that they have remained unanswered here:
1. ”What exactly is the evidence that Martin circled back?”
2. “What evidence do you have that Martin threw the first blow?”
I will gladly address both questions.
1. At approximately 2:08 into George Zimmerman’s phone call with the police dispatcher, Trayvon Martin took off running toward the back entrance of the gated community. When he began running he was approximately 450ft. from Brandi Green’s residence, where he was staying. At only a moderate walking pace, Trayvon Martin would have reached the condo in approximately 90 seconds (5ft per second – which is actually quite slow for a 17yr old of his height), or 3:38 of Zimmerman’s phone call. At 3:38 into that call, Zimmerman was literally telling the dispatcher that “I don’t know where this kid is.” After that comment, Zimmerman’s phone call lasted approximately 30 seconds longer.
Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin were well north of the Brandi Green residence (approximately 300ft) when Trayvon Martin was shot approximately 5 minutes AFTER he took off running. He could have reached the condo in 90 seconds merely walking, but 5 minutes later, he was still 300ft away from the condo getting shot.
Hardly evidence that Trayvon Martin made any effort to get away, and certainly supportive of Zimmerman’s claim that Trayvon Martin approached him from behind and confronted him – thus doubling back – or in the very least, laying in wait to confront Zimmerman.
2. Evidence that Trayvon Martin threw the first punch is the LACK of evidence that Zimmerman threw any punches at all. Autopsy results show absolutely NO injuries to Trayvon Martin other than scraped knuckles (indicative of hitting something or someone) and a gunshot wound. That is all. No bruises, scrapes, etc. On the other hand, Zimmerman suffered multiple contusions, scrapes, lacerations to the back of his head, and a broken nose – and he had NO scraped or bruised knuckles to indicate he had struck anyone or anything. So there’s your evidence that Martin threw the first blow.
Actually…too easy.
CCCC,
I’m going to go into a little more detail than juggler on the whereabouts of Zimmerman while on his phone call to the dispatcher.
7:13:20 PM – Zimmerman: He’s running
7:13:22 PM – Dispatcher: He’s running? Which way is he running?
7:13:26 PM – Zimmerman: Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood. (Zimmerman exits vehicle)
7:13:36 PM – Dispatcher: Are you following him?
7:13:37 PM – Zimmerman: Yeah
7:13:38 PM – Dispatcher: Ok, we don’t need you to do that.
7:13:38 PM – Zimmerman: Ok.
7:13:48 PM – Zimmerman: He ran. (Martin started running 28 seconds earlier)
7:14:32 PM – Dispatcher: What address are you parked in front of?
7:14:35 PM – Zimmerman: I don’t know, it’s a cut through so I don’t know the address. (Martin started running 75 seconds earlier)
7:15:23 PM – Zimmerman’s call ends. (Martin started running 123 seconds earlier)
7:16:43 PM – First 911 call made.
You can tell by the phone call that Zimmerman did not continue to follow Martin after advised not to. That puts him near his vehicle still and, more than likely, at the “T” in the cut through. This is the approximate location of where the altercation took place. This leaves us with the 3 possible scenarios that I detailed before:
1. Martin hid and either came out of hiding or was discovered when Zimmerman got off the phone,
2. Martin ran, then walked (according to DeeDee) when he got close to his home. Zimmerman caught up with him and the chase ended where Zimmerman’s call ended, or
3. Martin circled back when he realized that Zimmerman was off his phone and wasn’t a cop.
Let me emphasize again that you can believe anything you want, but the prosecution will need evidence to put a theory forward. Neither Zimmerman, nor DeeDee, are claiming scenario # 1 occurred, so it is not going to be argued by the prosecutor. So, which of the remaining two scenarios do you find more probable?
With regards to who threw the first punch, you have to go by the evidence. The police and the prosecutor have to speculate and so do we. Good speculation is based on evidence. The lack of any evidence that Zimmerman threw the first punch doesn’t prove he didn’t, but it can’t be argued that he did, because there is no evidence to suggest it. The evidence that Martin hit Zimmerman is not proof that he threw the first punch, but it can be argued that he did, because there is evidence that he hit Zimmerman.
Based on what I presented and what evidence exists, speculate how Martin ended up closer to the north entrance than the south entrance and, more importantly, how Martin ended up closer to Zimmerman’s truck than his temporary residence.
Hi Mike- Thanks for your reply. I will be awaiting your take on the bail hearing. I went back and reread portions of the original bail hearing, when DeLaRiona was questioning Shelly Zimmerman. He asked her if she knew how much money was in the paypal account “right now.” She replied “I do not.” He then asked her if she had a current estimate of how much money was in the account. Again, she replied “I do not.” It is my opinion that even had she given him an estimate, she would have been off, possibly by a whole lot. The account was going great guns, and the amount was constantly going up. Even if she had known the amount a day, or a few days before the hearing, she could not have known that amount “right then,” and what ever amount she gave, she would have been called a liar, as it was constantly increasing. I think the most important thing she did was she offered to get her brother in law on the phone, who could give DeLaRionda the exact amount, as he was controlling the account. DeLaRionda never bother to ask her to get the brother in law on the phone, and he obviously never followed up on that. There does seem to be confusion about where the money was, was it transferred to another account and out of paypal, paypals holds and transfer policies, and how much of that money was in fact available to them at the time. GZ certainly could have whispered to O’Mara that there was a significant amount of money in the account, and O’Mara could have asked that Shelly in fact get the brother in law on the phone to confirm the amount. It likely would have affected the indigent status that the Z’s claimed earlier before the money started rolling in. GZ only set the website up 2 days before he was jailed, and that was about the same day O’Mara started working for Z. It was the day before GZ’s arrest that O’Mara held a presser to say he was taking the case on, on a pro bono basis. At that point the Z’s were indigent.
As to the interview with Dee Dee, ho hum. Being an English teacher, I can only imagine your thoughts on her speech patterns, and use of the English language. I don’t know what grade you teach, but how would you grade a paper that included “He say to me it still dripping water out”? I believe DeeDee is 16, and is in high school. How does that happen? Don’t answer, I know. Some sadly just get moved along through the system.
By the way, I read your column about the things your students have written, and you overheard them saying. I read that early one morning with my coffee, and it was laugh out loud funny. Nice way to start the day with laughter.
Mike,
There is one thing you can provide that would be helpful. Please provide a link to the “Offical Statement of George Zimmerman.” I can’t find it. I have found what Zimmerman’s father said what happened. I can find what his brother says George told him. I can find what an anonymous member of the Sandford PD says Zimmerman told police. Perhaps if you shared that I wouldn’t have all those contradictory stories muddling things up for me.
Until then, I would just like to offer a couple more places where I feel you are doing your readers a disservice but not providing all the facts.
“The Sanford Police believed George Zimmerman’s account for four primary reasons:” First off “The Sandford Police” didn’t believe his account. At least one investigator didn’t think Zimmerman’s story added up. And you are only ASSUMING to know the reasons those that did believe Zimmerman did so.
(1) It was logical and reasonably fit the time line/geography/the range of responses reasonably expected of human beings in similar circumstances.
As I said a moment ago, at least one investigator didn’t think Zimmerman’s story added up
(2) All of the physical evidence and the witness statements supported it (or at the very least did not preclude it).
The State’s 5/24/12 Motion for Protective Order seems to contradict that idea..
“Defendant (Zimmerman) has provided law enforcement with numerous statements, some of which are contradictory, and are inconsistent with the physical evidence and statements of witnesses”
(3) Zimmerman cooperated fully with the police.
This seems true.
(4) Zimmerman passed a PSE (lie detector) examination. It’s true this is not admissible in court, and quite properly so, but police officers would see this sort of thing–taken with all of the other evidence–as essentially a final confirmation of what they found.
