This update in the Martin case is devoted to analysis of the interview of “Dee Dee” by Assistant Special Prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda—and several others—on April 12, 2012. While I do know this young lady’s name, I choose not to publish it. As one who believes in the rule of law, I believe there is no need to contribute to any intimidation or abuse of potential witnesses in any case. I’m able to present this update because of the kind assistance of a reader who chooses to remain anonymous. He prepared the initial transcript—which turned out to be a truly Herculean labor—to a level of 85% to 90% completeness and accuracy. His efforts saved me a great many hours and I am grateful indeed. I assume he is not a high school English teacher, and so I worry about brain damage from prolonged exposure to the speech of a teenager. Over the years I’ve built up an immunity, though still suffer from the occasional light linguistic concussion.
Before preparing the battle space, so to speak, please allow me to call your attention to two interesting articles on the Martin case. The first is available at The Conservative Treehouse. In that article, you’ll learn a great deal more about “Dee Dee,” Trayvon Martin, and the seamier elements of those pushing the narrative. The second article may be found in The American Thinker by Jack Cashill.
Cashill, for those not familiar with his work, is a fine writer and researcher with many books to his credit. Since the advent of the Age of Obama, he has done the work the Lamestream media have refused to do, and among other services, has arguably proved that unrepentant domestic terrorist William Ayers wrote at least one of Mr. Obama’s two (?!) autobiographies. I recommend this link to his one hour presentation on that matter.
Cashill’s article will seem quite familiar to readers of this scruffy little blog. It is essentially a recitation of the substantial and convincing evidence that Trayvon Martin was not the child-like, candy-eating innocent of “the narrative.” While Cashill does not present anything that I—and others–have not already presented (and in considerably more detail), his voice is indeed welcome in our efforts to inform the public about this case, and his article–and other work–is worth your time.
I’ve written, in Update 7 and in Update 8, that “Dee Dee” would be a very dangerous witness for the prosecution. I based this on what I knew at the time. Because she was on the telephone with Martin, and intermittently at that, she can testify only to what she heard, which not only substantially limits the scope of her testimony, but opens everything she says up to interpretation. If she heard a “thumping” noise, what was it? A car door or house door closing? Martin coughing? A fist connecting with flesh? How can she say with certainty which of these three—or any number of other possible—explanations is accurate? If Martin told her something was happening, how can she know that his interpretation was accurate or that he was telling her the complete truth?
Most dangerous for the prosecution, however, is the fact that teenagers constantly talk about their interests and themselves. Dee Dee will certainly know Martin’s habits and normal behaviors, including many the prosecution absolutely does not want a jury to hear about, yet putting her on the stand will almost certainly open that door. Until I spent hours listening to and transcribing her audio interview, I had no idea how Old Testament prophet right I was. Dee Dee is not merely dangerous to the prosecution; she’s absolutely deadly. Special Prosecutor Angela Corey would be foolish to allow this girl anywhere near a courtroom. The interview is more than bad enough and will haunt the prosecution.
INTERVIEWS: PROTOCOL AND TECHNIQUE
Interviewing people is science and art. It is a skill—or perhaps more accurately—a broad set of skills that the best police officers learn only through experience. There is no doubt that some people, because of their unique genetic endowment, will naturally be better interviewers than others, but even they must spend many years working with people to maximize their skills. Among the skills involved are a sharp and accurate understanding of human nature, and the ability to “read” non-verbal signs, signs that may be very subtle and differ from person to person.
Here, as with virtually everything else relating to law enforcement, TV and the movies have served us badly. Virtually nothing they depict about interviews is accurate. The Law and Order series is particularly bad in that interviews are completed within minutes, confessions are dramatic and tearful, and trials take only slightly longer than interviews.
One of the many remarkable things about interviews is that most criminal suspects will waive Miranda, which is a good thing, because if they invoke it—they “lawyer up”–the talking is over. I always treated people with consideration and kindness, not only out of empathy, but because one really does catch more flies with sugar than vinegar. Defense attorneys often shook their heads in wonder when they discovered that people I arrested actually called me from the jail and asked me to come by so they could confess to additional crimes. They didn’t do that just because they thought I was a swell guy, but because of the careful groundwork I laid to help ensure those kinds of results and because I treated them like I’d want to be treated in their place.
Here are some of the considerations police officers must have before an interview takes place:
(1) They must be aware of every fact in the case or cases to be discussed. They must know those cases intimately.
(2) They must have a complete list of questions and issues that must be discussed.
(3) They must know everything possible about the person they are going to interview, from age, interests, criminal record, relationships, phobias, to their favorite beverage, which might be provided at a particularly useful time.