Zimmerman passed a Voice Stress Test, and their accuracy are largely in dispute. According to a recent study funded by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), two of the most popular VSA programs in use by police departments across the country are no better than flipping a coin when it comes to detecting deception.
But if you can just post the link to Zimmerman’s official statement to police, I’m sure you will clear a lot of my questions right up.
There is no official statement of George Zimmerman. Where did anyone say there was?
As for circling back, if you are to believe Dee Dee (speaking of lying liars), TM was close to his father’s house. In order for TM to be at the ‘T’ where the altercation began he had to ‘circle back’. Even if you don’t believe the lying liar (Dee Dee that is) would you like to explain what TM did for the approximately 3 minutes he was out of GZ’s sight? Where did he go? Did he just wait by the ‘T’ for GZ to find him?
Lastly, what evidence is there that GZ threw the first punch? He had no marks on his hands and TM had no marks on his face. Is GZ that inept a fighter that he threw the first punch and came up with air? The evidence we have points to TM punching GZ in the face and breaking his nose. Whether this was the first punch we don’t know.
I would submit that even if GZ threw the first punch at some point TM should have stopped the beating. He could have stopped after knocking GZ down and he could have stopped after he was pounding him on the ground. Perhaps Mike can weigh in here with a policeman’s perspective.
The George Zimmerman interviews with the police are a part of the new discovery yet to be released. It has not been decided by the judge yet whether he will allow those statements to be unsealed. He did indicate to both the prosecution and to O’Mara that are seeking to get information sealed, and that he agreed with them, but the law is not on their side. He told O’Mara in the courtroom on Friday, that there was nothing in those statements that he would consider to be a confession, and that the interviews may in fact be seen as exculpatory.
As to your question above about who threw the first blow, there are no witnesses to the beginning of the fight, but again, as has been pointed out, GZ had no injuries consistent with punching or attacking in any way on his hands, whereas, Trayvon in fact did. Trayvon also had no injuries on his body other than the gunshot wound, and the knuckle brusing/scrapes. If GZ had hit or punched him anywhere, it would have shown up in the autopsy report. The police have to make a determination as to what they believe happened based on the physical evidence, and the physical evidence supports GZ’s claim that he was attacked.
As to GZ’s minor injuries, I invite you to have someone inflict those injuries, particularly the broken nose, and to the back of his head on you, while straddling you, and then tell me you wouldn’t act in a manner to protect yourself, by any means, to stop any more head injuries, that could render you brain injured, if not dead. Do that, and then come back and tell me how you react in that situation. As to him not going to the hospital, that is not relevant, the next blow to his head could have sent him to the morgue, or to a long term brain injury facility.
You have not heard GZ lie on more than 40 911 calls. Those calls have never been released to anyone. Yes, Chris Serino included in his police report that GZ had reported black males as suspicious on only 4 of those occasions. Serino named the dates. Fortunately those occasions have been well documented in the Reuters article that was written which explained that all of those suspicious people were caught, and were in fact black males. I remember the first call was when the woman had to hide in her upstairs bathroom, as she watched 2 young black males break into her condo through the back sliding door. They were caught on the way out with TV’s laptops etc. Another one of the calls involved young black males that were also observed the next day by some roofers working across the street, who called the police when they also observed suspicious behavior. One young black male was found to have stolen goods from the complex in his vehicle. There was in fact arrests made resulting from GZ’s calls on those dates. Serino has an agenda, or he would have in fact included more recorded 911 calls where GZ reported suspicious young black males. A black lady in the complex, early on, told a reporter “yes, let’s talk about the 800 lb gorilla in the room” there have in fact been break-ins by young black males. You never heard 40 phone calls by GZ to 911. That is dishonest.
CCCC, I don’t know if your purpose of your claims is trying to play devil’s advocate, if you believe anything and everything you read in the media, or if you are in fact a part of the Martin family and et all, agenda team. What you are writing here often seems to be just rumors that have been rebuked by fact, and at times you seem to be eager to embelish those rumors, such as saying you heard all of GZ’s lies on the 40 phone calls.
I took a quick peek at your website, and it seems to be quite surprising that you are so willing to accept the prosecutions accusations, and in particular Det. Chris Serino, when the police, and entire police departments, are usually your target. Absolutely there are always going to be some bad apples in any agency, but I look at those committing crimes as the criminals, and not the police. Unfortunately there are some that hold tight to those shaded views.
“Would you like to explain what TM did for the approximately 3 minutes he was out of GZ’s sight?”
Sorry, I can’t do that, because the evidence is irrefutable that Martin wasn’t out of Zimmerman’s sight for three minutes,” Unless of course, there some sort of wormhole in action in that courtyard.
Zimmerman’s phone call with dispatch ends….7:13:41pm:
Forty-five seconds into the first 911 call, a gunshot is heard….7:16:56 pm.
Do you need me to of the math for you? It was just over three minutes between the time Zimmerman hung up with 911 until the shot was fired. We hear the shot during a 911 call that was initiated at least one minute before. So if the first 911 call was placed at the very moment the two met up it was less that 2 minutes.
Now, if Zimmerman returned to his truck as he claimed, should he have been in his truck at 7:14:28 pm: After all he left the vehicle at 7:12:44pm and walked for 57 seconds before he lost contact with police and supposedly decided to just let another one of “these assholes..get away.”
The distance back to the truck is the same as the distance he walked from the truck, so should take the same time. Since Zimmerman and Martin were not fighting next to the truck, then either he lied about heading back or the altercation started less than a minute after Zimmerman hung up with 911.
You fail to take into consideration that GZ lost sight of TM well before the call to dispatch ended. You write “Do you need me to of the math for you? It was just over three minutes between the time Zimmerman hung up with 911 until the shot was fired. We hear the shot during a 911 call that was initiated at least one minute before. So if the first 911 call was placed at the very moment the two met up it was less that 2 minutes.” GZ actually lost sight of TM at around 7:12 when TM ran. Based on the 911 calls once the fight began we can assume that GZ and TM made contact with each other some time between 7:15 and 7:15:30 which would be approximately 3 minutes as I stated. The question which you avoided answering still awaits a response. What exactly was TM doing for the APPROXIMATELY 3 minutes he was out of GZ’s sight?
BTW, GZ left his vehicle at 7:11:44 not 7:12:44 which completely blows your whole theory out of the water. If he ran and then walked until his call ended at 7:13:41 then that means he traveled away from his truck for just under 2 minutes. If he immediately returned to his truck upon hanging up his phone he would have made it to right around…wait for it…wait for it…where the fight started! Thanks, I think you just broke the case.
Dear JOC56:
Indeed. We can be reasonably certain that after Zimmerman ended his call to the dispatcher, he was walking west, back to his truck. We can have this kind of certainty because he told the dispatcher that he was going to meet the responding officers near the mailboxes/entry to the neighborhood, which was to the west and that he had no idea where Martin was–there can be no serious suggestion that Martin ran anywhere but east and to some degree, south. His truck was to the west. Why anyone would deny this logic is beyond me.
Thanks for breaking the case!
Dear CCCC:
Once again, I’m asking myself in wonder if you actually read the article to which you allude. I did, in fact, provide the fact that one investigator wanted Zimmerman charged, and have included his name–Serino–repeatedly throughout my articles. The state’s motion for a protective order is not, in fact and law, evidence in this or any other case; and I’d be very cautious about accepting anything the prosecutor’s office states as fact. As my upcoming article on Friday will prove, their most recent filing failed by at least 50%. The statement you’ve provided to illustrate your point is indicative of a lack of understanding of these issues. In any case there will be statements and evidence that appear to be contradictory and/or inconsistent. This does not automatically indicate deception; more often, it merely reflects human nature. As I’ve consistently written, this case is remarkable for the relative lack of such things. I’ve also written–repeatedly–that we don’t have about 50% of the evidence, and that when we do, we may well have to reconsider some positions. It seems true that Zimmerman fully cooperated with the police? Really? You’ll only go that far? Your comments about the PSE examination essentially mirror what I said, yet you present them as though I am somehow trying to mislead people.
Remind me again why I bother…sigh.
Mike, re. ‘the button’ & headphones: On page 2 (of 7) of Christopher Serino’s Report of Investigation he states that “…a bag of Skittles candy, a red 7-11 red lighter in his pockets, headphones next to him, and a photo pin on his sweatshirt”. I think at some point the photo pin was removed (during CPR perhaps?) and placed into TM’s pockets along with the headphones before the body was transported. There are a lot of inconsistencies in the evidence released back in May. I assume that when you have multiple people looking at a crime scene at different times that is to be expected. As a former police officer what is your experience as far as this is concerned?
Dear JOC56:
Well, you went and done it. Now I’ve had to turn your question into a large section of my next article, to be posted this Friday, 06-08-12.
Actually, great questions, and thanks for the opportunity to address that!
“There is no official statement of George Zimmerman. Where did anyone say there was?”
Mike is this accurate, because you seem to maintain a pretty consistent history of Zimmerman’s actions? What are you basing these on, if you haven’t read the statement Zimmerman made to police.
CCCC- From all of your questions, all of your accusations of dishonesty by Mike, and your outright dishonesty, claiming you heard all of GZ 40 calls to 911, I call you a troll. You really have no interest in the truth, the actual facts, or seeking equal justice for all. You have an ultimate agenda, and it isn’t in keeping with the laws as we know them in this country.
Sandy, I don’t think I’ve accused Mike of dishonesty. I have questioned his selective use of facts, that’s about it. But if I have, I apologize. And, regardless of what you believe, my wife and I listened to every one of those 911 calls. My wife has listened to them several times. There not that long,
Why wouldn’t I? If I wanted to be as informed as possible on the subject, I would have to, right? I made the assumption that you had as well, right? I mean you’re not making decisions on this issue while refusing to learn all the facts, are you? Or are you?
Wow, I see now that you are, and you just assume that everyone would be like you and not have bothered. Well, at least we know where you set the bar of excellence in your life. Low enough, that,were I a troll, I would surely trip over it.
I was re-reading some earlier comments I made and was pleased to see that when someone decided to abandon serious debate and resort to name calling, Mike slapped his hand. Please Mike, let Sandy slide. While I know I would never get her to admit it,the most obvious sign of loss in a debate is when one’s argument devolves to such childishness as name calling.
Dear CCCC:
Sorry, but I think you’ve accused me of dishonesty. For example:
“You make some interesting points, that would have alot more impact if I couldn’t see you point your toes and stretch your entire body as you reach for things to be there that are not. While these little grenades of lies litter your update, I only have to look at the first line to see you are starting down a road that exists in your own mind.”
Hmm. That final clause seems to suggest that you believe me to be delusional as well. Would you like me to provide additional examples from your comments on this case? Thought not. If my readers were to rate the overall quality of argument and collegiality of those commenting here, I suspect that Sandy would be rated quite highly.
As to my “selective use of facts,” I often wonder if you’ve actually read what I’ve written, as in a great many issues you raise–such as Martin’s and Zimmermans movements on the night in question–I’ve not only written about them (particularly Update 4 in that case), but provided links, which include opposing views. I also allow those who provide opposing views in an adult manner to present them in commentary. When presenting an argument, one has no particular obligation to argue against oneself. If I err in presenting a fact, by all means provide correction; if you’re right I’ll admit it and run a prompt and contrite correction. However, making an argument from fact with which others disagree is not selective use of fact; it’s sound rhetoric.
Dear CCCC:
Actually you introduced the phrase “official statement of George Zimmerman” in an earlier comment to this article. Zimmerman’s statements as represented here have been gathered from media and Internet sources. As Sandy correctly noted, the actual transcripts, statements and a video of Zimmerman reconstructing his actions have yet to be released, and the judge is currently considering the matter in light of Florida law. As always, I’ve provided links to all of these matters from the first article in this series. Should you wish to take them, you can judge the value and veracity of that information for yourself.
CCCC,
I would agree with Sandy on the element that you are engaging in trolling behavior. Most notably, you never acknowledge when you get something wrong, and you do not cite evidence generally.
I challenged you to provide the legal precedent for attacking someone following you. Mike vastly expanded on my question and dedicated this post to analyzing the justifications for the use of force. You just moved on to arguing that you know that George is lying, without consideration for how you were shown to have no idea on the law for self defense.
I’m willing to consider that George may have not made a sound judgement to use lethal force, but smug and inaccurate arguments are just trollish behavior. Do you think that you are going to persuade anyone like this? I’ve gotten in arguments with blog commenting sections before, and generally you need to take a more reasoned and calm tone, and provide sources to back up your statements.
You want to prove that you actually listened to the 40 911 calls? Link to them. You want to prove that George was under the influence of drugs at the time he shot Trayvon, then line up more evidence than just the fact that he was prescribed those medications.
If you can’t marshal evidence for your claims and yet continue spouting off a series of arguments, you are acting like a classic troll. For that matter, you remind me of the people who were claiming the Erik Scott shooting was justified.
@Omegapaladin…Thank you for say I am “engaging in trolling behavior.”
“I challenged you to provide the legal precedent for attacking someone following you.”
I didn’t think you were serious considering the legal precedent is at the center of this discussion.” Here it is.
“2011 Florida Statutes CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE[22]
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013. ”
Martin is “justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force.”
Now I find it perfectly reasonable for a black teenage boy to believe the grown man that is following may imminently use unlawful force against him. That makes him “justified in using force.”
So when the older man begins to gain on him and catches up with him, Florida Statute 776.012 allows him to defend himself from an imminent (im·mi·nent/ˈimənənt/Adjective: About to happen.”
Now, since you are familiar with the Scott case, you realize that legally the shooting was justified, Not that it should be, but it was because we have lowered the bar for law enforcement to simply express fear to justify the shoot. Actual danger to support that fear is never required.
And in this situation it doesn’t matter if you or I would fear Zimmerman, it’s subjective and contextual. Would the average teenage black boy walking alone at night in the South have a reasonable fear of a white man chasing him? That answer is yes. But you go ahead and tell me how there was no imminent danger from the man who shot him dead.
Now, you may not like that. But it is accurate. I wonder if you will admit you were wrong. Because if you point out where I was wrong, and not just where my opinion differed from your’s I will admit my mistake. Because I don’t every want defend an opinion not based on facts.
However, if you resort to calling me a troll or my behavior trollish, I will accept that as your surrender. First because those with faith in their arguments don’t resort to name calling, And second, because I simply don’t fit that definition.
“In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an on-line community, such as an on-line discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion” (http://tinyurl.com/yyx3ns)
You are all kinds of wrong describing my posts as “extraneous, or off-topic,” and that comments like the one posted on June 6, 2012 at 12:50 on “The Trayvon Martin Case, Update 9: Of Tea and Skittles and Blunts.” clearly demonstrate that I am not trying to, “otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion”
I appreciate your citation.
Under the relevant section, it mentions imminent use of unlawful force. What we need to consider is the reasonableness of belief of imminent danger. We can’t use 20/20 hindsight, because the statute is concerning the judgement call at the point of using force. If a guy was pointing a movie prop gun at me, I would be in no real danger of imminent harm, but I would have a reasonable belief that I was. If I punched out a guy on the street randomly, and he happened to be a suicide bomber, I would not have had a reasonable belief that I was in imminent danger, even though I was.