(4) They must understand the difference in technique required when interviewing a burglar and when interviewing, for example, a stalker. Stalkers, if they’ll speak with you at all, are among the easiest people to interview in the sense that once they start talking about the object of their desire, it’s almost impossible to get them to shut up. With burglars, one usually has to convince them that confessing to a variety of felonies is in their best interest. That sounds crazy, but it’s quite true, and if done correctly, not particularly difficult.
(5) They must understand the dynamics of non-verbal communication. Good interviewers often promote talkativeness merely by looking at people and saying nothing at all. This works because Americans are conditioned to avoid dead air. When people aren’t talking, they become nervous and fill that space. Silence often communicates best and encourages people to say more. They way they look, sit, smile, nod, talk, and more will have a substantial influence on the outcome of an interview.
(6) They must be prepared to take as much time as possible and to follow the interview wherever it goes. People often bring up unexpected things. Interviewers can’t be surprised by this and must deal with it professionally and smoothly.
Once an interview is underway, an interviewer must not ask leading questions, but questions designed to allow a person the maximum freedom to speak their mind, questions that stimulate their memory. It is all too easy to inadvertently suggest things that may not be entirely accurate and that can change the statement of a witness in ways small and great. Instead of: “Did Billy Bob then hit Tommy in the eye?” A better question would be: “what happened next?” or “What did you see then?”
Interviewing is so important that virtually all law enforcement agencies have written protocols governing how it is done. Police officers attend lengthy schools that teach the necessary skills. Interviews involving major cases are almost exclusively done by detectives–higher ranking specialists–and even in their ranks, some detectives are recognized as expert interviewers and are called in when the A Team is required.
One major issue is that—unlike TV and the movies would have us believe—prosecutors NEVER interview suspects. They commonly meet witnesses only just before a trial begins, and then, only to introduce themselves and tell the witness when they can expect to testify and to put them at ease. They do not discuss the details of testimony with witnesses.
This is so for two primary reasons:
(1) If a prosecutor interviews a suspect or witness, they have made themselves a witness. The defense can call them to the stand to testify about their interview. This is what those involved in the criminal justice system call: bad.
(2) It is important that the testimony of a witness be untainted. No prosecutor wants to open themselves to the charge of tampering with a witness—which is a crime—or in any way trying to influence their testimony. Defense lawyers routinely ask witnesses about this on the stand, and at the slightest hint of influence, raise a stink, which judges and juries tend to take very seriously.
Interviews are done by police officers. If a prosecutor wants to clarify a given issue, or obtain additional information, they have this done by a detective who writes a supplementary report containing that information. Prosecutors do not do it themselves.
THE INTERVIEW:
This is going to be a long update, but to avoid any charges of taking things out of context, I’ve decided to present the entire transcript. I believe it may be worth your time and effort. The words of those in the transcript are in normal type, and my analyses will be added in bold italics. I recommend that after reading this update, you take the link and listen to the recording while referring to the update (it’s also present at the end of the article). The printed word cannot communicate everything that speech so easily reveals.
In reading this transcript, you’ll notice that Dee Dee speaks in patterns common to some black people (and those of other races as well, including some of the white bread persuasion), particularly dropping portions—or all—of suffixes and prefixes. She also entirely drops some prepositions, some verbs, and like a great many teenagers, speaks with lazy diction and often mumbles. Many of her sentences are fragmentary, and she will often apparently change thoughts in the middle of a sentence. All of this—and more—made preparing this transcript unusually difficult. As a teacher of high school English, I am perhaps better prepared than most to understand this kind of “relaxed” speech, but I was often forced to listen to a given sentence many times before I understood—mostly–what Dee Dee was saying.
Early on I realized I had a choice: transcribe Dee Dee’s speech accurately and be called a racist, or clean it up into something resembling standard English. I’ve chosen accuracy–which is the standard for anyone transcribing the speech of others–over political correctness. All race cards are expired at this Internet ATM. Call me racist all you like, but listen to the interview first; she really does speak precisely as I have transcribed. And is it not ironic that some may be tempted to call me racist for accurately reflecting the speech of a black person? Is there something inherently racist in the way some black people speak, or is accurately speaking about those speech patterns somehow racist? I just can’t keep up with the ever-changing conventions of political correctness…
Assistant Special Prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda (hereinafter known by the acronym: BDLR) is, in many ways, detrimental to the interview. He is obviously not well prepared, and not only asks leading questions, he often tries to put words in Dee Dee’s mouth. In addition, he talks too much and frequently interrupts Dee Dee, who reciprocates by frequently interrupting him. BDLR does not control the flow of the interview–mandatory for a competent interviewer. For that reason, it is possible that I missed an occasional “what…?”/”Uh…” exchange as BDLR and Dee Dee constantly “walked on” each other’s speech, but such matters are that kind of trivia and nothing of greater substance.