Now, I think it is pretty clear that Trayvon was unaware that George had a firearm. There is nothing to indicate that George had his gun drawn, (though that would most definitely be an imminent threat justifying the use of force) as I do not believe Trayvon would be insane to the point of charging someone with a gun pointed at him, and I recall evidence showing that Trayvon was shot at close range. Could Trayvon tell that George was carrying a concealed weapon in the middle of the night?
Now, what evidence is there that George posed a threat or the appearance of a threat to Trayvon? I’ve followed people before for innocent reasons, and as the post we are commenting argues, following someone is not imminent use of unlawful force. I’m honestly puzzled as to how you see this as reasonable justification for the use of force. Do you have evidence that George was charging toward Trayvon or doing something similar to show hostile intent? So if I happen to be walking behind a black teenager in Florida, I deserve to be beaten by said teenager?
Also, why didn’t Trayvon head home? He could have gone home and avoided the confrontation. If I was being followed by someone who looked like a potential threat, I’d be headed for safe ground, and home would be an ideal place to either shelter or defend myself. I’d have the other people in the house as witnesses and the home terrain advantage I know someone like Trayvon might be touchy about police attention (I knew a guy who got busted for what must have been Driving While Black) but he’s going to have a better chance calling the cops when there’s a guy who followed him *onto his property*.
I would put your some of your previous behavior under deliberately inflammatory/provocative. The rapid switching of arguments is a classic trolling tactic – it lets them keep on making remarks without getting bogged down in a losing debate. However, you have attempted to address my arguments, and cited material to justify your case. That is not trollish behavior and I no longer believe you are trolling this comment thread. However, I do not find your case persuasive.
PS: I thought that the Erik Scott shooting was unjustified on the fact that the police had to believe there was a *reasonable* threat, i.e. the reasonable policeman standard. Given the conduct of the police, the I think they will have their hands full in civil court.
@omegapaladin…As I stated, it doesn’t matter if you or I would find Zimmerman’s behavior threatening, but would Martin,
You ask “Do you have evidence that George was charging toward Trayvon or doing something similar to show hostile intent? So if I happen to be walking behind a black teenager in Florida, I deserve to be beaten by said teenager?”
But that’s not the right question. Because there is exactly the same amount physical evidence supporting Zimmerman charging toward Martin as there is Martin charging as Zimmerman.
The important question is did Martin see Zimmerman’s actions as a threat. While you have “followed people before for innocent reasons,” I would guess several were in their cell phones, and yet did not take the time to discuss your presence with their caller. However, if you had appeared threatening I’m sure they would. Martin choice to discuss Zimmerman’s presence shows he was concerned. It shows that he viewed Zimmerman’s actions as more than just another innocent person out for a stroll. He sensed, and accurately I might add, that Zimmerman had an unwarranted interest in him.
I can see how a teenager would find such an interest troubling, And I know you do to, Otherwise, the theory that Martin doubled back makes no sense. Why randomly attack Zimmerman? For him to do what your suggesting shows deep concern with Zimmerman’s presence in his life,
I have asked a very simple question each time I’ve discussed this and have only been ignored. To me it is the only question that matters.
Up until Zimmmerman hung up with 911 we have a pretty clear picture of everyone’s movement, and they have been entirely Martin walking away from ZImmerman while Zimmerman follows. That’s what was going on at 7:13:41pm and less about two minutes later Martin and Zimmerman meet. All the evidence we have shows Zimmerman following Martin. Zimmerman following Martin. Martin trying to get away from Zimmerman. From the moment the curtain is drawn on this little drama at 7:09:34 when Zimmerman calls 911. That was the action at 7:11:14 pm: when Zimmerman complains, “These assholes. They always get away” And that’s what was going on at 7:13:41 when Zimmerman hangs up the call.
But the assertion here is that less than two minutes, Zimmerman suddenly stopped doing what he had been doing for the entire time we have known him, ceased to care that “These assholes. They always get away.” And he does this for no reason whatsoever.
That alone is hard for me to believe. If you could provide a motive for him to just abandon his mission, I could see that as a possibility.
But then you are also asking me to believe that in the very short window of time in which Zimmerman makes this most out of character decision, Martin has a similiar change of heart and completely reverses his momentum as well.
Now, I also have to believe that both of them had these two epiphanies at the exact same moment, again for no reason whatsoever.
As Ockham’s razor teaches us “to select from among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions and thereby offers the simplest explanation of the effect.”
Now doesn’t it require far fewer assumptions to conlcude that what happened after last heard from Zimmerman that since continued chasing Martin with the simplest explanation for their meeting is that Zimmerman was succesful and caught him.
But to create a narrative that requires an assumption that Martin smoked pot after leaving the 7/11. That he has more drugs on him when Zimmerman follows him., Assume he made the decision to hide the drugs and attack Zimmerman, because that is what drug dealers do, try to attract attention to themselves.. Assume that Zimmerman just stopped being Zimmerman and turned back towards his truck.
There are three physical laws that form the basis for classical mechanics, and I have found that they are equally true of human nature.
First law: The velocity of a body remains constant unless the body is acted upon by an external force.
People do things the way they have always done things unless something happens that changes them.
Second law: The acceleration a of a body is parallel[disambiguation needed ] and directly proportional to the net force F and inversely proportional to the mass m, i.e., F = ma.
People’s determination is based on how motivated they are and how easy the task is
Third law: The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear.
The only thing that will change one’s behavior is something equally motivating in an entirely opposite way.
Third law: The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear.This call, a gunshot is heard….7:16:56 pm.
Heck, I don’t even need the incident that made both of them to suddenly change direction to be substantiated. If you want to add another scoop to your assumption sundae, I’ll consider taking a bite/
p.s. “I thought that the Erik Scott shooting was unjustified on the fact that the police had to believe there was a *reasonable* threat, i.e. the reasonable policeman standard.”
In a world were things are judged on what’s right, the Scott shooting was not justified. What’s worse is it was reckless, and dangerous. While Scott’s action were seen differently by different people, the one part they all tell the same way is how terrified they were ducking for cover when the gunfire commenced. No one was taking cover from Scott’s gun. They were trying not to get shot by bullets paid for by there own tax dollars.
And while this might not sit well with Mike, you are giving police too much credit.”the police had to believe there was a *reasonable* threat, i.e. the reasonable policeman standard.” The “reasonable policeman” believes he is a target. He believes he is lucky to make it home at night and the only people that face such danger.
It doesn’t matter that there are dozens of jobs far more deadly, they are groomed in a culture of fear. The reasonable policeman will shoot a dog wanting to get to know him, because “they feared for their lives.” The same dog that was bravely faced day after day by the mailman is out to get the cop.
This insanity was never more apparent than with the decision by Kansas Judge Rebecca Pilshaw. to sentence Michael Gaines to 13 years in prison for spitting at police. Why such a harsh sentence? Because the police told her they were afraid was trying kill them with his spit. He was HIV positive you see. And even though Pilshaw knew that HIV is not transmitted through saliva, what mattered was the fact that the cops were scarred they would get HIV, and in the courts a cops fear trumps the truth everytime.
Dear CCCC:
Eeyow! May I suggest you–and every reader–read my work on the Scott case (if you haven’t)? The archive is here. The problem is that the officers involved, particularly William Mosher, who, on the day he met Erik Scott, had already shot two people, killing one, in five years on the Metro force. This is extraordinarily rare, even for Metro which kills citizen at an incredible rate. The problem with that case is that Mosher did not, in fact, have reasonable ground to believe that Scott represented an imminent threat. Within two second of laying eyes on Scott, and after less than two seconds of screaming contradictory commands at him, he shot Scott twice, mortally wounding him. The other two officers, one of which has since been fired from Metro for committing a felony (even that usually doesn’t do the trick with the agency), despite having no idea who fired a gun, and seeing no weapon in Scott’s hands, to say nothing of any threat, added five “me too” shots into Scott’s back as he fell and lay on the ground.
These officers were not justified. There is a clear line, and they stepped over it. You’ve followed the Scott case, I know, and you’re certainly familiar with Metro. I just wanted to be certain my readers were certain of my feelings on that case. I am, by the way, still working it, and will have new updates in the near future.
Mike,
I have read your very thorough look at the Scott case. In fact, I have been following this blog because of that long before we every heard of a guy named Zimmerman. While Mosher, Mendiola and Stark should have faced a trial for their actions, as they should not have been justified. Here in Clark County, under the power of the coroner’s inquest system at the time, they have been ruled justified and two remain on the force, collecting more than $200,000 of out tax dollars.
Sadly, the fact that Mosher had multiple shoots under his belt is not rare enough at Metro.
We have has George Pease, who actually met every requirement of a serial killer, who killed three people, one by slitting his throat in his sleep. He was eventually fired—for stealing from the pension fund. We have had many more multiple shooters, the latest was just a few months ago http://marker.to/HJwbZj.
in response to JOC56:
7:13:14pm: Zimmerman has lost Trayvon.
7:16:11 pm: The first of six 911 calls reporting the fight. (http://bit.ly/MMKnIy)
That’s less than three minutes. Considering the time it would take for the altercation to be heard by caller and recognized as worthy of police involvement, find her phone and dial. The two could have met up as early as 7:14:11 but no later than 7:15:41.
The earliest assumes the caller, like most people, would hear the fight, turn down the TV, listen for a minute to see if it is an actual fight and then calI 911. don’t see that as unreasonable.
So three minutes is inaccurate. It could have been a minute to two and half. And, I don’t know what he Martin was doing and I don’t know what Zimmerman was doing. Based on the times I know what he WASN’T doing, and that’s heading back to his truck.
CCCC- I do have to laugh a bit here with your profound statement, that you know what GZ “WASN”T doing, and that he’s heading back to his vehicle.” Were you there, and did you personally make that observation? Even one of the lead investigators for the prosecution, said under oath, they have no proof that GZ wasn’t heading back to his vehicle. But, you know that, beyond a reasonable doubt, that that is not true? Are we now to believe that in addition to all of your other assets, that you also have psychic abilities?
I don’t know what Martin was doing, and I don’t know what Zimmerman was doing, but dangit I know for sure that GZ wasn’t headed back to his truck. Is that what your horoscope lead you to believe on that day? You seem to be getting more and more irrational with each post. How about stepping back from hitting Mike’s posts, almost as though they are your alarm clock, and considering the rational and factual explanations?
None so blind as those that refuse to see!
You still don’t get it (or refuse to get it). GZ hung up at 7:13:41 (did you transpose the numbers?). He lost TM WELL BEFORE that. At 7:11:42 GZ says ‘…he’s running’. At 7:11:45 GZ is getting out of his truck. At 7:11:58 dispatch asks GZ ‘are you following him?’. At 7:12:12 GZ says ‘he ran’. I think we can infer with a high degree of reliability that GZ had lost sight of TM at this point (if not sooner). At no point between then and the end of the call does GZ indicate he has any idea where TM is. At 7:13:10 GZ doesn’t want to give his address because ‘I don’t know where this kid is’. It was dark and raining that night. To think that GZ had TM in his sight until the end of the phone call is preposterous. I’ll stand by my timeline. TM had about 3 minutes to make it home yet he DIDN’T enter his house. The supposedly scared teenager didn’t enter his house and call 911 to report a strange man following him. Why not?
You also never addressed the fact that you misstated the time that GZ left his truck. He left a full minute before you said he did which completely negates your ‘theory’.
Here’s my theory: TM ran at 7:11:42. He had a head start on GZ and made it to the ‘T’ well ahead of GZ. TM went down the sidewalk between the town homes. He either went all the way to his father’s house or else he hid somewhere along the walkway. GZ made it to the ‘T’ and looked down the walkway. Due to the darkness and rain he couldn’t see anything. This wouldn’t be the most logical place for a possible burglar to run anyway. A burglar would run past the ‘T’ and continue on to the next street over (Retreat View Circle). This is the path GZ took. I think he walked to the next street over and that is where he was when he hung up the phone. At that point he started to make his way back to his truck following the same route. As he got close to the ‘T’ GZ was approached by TM from the walkway between the town homes. This is where the fight began. GZ’s keys were found right by the ‘T’. If GZ passed the ‘T’ going out and TM wasn’t there but TM is at the ‘T’ when GZ is on the way back to his truck then by definition TM must have doubled back.
I’m all ears when it comes to alternative theories.
Dear JOC56:
Well put. Interestingly, your theory mirrors mine. You’ve read Update 4 where it’s laid out? We must, however, all keep in mind that trying to parse this case to the second, with some 50% of the facts unknown, is not a good idea. Your scenario is within the 3 minute or so time frame between the end of Zimmerman’s 911 call and the first 911 call reporting the scuffle, and for the moment, that kind of plausibility is all we need and all we can hope for. The difference between you and the supporters of the narrative is your scenario is not an article of faith, and with new, more convincing and accurate facts, subject to change. Me too.
Thanks for your comments!
First off JOC56, when I shortened the link I am using for reference I copied another by accident. I am using the time-line found here, and I have found nothing to contradict it. (http://marker.to/hyH8SQ with pertinent times highlighted) I must note at this point that even though you haven’t posted a single link as a reference to your time line, there has been nary a peep from Joc56 about your Troll status.
Anyway, I have been accused of “rapid switching of arguments,” (which I feel was unfair) so I will make sure to stick to the original
question you posed.
“..would you like to explain what TM did for the approximately 3 minutes he was out of GZ’s sight?”
Let’s take a look at the time line (http://marker.to/hyH8SQ).
7:13:14pm: Zimmerman has lost Trayvon. Because “I don’t know where this kid is,” Zimmerman tells dispatcher to have police call him when they arrive rather than meet at specific place. That indicates its he has no plan to receive continue hunting for the teen.
7:13:41pm: Zimmerman’s phone call with dispatch ends.
7:16 pm (7:15-7:16) Martin’s phone call with Dee Dee ends (She claims that seconds before the call ends she hears the first contact between the two.)
7:16:11 pm: The first of six 911 calls is made by a neighbor whose house is immediately adjacent to where the shooting occurred.
7:16:56 pm: Forty-five seconds into the first 911 call, a gunshot is heard.
First, Martins cell provider apparently rounds call times to the minute, so it is highly unlikely that the call ended exactly at 7:16 pm, especially considering the first call to 911 comes in 11 seconds later.
So we can’t assume that Zimmerman lost sight of the Martin 7:13:14pm, not as you state “At 7:12:12 GZ says ‘he ran’. I think we can infer with a high degree of reliability that GZ had lost sight of TM at this point (if not sooner).” Because if he had lost sight of him, he couldn’t very well describe his gate.
So the question now becomes, “When did Zimmerman and Martin next see each other. You assert that it was three minutes later, but since the end of Martin’s phone call and the 1st 911 call make that impossible. They tell us the two ran into each other not later that 2 min. 57 sec. later, but that assumes the 911 call connects at the exact moment the two meet. Not very likely. They could have met again as soon as 7:15 pm, since that’s the earliest Martin’s last call could have ended. And that’s only 1 min 45 seconds later.