Before we begin, it is proper protocol for an interviewer–before saying anything else–to put on tape the place where the interview is being conducted, the date and time the interview begins, to introduce himself (I include the feminine here) and every other law enforcement officer present, including their proper title (it is always best to keep the number of cops present to an absolute minimum—usually no more than two), and to introduce the person being interviewed. You’ll notice that BDLR misses some of this entirely, including failing to introduce several cops, even though he says they are present. BDLR is the only person asking questions; the rest are potted plants.
BDLR: Uh, OK..could you state your name for the record, Ma’am.
Dee Dee: [Redacted]
BDLR: OK, my name is Bernie de la Rionda. I’m an assistant state attorney. I’m going to get you to raise your right hand, please. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Dee Dee: So help me God.
BDLR: OK, put your hand down. As I told you, my name is Bernie de la Rionda. I’ve been appointed by Miss Corey, who has been appointed by the governor of the State of Florida to handle this case that I’m going to be asking you questions about. Also to my right is Detective..uh..or Investigator T.C. O’Steen with the State Attorney’s office. We’ve come from Jacksonville, here along with some agents with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, and we are at [redacted] because you have agreed to come here today, is that correct?
Dee Dee: Yes.
BDLR: Has anyone threatened you in any way to get you to make this statement?
Dee Dee: No.
BDLR: Has anybody made you any promises in order to get you to make this statement?
Dee Dee: No.
BDLR: OK..I can tell by looking at you that you appear to be under no medical conditions that would interfere with…
Dee Dee: No…
BDLR: …being able to understand what’s going on, right?
Dee Dee: No.
BDLR: And you don’t appear to be under any kind of drugs or anything, is that correct?
Dee Dee: Nuh…[mumbling]
Many investigators don’t ask about threats or promises because they believe it to be unnecessary. Why raise that issue in the minds of the defense? If they’re not already thinking about it, they surely will if you raise it, and it may make them unnecessarily suspicious. The same is true in asking about drugs, etc. If someone is impaired, professionals don’t do the interview, so there is no need to ask about it. Though “nuh” is a pretty (unintentionally) humorous–and ironic–response to that question.
BDLR: And for the record, today is April the 2nd, 2012, and it’s about 7:05 PM. Uh, what I wanna kinda do is ask you some background questions, and then I also want to ask you some questions about something that happened back on February 26th of this year. And for the record, you knew a person named Trayvon Martin, is that correct?
Dee Dee: Yes.
BDLR: OK…now, you live [Redacted]…
Dee Dee: [Redacted]
BDLR: OK, how long have you lived there?
Dee Dee: [Redacted]
BDLR: Your whole life?
Dee Dee: Hmmm…[mumbling]
BDLR: OK, where did you live before that?
Dee Dee: [Redacted]
BDLR: OK, the reason I am asking you is because I am from Jacksonville, so I want to make sure the record’s clear…that we’re here in uh [redacted] Umm…
Dee Dee: A year or two…or eleven…[mumbling]
BDLR: What?
Dee Dee: Ten years…or 11.
BDLR: I’m sorry, what?
Dee Dee: Eleven…or 10 years
BDLR: OK, where do you go to school?
Dee Dee: [Redacted]
BDLR: And how did you know Trayvon?
Dee Dee: I know him for a long time…we just…we started talking.
BDLR: How did you meet up with him…from school? Or friends? Or…
Dee Dee: By coming by my house…
BDLR: OK…
Dee Dee: …with his best friend.
BDLR: Who was his best friend?
Dee Dee: [Redacted] Yeah.
BDLR: OK, so you’ve known him for how long about? Approximately…
Dee Dee: Kindergarten…?
BDLR: Kindergarten…wow, that long. So he was a good friend of yours…right?
Dee Dee: Yeah, he was alright…
BDLR: OK, and he was a good guy, wasn’t he?
Dee Dee: Yeah…sumpin’…
Here BDLR begins the practice of asking leading questions and trying to put words in Dee Dee’s mouth. In response to the suggestion that Martin was a “good guy,” Dee Dee replies “Yeah…sumpin’.” A competent interviewer would ask what she meant, clarify that statement which would appear to indicate that Martin was not, in fact, a particularly good guy. However, BDLR is plainly interested not in getting at the truth wherever it takes him, but in bolstering his case which is synonymous with the narrative.
BDLR: OK, and at…some later…later on…like in the last year or so, did you become closer friends?
Dee Dee: Yes.
BDLR: OK…did you guys ever start dating at all?
Dee Dee: Hmm mmm [unintelligible].
Throughout the interview, Dee Dee’s speech often drops dramatically in volume at the ends of phrases or sentences, rending her impossible to understand.
BDLR: But would you guys talk on the phone all the time?
Dee Dee: Yeah.
We have learned that Dee Dee knew Martin since kindergarten—about a decade—and that they apparently dated in some fashion–or maybe not. BDLR doesn’t ask the logical questions relating to the exact nature of their relationship—a matter of real importance—and rather than asking how often they spoke by phone, suggests how often they did. This is poor interviewing technique.
More importantly, however, we now know that Dee Dee would surely know a great deal about Martin, which includes such matters as his drug habits, his criminal escapades, and similar things the prosecution very much wants to avoid. Notice, however, that BDLR does not ask her about her Internet contacts with Martin. Surely he knows that teenagers communicate this way as much or more than by cell phone. Did he forget this, or is he avoiding what that kind of contact so clearly reveals about Martin?
BDLR: OK, what was your telephone number back in February of this year, 2012?
Dee Dee: [Redacted]
BDLR: And is that a cell phone?
Dee Dee: Yes.
BDLR: OK, and is that phone number under your name or under somebody else’s name?
Dee Dee: Now, it should be now under my name.
BDLR: And do you know what the provider is…is it T-Mobile? Or do you know?
Dee Dee: Yeah, T-Mobile…[mumbles]…I think.
BDLR: And did you know when you talked to Trayvon, what number you called him at?
Dee Dee: I don’t…I know the last four digits
BDLR: You don’t remember, or you do?
Dee Dee: I remember the last four…
BDLR: Is that automatically…like memorized in your phone?
Dee Dee: Mmm Hmm [Yes].
BDLR: OK, Alright, and you would communicate with him off and on? It was almost on a daily basis, or how often would you talk on the phone?
Dee Dee: Daily.
BDLR: Daily? You were that close?
Dee Dee: Daily.
BDLR: OK, were you kind of his girlfriend, or just kind of…I don’t mean to get personal, but I’m not going to ask you any more other than that. Were you guys…
Dee Dee: Yeah, we were getting there…
BDLR: OK, you’re getting there. And you knew he had gone up to Sanford, right?
Dee Dee: Yes.
BDLR: OK, and even when he was in Sanford, you still talked to him on the phone?
Dee Dee: Yes.
“Daily?” “…we were getting there…?” Sorry, BDLR, it’s your job to “get personal.” Again, BDLR does not ask the bare minimum questions necessary to properly understand the relationship. Were those calls once a day, twice a day, five times a day? For how long? What about texting? When did the calls or texts take place? How long were the calls? Who initiated them? BDLR is conducting what will probably be the only interview the prosecution will ever get a chance to do with her, and he’s not doing the bare minimum. I suspect he really doesn’t want to know the answers to these questions—or at the very least, doesn’t want them to appear in a transcript.
BDLR: OK. Now uh…by the way, I neglected to ask you. Do you live with yourself, or a family member, your mother, or any other…
Dee Dee: My mother.
BDLR: I’m sorry…
Dee Dee: My mother.
BDLR: OK, alright. I want to focus on that day, February 26, when you know obviously he was unfortunately killed. And I’m sorry to ask you about this…
Dee Dee: [Unintelligible]
BDLR: But did you have conversations with him that day?
Dee Dee: Yes.
BDLR: OK, and do you recall whether the conversations were in the morning, or in the afternoon, or all through the day until the final until the final [The tape sounds like the microphone is being moved or something is being drug across it]. In other words, did you talk to him earlier that day?
Dee Dee: In the morning.
BDLR: OK…alright…
Dee Dee: All day, it seem…
BDLR: OK, you talked to him during the day?
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: OK, at some point did you find out that Trayvon was going to the store?
Dee Dee: Around six, sumpin’….
Again, notice the complete lack of precision in questions. Dee Dee says she essentially talked with Martin “all day,” and BDLR doesn’t clarify that!? Was she continually talking to him, actually all day? Did they speak once, twice, ten times? When did they speak? What did they speak about? In a case where minutes—even seconds—count, and this particular witness has the potential to clarify some important time frames, BDLR has no interest in that at all.
BDLR: OK, and did he tell you what store he was going to?
Dee Dee: No; he was sayin’ corner store.
BDLR: Did he say why he was going to the store?
Dee Dee: Uh…yes.
BDLR: Why did he say he was going to the store?
Dee Dee: Get his little brother, uh, some food and some drink.
Consider this matter yourself, but Dee Dee’s answer here struck me as scripted, or as if she was remembering what she believed she was supposed to say in response to that question. It is, of course, very difficult to read people if you’re not actually in the room with them, but that’s the way it struck me. Take the link and see for yourself.