So what happened? Sadly there are only two living people that have any insight. Zimmerman and DeeDee. Now your post calls her a liar, but doesn’t elaborate as to what makes you say that. To be honest, I haven’t followed her statements very closely. I doubt they are 100% accurate and at best provide an idea as to Martin’s state of mind and he general movements. And according to her, he was spending that time trying to elude Zimmerman.
So we turn to Zimmerman. Should we use the version where he was attacked as he got out to see what street he was on (http://marker.to/FrkUPX)? The problem there is that Zimmerman’s supporters suddenly stopped using that once we heard the call to police. If Zimmerman told that to police, it was clearly a lie as it contradicts every other fact that came to light after they released him. That surely can be viewed as another notch on his credibility.
We could use the April 3, 2012 published in Rueters (http://marker.to/hzdtPx) where Tracy Martin recalls what Sanford Investigator Chris Serino told him Zimmerman’s story (http://marker.to/hzdtPx)
“Zimmerman gets out of his car. He comes around the building. Trayvon is hiding behind the building, waiting on him. Trayvon approaches him and says, ‘What’s your problem, homes?’ Zimmerman says ‘I don’t have a problem.’
“Zimmerman starts to reach into his pocket to get his cellphone, and at that point Trayvon attacked him.”
Well that doesn’t mesh with what we hear in the police tape. Now Serino, wouldn’t have known this when Zimmerman told him this tale, but when the tape was released the story changed.
The Orlando Sentinel (http://marker.to/udJNKG) reported that Zimmerman told police
“Zimmerman got out of his SUV to follow Trayvon on foot.…There is about a one-minute gap during which police say they’re not sure what happened…Trayvon approached him from the left rear, and they exchanged words…Trayvon asked Zimmerman if he had a problem. Zimmerman said no and reached for his cell phone,..Trayvon then said, “Well, you do now” or something similar and punched Zimmerman in the nose,..”
Or we could go with what Robert Zimmerman Sr., told and was repeated by Joe Oliver, former Zimmerman media advisor (http://marker.to/qN7GaU)
Zimmerman told them he lost sight of Trayvon and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from the left rear, and they exchanged words.
Trayvon asked Zimmerman if he had a problem. Zimmerman said no and reached for his cell phone, he told police. Trayvon then said, “Well, you do now” or something similar and punched Zimmerman in the nose, according to the account he gave police.
Or we could use what George Zimmerman’s brother, Robert Jr told Piers Morgan (http://marker.to/NRbVFX), when his father story fell apart when compared to the facts, but Robert claims that, despite what we all have heard, his brother never even followed Martin (http://marker.to/8orFF2). The interview that accounted for Zimmerman being found on the grass, despite what dad said. The story where, while having his head pounded into the pavement, Zimmerman was able to scooch over the the grass so..
“last thing he remembers doing was moving his head from the concrete to the grass, so that if he was banged one more time he wouldn’t be — you know, wearing diapers for the rest of his life and being spoon fed by his brother…
That tale is quite hard to swallow once you watch the video from the police station. Zimmerman doesn’t seem to be one-blow away from being a vegetable.”
This every changing narrative by the Zimmerman has been very reactive.Whenever new information comes to light, the story changes to accommodate.
But they all have two things in common. They all claim that Zimmerman attempted to grab his cell phone to call 911, and none of them describe Martin as being on the phone.
That tells us the meeting occurred between 7:15-7:16, because Martin was on the phone at that point. Plenty of time from Zimmerman to have returned to his truck, or theses accounts are not accurate. These stories also tell us, that Zimmerman reached for his waist band.
Let’s ask Mike what the common reaction to a stranger approaching you in the dark and reaching for something in his pocket is. If he’s honest he’ll tell you that’s what police folk like to call a “furtive move.” If you need, I’ll post the links to all the people killed by cops while reaching for their phones.
If the reasonable police officer (heavily armed and protected by Kevlar) sees reaching for a cell phone as a life-threatening action, then an teen-aged boy could as well. Once again, putting Zimmerman in the driver’s seat in the confrontation, and would negate his ability to claim self-defense.
As long as all we have is this flexible Zimmerman narrative, we really don’t have anything at all. And any speculation that doesn’t address what motivated the sudden change I focus of Martin and Zimmerman is ignoring the most fundamental question Zimmerman’s account raises.
Dear CCCC:
You’ll notice that I haven’t bothered to try to parse this case to the second. The Zimmerman narrative isn’t “flexible” as in intentionally deceptive, it merely admits the possibility that change will someday be necessary because there is simply much we don’t yet know. However, I think we can reasonably accept the idea that from the time Zimmerman ended his 911 call until the confrontation with Martin at or near the meeting of the “T”–where the sidewalks meet–something under three minutes could easily have elapsed. I don’t know that you’ve read Update 4 as yet, but I recommend it to you.
In that update, you’ll find several maps that outline the probable (remember, we don’t have all the facts) movements of Martin and Zimmerman. I suggest that Zimmerman ended his conversation with the dispatcher in the area of the street east of the eastmost line of condos (the line that included Martin’s father’s condo near the far south end). Zimmerman would have walked here to have looked to the north and south on that street for Martin, who he lost several minutes earlier. Telling the dispatcher he was returning to his car and his meeting with responding officers, and affirming once again that he had no idea where Martin was, he began to walk west, almost certainly on the sidewalk that would take him directly to his truck.
Zimmerman could easily have walked to the meeting of the sidewalks within that three minute time frame, and the rest we know. You may disagree with this scenario, but please have the grace to admit that it is plausible. Given the terrain and the time frame–as we imperfectly know it–this seems the most likely scenario.
As to your stranger in the dark example–and we don’t know that happened in this case by the way, my reaction is simple, as a police officer and now: watch carefully, keep sufficient distance to allow reaction time, and attack with any degree of force only when I know it is absolutely necessary. I don’t know why you’re continually refusing to get the point of this update, but one can use force against another only when a reasonable person would believe them self in imminent danger. Your example does not provide that danger. And by the way, “furtive moves” are sometimes used by poorly trained or corrupt cops to justify unjustifiable violence. Again, specific, carefully articulated facts and observations are always necessary. The circumstances you’ve described are certainly grounds for heightened awareness, but not attack.
As to Dee Dee, take my word for it, put no faith in her or the prosecutor’s use of her. You’ll see when I mean with Update 11 on 06-13-12. I suspect you’ll agree with me on that one.
Mike,
I want this to be perfectly clear. When I talk about the “flexible Zimmerman” narrative, I am not referring to the timeline or suppositions you have published here. I am referring to the narrative offered by Zimmerman’s family and those he have charged to speak on his behalf. You can chart the change in details alongside the release of evidence disputing it.
The Zimmerman’s have told a tale more flexible than an Olympic gymnast and changes more than Mystique.
“However, I think we can reasonably accept the idea that from the time Zimmerman ended his 911 call until the confrontation with Martin at or near the meeting of the “T”–where the sidewalks meet–something under three minutes could easily have elapsed.”
Only if by “something under three minutes could easily have elapsed,” You mean “no more than two minutes.” The first 911 call comes in 2 minutes and 29 seconds after Zimmerman ended his call to police (HE DID NOT DIAL 911).
And where do you get off suggesting he told “…the dispatcher he was returning to his car and his meeting with responding officers, and affirming once again that he had no idea where Martin was,”
That’s not what happened. As the timeline shows, tight before ending the call “Zimmerman tells dispatcher to have police call him when they arrive rather than meet at specific place,” If he had any intention of returning to the truck before he police came, he would have set that as a meeting point. He didn’t which that coupled with the fact he didn’t return to the truck, http://marker.to/9tMBt9leads me to believe he had no intention of returning to the truck. That both chips away at the veracity of his story and indicates he was continuing his quest to keep this “asshole” from getting away.