BDLR: OK, and as he was walking to the store, were you conversing with him?
Dee Dee: Yes.
BDLR: OK, you were talking to him.
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: How about when he got to the store? Did he talk to you about being at the store?
Dee Dee: Yes.
BDLR: OK, and did he talk to you once he left the store?
Dee Dee: Yes.
This is absolutely maddening. We have a partial timeline of events. We know when Zimmerman made his 911 call, and what happened, pretty much to the second during that call. We have at least some idea when Martin left for the 7-Eleven and we know when Zimmerman saw him. We also know that Martin took many times the amount of time necessary to walk to the 7-Eleven and back. In this situation, with this witness, any competent investigator would have the time frame before him and would go over it, second by second, to see if Dee Dee could help to support or refute what was believed to be true. But amazingly, BDLR has no interest in these details!
In addition, knowing the content of those calls is absolutely vital, particularly since BDLR has to know about the 7-Eleven tapes. Any competent prosecutor would want to know if for no other reason that to avoid being surprised in court, yet BDLR has no interest at all. Any detective showing so little interest in the basic details of a case would almost certainly be given the opportunity to return to the patrol force and less demanding, far less detail-oriented duties.
BDLR: And now was this a continuous phone call, or were there times when you would stop and then call each other back?
Dee Dee: Yeah, but the phone was actin’ up.
BDLR: OK, alright, OK, and we’ve got all the phone records that would establish that, so I’m not going to ask you details as to what specific times. But, what I wanted to cover with you is when he left the store, did he mention something about that at that time whether it was raining or not?
Even if BDLR has those records, what, exactly does “actin’ up” mean? Was it radio frequency interference? Was her phone battery dying? Was Martin’s phone the problem? What was said during each of those calls? Notice that BDLR does not ask questions that would encourage Dee Dee to talk—an important matter when we’re looking for answers relating to multiple telephone conversations. He’s looking for specific answers, and is doing his best to get them and to ignore the rest.
Even with the phone records, it would be vital to question her about each and every call and the time frames for no other reason than to assess the accuracy of her memory and to determine her reliability as a witness. No competent investigator expects the memory of a witness to coincide with such records to the second.
Dee Dee: Like, when he come home, or..?
BDLR: Yeah, tell what happened as he’s talking to you when he’s leaving the store…on his way back home.
Dee Dee: When he was leaving the store, he just told me that he bought drinks…and it about to rain.
BDLR: OK, and then what?
Dee Dee: It about to rain..he about to get to…inside a thing. It started raining.
BDLR: It started raining, and did he go somewhere?
Dee Dee: Yeah. He ran to the um…mail thing.
BDLR: Like…I’m sorry…what?
Dee Dee: Like the mail…like a shed…
BDLR: Like a shed…like a mail area…
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: Like a covered area…
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: Because it was raining?
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: So, did he tell you that he was already inside, like the gated place?
Dee Dee: Yeah, he ran in there.
BDLR: OK…
So Martin ran to the “mail thing,” he was in “like the gated place.” Again, for a competent investigator, this is absolutely jaw dropping. What does she mean by “mail thing?” Where was this “thing?” When did he arrive there? How does she know each of these things? Has she actually been there and if so, when? Or did Martin tell her, and if so, precisely what did he say and when? Did he step into the entryway of an unrelated apartment building on the way, an entryway with mailboxes, or merely some covered common mailboxes along the road on his way back to the neighborhood? In this case, without accurate time frames, we know nothing, yet BDLR continues to show no interest at all in establishing an accurate time frame sequence. Again, perhaps BDLR doesn’t want to get into time frames because then he’ll have to explain why it took Martin so long to cover such a short distance, and he’ll have to explain what must have been the lengthy–potentially embarrassing–conversations he and Dee Dee had. In any case, this failure to gather the bare basic information does not support BDLR’s later claim to be seeking the truth and will only cause Mr. O’Mara to bring up this information under circumstances very unfavorable to the prosecution. This is a neophyte mistake.
Dee Dee: That’s when the phone hung up…
BDLR: OK, I’m sorry..
Dee Dee: The phone hung up, and I call him back again.
BDLR: OK, and then what happened? What did he tell you?
Dee Dee: He under the shade.
BDLR: OK..
Dee Dee: …the mail area.
BDLR: Alright, OK, and you say shade, like a covered area…
Dee Dee: Yeah…
BDLR: …so he wouldn’t get wet.
Dee Dee: Mmm hmm [Yes].
“The Shade?” DETAILS! HOW DOES SHE KNOW THIS? WHEN DID IT HAPPEN? WHAT, EXACTLY, DID MARTIN SAY?
BDLR: OK, and what else did he …did Trayvon tell you?