Now, and I am not interested in a discussion with you on this, but you are just plain misinformed or outright lying (yes I’ll admit to this one) if when you state,
“And by the way, “furtive moves” are sometimes used by poorly trained or corrupt cops to justify unjustifiable violence. Again, specific, carefully articulated facts and observations are always necessary.”
This is an area, I happen to quite well-informed about, and the use of the term “furtive move” is a cop’s second favorite phrase. Right after “stop resisting.” Both are used regardless of the facts, and they are used far more often than you suggest. Some departments use the term to describe why they shoot unarmed citizens more often than armed ones.
And it is in fact used. It was used here…http://marker.to/9tMBt9…it’s used a lot here http://marker.to/W0aTkF…Its like a mantra for cops today.
Dear CCCC:
You are really confusing me. “No more than two minutes” would seem to be encompassed by my statement “…something under three minutes could easily have elapsed.” This plainly being the case, I’m missing your argument.
“And where do I get off…?” I “get off” because this is my blog, and I get to propose theories here. My readers “get off” by deciding if they are logical and factually plausible or not. Throughout his conversation with the dispatcher, Zimmerman several times discussed where the police were to meet him, and before ending his call, plainly spoke about having no idea where Martin was. Again, short of arguing for the sake of argument, I’m just not seeing your point here.
And once again, I’m lying?! You might disagree as to the number of officers who misuse the catchall term “furtive movements,” but my statement is absolutely true and based on nearly two decades of actual police experience. To the degree that it is misused (it is not always misused) it is wrong and must cease, and where, reasonable, be punished. There is no possible lie or misinformation involved.
I have appreciated your contribution to the discussion of this case, but I do not allow people to abuse me or others on this site. You have claimed never to have said I have lied. I’ve proved that to be in error merely my quoting you. You have not acknowledged that and appropriately apologized. And now you accuse me of lying again when I have clearly done no such thing?
How many bloggers, do you suppose, would have put up with even a fraction of this kind of behavior? Please be more cautious with your assertions.
This link has the GZ phone call broken down to the second: http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/the-missing-230-and-deedees-testimony.
I think you are being intentionally obtuse when you cling to the 7:13:14 as the time GZ lost sight of TM. Even the article you linked to says this: “7:12:08 pm: After conversation about Zimmerman’s contact details, Zimmerman states to the dispatcher, “he ran.” From the general context, it seems that Zimmerman has now lost sight of Trayvon.” He clearly had lost sight of him well before 7:13:14 but believe what you want to believe.
I’m not sure what to make of this. You write: “First off JOC56, when I shortened the link I am using for reference I copied another by accident. I am using the time-line found here, and I have found nothing to contradict it. (http://marker.to/hyH8SQ with pertinent times highlighted) I must note at this point that even though you haven’t posted a single link as a reference to your time line, there has been nary a peep from Joc56 about your Troll status.” Was I supposed to out myself as a troll? LOL.
Mike,
“. “No more than two minutes” would seem to be encompassed by my statement “…something under three minutes could easily have elapsed.” This plainly being the case, I’m missing your argument….”
Then so would “something under three hours/days/years could have elapsed.” You decision to phrase your statement in both and accurate and misleading way, just seems to me as indicative of how you present things here. Would you not argue with my saying, “It was just more than a 10 seconds between the end of Zimmerman’s call and the fatal gunshot.” Would you not argue that as misleading, despite? Yet your standards its still entirely accurate
As for my point, while Zimmerman did give directions to his truck, he specifically told the dispatcher to call him when they arrived because he was sure where he would be. If was intending to meet at the truck, he would have just met him at the truck. Keep in mind, police response was pretty decent, and through his many calls to 911, Zimmerman would have a pretty good estimate of their response. The only reason Zimmerman wouldn’t know where he was going to be in two minutes would be if he wasn’t making that decision. And if he were continuing to follow Martin, he would need know where he would be. By Zimmerman’s own words we can deduce he did not intend to return to his truck any time soon.
The last thing I’ll say about furtive movement. I had forgotten to consider decades of experience in law enforcement. While your coverage of the Scott case shows you are willing to see cops occasionally guilty, you still had 20 years of cult-like programming to overcome. Many things I would consider lies are truths to members of law enforcement, because they have been indoctrinated. So, while I accept the premise that you were not lying about the use of “the furtive movement” to justify murder by the police, it’s just because you haven’t been able to see the truth, so for the classification of lying I again apologize.
BTW, Take a moment and look up the definition of “furtive” and you should see how, by its very definition, a “furtive” movement can’t be used to justify a single shooting.
And JOC56, all I can conclude from the statement, “he ran,” is that Zimmerman SAW him run. That’s quite a miraculous feet..to SEE someone run whom you’ve lost SIGHT of.
As for the final paragraph, I meant to cut and paste the someone else’s name, sorry, but it was a long post.
Dear CCCC:
Let’s allow ourselves a little slack on time frames; I suspect we’ll all be happier when the remaining 50% of the evidence is eventually made public. As I’ve noted, I’ve not tried to nail things down to the second for that reason.
Zimmerman agreed that he would meet the officers near the mailboxes, which were to the west of his parked truck. In other words, he was walking west and his truck was between him and the mailboxes. As it was raining, it would not be unreasonable to assume he would reenter his truck and drive it the short distance to the mailbox area to await the police. In case you don’t have it, here’s a link to a transcript of that conversation. You’ll see that Zimmerman told the dispatcher that Martin was running earlier in their conversation, after Martin approached his vehicle and looked at him. He also describes the direction Martin was running, which is what I’ve illustrated in Updates 4 and 9, and which, as you’ll see this coming Wednesday, is confirmed (to at least some degree–you’ll see what I mean) by Dee Dee. It was only later that Zimmerman lost sight of Martin and told the dispatcher that.
I’m still confused by your concern about “furtive moments.” I’ve repeatedly stated that some–not all–police officers misuse that term to justify unnecessary violence. And considering my work in the Scott Case, where I’ve concluded that the evidence shows the police unlawfully killed Erik Scott and committed multiple felonies to cover up that killing, I’m a bit confused about where you get the idea I’m indoctrinated with “cult-like programming.” Let me try once more: any police officer saying they harmed or killed anyone only because they made a furtive movement is unjustified in acting. In order to use force of any kind, far more specific articulation and real evidence are required. If that is not present, any competent police force should be very concerned and conduct a proper investigation. I cannot make the point more clearly than that.
I can condense the entirety of the problems I have with your narrative in the following statement.
‘Zimmerman agreed that he would meet the officers near the mailboxes, which were to the west of his parked truck.”
You then kindly provide me with a link to the transcript, which, oddly enough is identical to the transcript I provided.
And while you are correct that is does corroborate your assertion about meeting at the mail boxes.
“Dispatcher
Okay do you want to just meet with them right near the mailboxes then?
Zimmerman
Yeah that’s fine.”
That is if you just ignore the rest of the conversation. While I am accused of “picking and choosing facts” it has become your modes operand here.
Because after Zimmerman said “Yeah that’s fine,” the following exchange takes place
“Dispatcher
Alright George, I’ll let them know to meet you around there [mailnoxes], okay?
Zimmerman
Actually could you have them, could you have them call me and I’ll tell them where I’m at?”
Since you written dozens of posts on this subject and have missed it each time, I’ll repeat it.
“Dispatcher
Alright George, I’ll let them know to meet you around there [mailnoxes], okay?
Zimmerman
Actually could you have them, could you have them call me and I’ll tell them where I’m at?”
Now once more with just Zimmerman’s response.
Zimmerman
“Actually could you have them, could you have them call me and I’ll tell them where I’m at?”