Dee Dee: And like…
BDLR: And I know this is difficult for you, but just take your time and tell us what you remember happening.
Dee Dee: A couple minutes later he come and tell me this man is watchin’ him.
A couple? How many minutes exactly? How does Dee Dee know? What did they talk about during that time?
BDLR: OK…did he describe the man who was watching him?
Dee Dee: Yeah, he said white.
BDLR: OK, did he say whether the man was standing, sitting…
Dee Dee: In a car.
BDLR: In a car?
Dee Dee: Yeah.
My impression here is that BDLR was a bit confused. He knew Zimmerman was in a pickup truck, and he seems to want to ask Dee Dee about that, but drops it.
BDLR: What did he say about the man who was watching him…
Dee Dee: He was on the phone.
BDLR: He was on the phone?
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: OK, and what did Trayvon say after that?
Dee Dee: He was telling me like…like he a man watching him, so he like started walking.
BDLR: He, Trayvon, started walking?
Dee Dee: He goin’ start walking.
BDLR: OK.
Again, obvious clarifying questions are ignored. Walking where? At this point, Dee Dee’s statement supports Zimmerman’s account in substance if not in time frame, which remains unstated.
Dee Dee: And then…the phone hung up. And I call him back again. And then, I say ‘What you doin’?’ and he say he walkin’ and he said this man still following him, behind the car. And I’m like…or like, he told me…he tell me..he put his hoodie on, so I like…
BDLR: He, Trayvon, put his hoodie on.
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: OK…
Dee Dee: Cause, he said it was startin’ a little bit dripping water….
BDLR: Uh huh.
This is where Dee Dee’s account becomes quite confused. For example, she says “…this man still following him, behind the car.” “Behind the car?” What does that mean? BDLR doesn’t ask. We know that Martin approached Zimmerman’s truck and possibly even circled it, which might account for the “behind the car,” because we know that at this point, Zimmerman was still in his truck, watching Martin. He only left it when Martin ran away–at that point, “behind the car” would mean nothing–but again, BDLR apparently isn’t interested in clarifying such things.
The issue of the hoodie is also interesting. Martin had the hood of his hoodie up while in the 7-Eleven and when leaving it. Zimmerman’s account suggests that when he saw Martin, he couldn’t be sure of his race because it was dark and his features were obscured by the hoodie. Perhaps if he was under cover he removed it and replaced it again, but we don’t know, and again, BDLR isn’t interested.
Dee Dee: So he put his hoodie on. So I said, ‘What’s going on?’ He said this man is still watching him. Like in a car…so he about to run from the back. So then I told him, go to his dad house. Run to his Dad house.
Now Zimmerman isn’t following Martin, or “behind the car,” but is still watching him, and still, BDLR isn’t interested. Throughout the interview, I get the sense BDLR isn’t prepared. He isn’t directing the flow of the interview, but trying to respond to unexpected and confusing information. This is nowhere more obvious than near the end of the interview.
BDLR: Go to what?
Dee Dee: Run to his dad house.
BDLR: To his dad’s house?
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: OK.
Dee Dee: So he say he about to run for the back cause its mo’ easier, he said. So, next thing I hear, he gettin’ run. And I can hear that the wind blowin’…
BDLR: So you could tell he was running at that time…
Dee Dee: Yeah.
It makes sense that Martin would say he was running “for the back” of his father’s condo. It would indeed have been easier. The backs of the two rows of condos face the long sidewalk between them. Martin has indicated that he knows where he is going, and that the shortest distance is to follow the sidewalk eastbound to the point of the “T,” and head directly south to the back door of his father’s home (take this link to Update 9 for photographs and an illustrative map). This would seem to put to rest the idea that Martin was lost and therefore couldn’t find his way home. Still, BDLR isn’t asking relevant questions. What does she mean by “…wind blowin’?” How could she tell he was running? These are not difficult questions, and they’re the logical questions any competent investigator would ask. BDLR doesn’t.
BDLR: OK, and then what happened?
Dee Dee: And then…he say he lost him.
BDLR: He lost..like…the man?
Dee Dee: Yeah.
Martin “lost him?” What does that mean? He ran so far the man was out of sight? He was hiding from him? These are important issues in this case, but as usual, BDLR doesn’t seem to understand that or care.
Again, I suggest you check this for yourself, but my impression was that BDLR didn’t like this answer, which Dee Dee repeated twice with some clarity. Rather than following up on it, he went off on another direction…
BDLR: So, was Trayvon at that time…you could tell he was like, out of breath, like excited…
Dee Dee: Yeah. . .
BDLR: …like, like…
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: OK.
Dee Dee: Then…
See what I mean by leading questions and walking all over each other’s sentences?