“Actually could you have them, could you have them call me and I’ll tell them where I’m at?”
“Actually could you have them, could you have them call me and I’ll tell them where I’m at?”
If he was planning on meeting them at the mailboxes, why would he need them to call to find out where he was. If he was going back to his truck, why didn’t he tell that to this dispatcher? If he was knew where he was going to be at all, why didn’t he tell the dispatcher that?
He needed the officers to call because he wasn’t sure where he was going to be. He didn’t know because he was still chasing Martin and he didn’t know where he was headed.
If any of the several narratives that the Zimmerman clan has told the media, are what Zimmerman told police, then he will be shown, once again, and being less than truthful.
There is no evidence that Martin turned back on Zimmerman. But we have Zimmerman’s own words,
“Actually could you have them, could you have them call me and I’ll tell them where I’m at?”
As evidence that, at the very least, he wasn’t heading back to the truck, the mailboxes or any other specific location. When Zimmerman tells police,
“Actually could you have them, could you have them call me and I’ll tell them where I’m at?”
He is providing damning evidence that supports the notion the Zimmerman continues to play the role of the hunter and Martin the hunted. There is no other explanation for Zimmerman telling dispatch,
“Actually could you have them, could you have them call me and I’ll tell them where I’m at?”
and that is why your narratives always end with Zimmerman agreeing to meet at the mailboxes and ignores Zimmerman telling dispatch,
“Actually could you have them, could you have them call me and I’ll tell them where I’m at?”
I hope I am wrong in assuming you will now adjust your narrative with some far-fetched explanation for Zimmerman telling dispatch,
“Actually could you have them, could you have them call me and I’ll tell them where I’m at?”
as if you had included it all along. But you will know that there are readers of your blog, who issues are not with your conclusion but that you come to it by ignoring viral evidence like Zimmerman telling dispatch,
“Actually could you have them, could you have them call me and I’ll tell them where I’m at?”
Dear CCCC:
I did not miss Zimmerman telling the dispatcher to ask the officers to call him for his exact location. Because of my years in police work, I simply understand that comment doesn’t have the meaning you’re giving it. It means what it says, nothing more, and is an entirely reasonable thing upon which Zimmerman and the dispatcher would agree. It’s nothing more than the end of their continuing conversation about where the responding officers would meet Zimmerman.
The responding officers were in a police car. When Zimmerman ended his call to the dispatcher, he was almost certainly on the sidewalk east of his truck and the roadway where he expected the police to enter the neighborhood. It therefore makes sense that Zimmerman, who we can reasonably believe was not actively pursuing Martin (he was breathing normally and told the dispatcher he lost Martin), would walk to his truck and the roadway where he planned to meet the police. Certainly he would not have expected them to get out of their car in the rain and meet him on the sidewalk. I can assure you that most police officers would not have the slightest interest in doing that unless it were absolutely necessary.
Mike I am sorry to say But other people here ar right. CCCC is a troll by definition he makes irrelevant personal comments about George, you and other commenters that are stated simply to elicit emotional reactions from people. That is the very definition of a troll in wiki. He began that way-slipped away from it after you informed him/her that it would not be tolerated, then has , with every post, slipped further into it. I suggest you get rid of him since he can’t follow the rules and be civil.
CCCC:
You maintain that there is no evidence that Martin turned back on Zimmerman. The evidence that Martin either doubled back or lay in wait to confront Zimmerman is the 5 minutes between when he took off running and the moment of the fatal shot, and the distance from Brandi’s condo when he was shot. Zimmerman’s phone call lasted two minutes beyond the time when Martin took off running. Had Martin simply walked to Brandi Green’s condo, he would have been there, plopped on the sofa watching the NBA All-Star Game before Zimmerman even finished his phone call with the dispatcher. IF all he did was walk. And we know he ran at least part of the way.
Your argument as to why Zimmerman “needed” the officers to call is speculative at best. And you quite arrogantly make the statement that there is no other explanation but your own – that he continued to play the role of hunter, etc. That is a notion I find preposterous when taking into account the tone of Zimmerman’s voice while talking to the dispatcher – very calm and making virtually no reference to Martin after initially following Martin and then acknowledging the dispatcher’s suggestion not to.
Another argument could easily be that he was uncertain when the police would arrive and exactly where he would be when they DID arrive. Would they enter the front or back entrance? Would they be on foot? How was he to know? He gave his phone number to be thorough. He very easily COULD have been at the mailboxes when they arrived, but because life is full of uncertainties, he provided his number to make certain they could find him.
I am going out on a limb here and suggesting that you lend some weight to Dee Dee’s testimony tot he special prosecutor – especially taking into account your comments concerning Zimmerman chasing Trayvon Martin. This I find quite telling. Dee Dee was the one claiming Trayvon Martin was too tired to continue running to get away from Zimmerman. She also claimed Zimmerman caught up with Martin – along a route of approximately 450ft. – a route Martin could easily have completed before Zimmerman every finished his phone call with the dispatcher.
Dee Dee’s credibility should be in question from the very start – she failed to tell even a single living soul of a conversation with Trayvon Martin – a conversation that (if it happened) was the last time anyone spoke with Martin. She told no one at school when she discovered Martin had been shot and killed – no friend, teacher…not her mother, certainly not any law enforcement agency. In fact it wasn’t until March 20, after she had been tracked down by the Crump law firm, that she even made a statement – a phone interview with ABC! A PHONE interview – conveniently done four days after all 911 calls and Zimmerman’s call to the dispatcher were made available to the public. Not a live camera interview! An interview where someone else could easily have been sitting right next to her coaching her, or where she easily could have been referring to written responses. And she didn’t submit to investigators until 35 days AFTER the shooting, despite the fact that her friend’s killer remained free.
Mike will go into detail soon concerning Dee Dee’s special prosecutor testimony, but if you lend any credibility to her testimony at all, your judgment is really in question as well.
Seemingly polite and rational assessment.
Better don’t try that with me or with Georgie around, he may report you as You go to great length to describe situations in malls and downtown. Why? This is apparently not where it happened, as it surely wouldn’t have happened in any of the circumstances you list.
May I politely ask you, if it can be considered suspicious that Trayvon walked in the rain, how comes Trayvon cannot consider it suspicious if George Z. does the same? Apart from getting out of his car and following him instead of entering a nearby house, which is something one would expect. Add to that that you yourself recognize that TM probably realized he was watched before.
But you have a solution for that, it feels your camp always needs to add some extra props. Sometimes Trayon hides his loot somewhere, sometimes it’s burglary tools, now we have him hiding his drugs. And in spite of the high profile case with all resulting flyers and meeting with police in RTL no one reported to having it found after?
It’s always good to see the pro-Zimmerman camp is so focused on hard facts and evidence. I am really relieved.
And the evidence for that it what? George himself told police, as reported to Tracy Martin, and brother and father repeating his narrative ad nauseam? Well in that case it must be absolutely true. Correct!
If you ask me, the whole story about having to look for an address in a community in which he lived for three years, where he managed a Neighboorhood Watch collecting addresses of helpers and contacts, and which only has three roads, is a post event concoction. He still had the complicated exchange with the dispatcher in mind. Always good to ground your narrative in reality. Besides why should he go to where he says he went looking for an address, if his object is moving and his car is somewhere else?
Can I prove it, no. Do I think George will go free, yes. But the main reason will be, that the best witness against him is dead. But I do not even invent any extra props. The sad story for me is that we will never learn how and why the whole encounter escalated with the known results. I have also read somewhere by someone who enjoyed to call Trayvon, “Saint Trayvon”, considering all the black crime it may well be good to take some of them out before they come of age. A civil preemptive strike so to speak.
Good night from Europe.