BDLR: Take your time; I know this is difficult for you.
Again, check for yourself, but I don’t detect any obvious indicators that this is difficult for Dee Dee, here or at any other point in the interview. Of course, I’m not there to read her body language, but still, see what you think.
Dee Dee: He lost him; he was breathin’ hard. An…by the sound his voice…voice kinda change…
BDLR: Who? Trayvon?
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: OK, what do you mean by that, his voice changed?
Dee Dee: [unintelligible] I know he was scare.
BDLR: I’m sorry?
Dee Dee: I know he was scare. He…
BDLR: How..how…could …tell…and I know what you’re trying to tell me, but if you could, describe to me how you could tell he was scared.
Dee Dee: Voice was getting kind of low…[unintelligible]…breathin’ har’…
BDLR: So, you could tell he was emotional like somebody who was like in fear?
Dee Dee: Yeah…he say he lost him…
BDLR: OK…he was breathing hard?
Dee Dee: He say he lost him…breathin’ har’, you know. And I like, he goin’…so he say he lost him. And then a couple…and then he say he right by his ass…he ru’, he go’ keep ru’ ’til hi’ dad house.
BDLR: OK, let me make sure I understand that he’s saying that he’s “right by his ass”…meaning the guy is right by Trayvon?
Dee Dee: No, he say he lost the guy…
BDLR: OK.
Dee Dee: And then he ran from the back…
BDLR: Right.
Dee Dee: He say he lost him.
BDLR: OK.
BDLR certainly isn’t going to clarify this morass, so I’ll give it a try. What it sounds like Dee Dee is saying is that Martin ran around the corner of the nearest –west–row of condos (the rows are oriented north/south), and stopped only a short distance from the top of the “T”—the meeting of the sidewalks—probably hiding and seeing what Zimmerman was going to do. He did not run straight to his father’s home, for if he did, Zimmerman would have never seen him again. If you’ve taken the link to Update 9, you’ll notice that the photos reveal a multitude of hiding places that would fit this scenario.
Dee Dee keeps saying—to what I believe to be BDLR’s annoyance—that Martin lost Zimmerman, but then Zimmerman was “right by his ass,” which probably means Zimmerman came into view, walking eastbound on the sidewalk, trying to spot Martin. BDLR doesn’t ask, but Martin was apparently far enough away from Zimmerman who likely continued to walk east while speaking with the dispatcher, so he didn’t have to lower his voice to speak to Dee Dee. She continues:
Dee Dee: He started walking back again…and I told him ‘Keep runnin’.’
BDLR: So Trayvon said he started walking because he thought he had lost the guy.
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: OK.
Checkpoint: Didn’t you ask yourself “walking back where?” Why doesn’t BDLR ask that?
Dee Dee: I say, ‘Keep runnin’.’
BDLR: OK.
Dee Dee: He say he ain’t goin’ run, cause he say he right by his father house…
BDLR: OK.
Dee Dee: So, and in a couple minutes…he say the man followin’ him again, behin’ him. And I say, ‘RUN!’ You goin’ to run? He say he not goin’ run cause…I could have known he not going to run, cause he out of breath. and then, he told me, he say this guy getting’ close to him. I told him ‘RUN!’ And then, and then… I tol’ him ‘Keep runnin’.’ He not goin’ run. And then he say…I told him, ‘Why you not runnin’? He say, ‘I’m not go’ run,’ cause he tired, but I know he tired.
BDLR: I’m sorry…Trayvon said he’s not running because…he’s not going to run he said…because you could tell he was tired?
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: Well, how could you tell he was tired?
Dee Dee: He was breathin’ hard.
BDLR: OK, real hard?
Dee Dee: Real hard.
Once again, BDLR is not going to try to untangle this, so I’ll do it. Martin told Dee Dee he lost Zimmerman (however that was done), and he’s now walking. She encourages him to run, and he says he doesn’t have to run because he’s “right by his father house.” And a couple of minutes later, Zimmerman is “following” him and is getting close to him, but Martin’s not going to run, despite the fact that he must have been at his father’s house for some time, because he’s out of breath, despite the fact that he’s had several minutes to catch his breath because he’s walking, not running, and Dee Dee knows this because Martin was breathing “real hard.” And of course, if BDLR recognizes any contradiction in any of this, he does not act on it, but is concerned, instead, with the weather(?!).
If we assume that any of this is accurate, what is most likely is that after actually losing Zimmerman by hiding–who reported that he lost Martin to the Dispatcher—Martin did not, in fact, go to his father’s house. If he had, he could have easily been inside and would never again have seen Zimmerman. The most probable scenario is that Martin remained in hiding near the top of the “T,” more or less continually speaking with Dee Dee. Only if he did this could he have seen Zimmerman–and told Dee Dee Zimmerman was close to him–after Zimmerman told the Dispatcher he lost Martin for good and was returning to his truck to meet the responding police.
Martin would have seen him, and Zimmerman could have appeared to be coming closer to Martin because he was walking west on the sidewalk, back to where Zimmerman was “right by his ass” a few minutes earlier, on his way back to his vehicle, which was then between him and the mailboxes where the dispatcher expected him to meet the officers. If Martin was at or near his father’s home, he would have been a considerable distance from Zimmerman, and while he could possibly have seen Zimmerman from that distance as he once more came into view, walking west, he certainly would have had nothing to fear from him, and no need to run from him. Zimmerman would have been nowhere near Martin.
Back to the weather report:
BDLR: OK. Could you…and you may not have been able to…could you hear whether it was raining at that time or not?
Dee Dee: It was not raining, cause I hear him OK.
So cell phones perfectly amplify and transmit the sound of even a gentle rain? It appears to have been continually raining throughout this incident, though lightly. Despite being concerned about the weather, BDLR doesn’t pursue this matter either.
BDLR: OK, and when you’re telling him “Run, Run, Run”, are you yelling at him, or…
Dee Dee: I was not yelling at him…[stated emphatically and with some indignation]
BDLR: I don’t mean yelling, I mean, but were you like, were you being emphatic like…
Dee Dee: Shouting…shouting at him, yeah.
BDLR: OK..um…and then what happened?
Objection your Honor! The Prosecutor is leading the witness.
Dee Dee: And then he told me like the guy was getting close..like..and he told me the guy was getting real close to him. The next I hear, “What are you following me for?”
BDLR: OK, so let me make sure I understand this…so, Trayvon tells you the guy’s getting closer to him…
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: …and then you hear Trayvon saying something…
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: And what do you hear Trayvon saying?
Dee Dee: “Why you followin’ me for?”
BDLR: “Why you following me for?”
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: And then what happened?
Dee Dee: I hear this, ya know, man… it wa’ like a ol’ man…
BDLR: OK.
Dee Dee: …say, ‘Wha’ you doin’ aroun’ here?’ [mimicking a man’s voice—lowering the pitch of her voice]
Zimmerman is 28. Teenagers are notoriously bad at judging the age of adults standing in front of them. Judging their age by their voice over a cell phone, particularly one that is in some way “acting up,” is another matter entirely.
BDLR: OK, so you could definitely tell another voice that was not Trayvon’s.
Dee Dee: Yeah, yeah…
BDLR: And you heard this other voice say what?
Dee Dee: Yeah: “What are you doin’ aroun’ here?”
BDLR: “What are you doing around here?” OK.
To this point, BDLR has added absolutely nothing to our understanding of the case. As Investigator Dale Gilbreath testified in the bond hearing, the prosecutor has nothing to contradict Zimmerman’s account, which was that shortly after completing his call with the dispatcher, while walking westbound back to his truck, he was surprised by Martin who asked why he was following him. Zimmerman asked him what he was doing there, and was punched in the nose.
Dee Dee: And I call Trayvon…’Trayvon, wha’s goin’ on, whas goin’ on?’
BDLR: This is you saying that…
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: OK.
Dee Dee: Then..I callin’ him…he didn’t answer.
BDLR: No answer from Trayvon.
Dee Dee: Yeah..and I hear, I hear a sound like “bump.” You cou’ hear that Trayvon bump…somebody bumped Trayvon, ’cause I could hear the grass.
UPDATE 06-15-12, 0830 CST: Notice the single word added–in bold italics–to this comment by Dee Dee. I initially missed it because Dee Dee dropped in volume here more than usual, apparently as if she realized she was saying something she wasn’t supposed to say. It’s subtle, that’s why I initially missed it, but it’s there and is important. Dee Dee is actually saying that Martin “bumped” something or somebody, but quickly entirely changes the meaning. Thanks to reader Froggielegs for the heads up! It’s at 11:26 in the transcript.
One might be tempted to give BDLR the benefit of the doubt–perhaps he didn’t hear it–but actually, he was there, sitting close to her and watching her, so it’s far more likely he did and continued to turn the statement around (see the next block of analysis).
BDLR: OK, so you could hear that there was something going on…
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: Like something hitting something?
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: OK.
Dee Dee: You could hear..I could hear the grass thing.
BDLR: Out of the…
Dee Dee: Yeah…
BDLR: …I guess out of the speaker…out of the…
Dee Dee: Yeah.
Rather than asking her to describe what she heard, BDLR puts words in her mouth, turning her “bump” into “Like something hitting something.”
Another checkpoint: didn’t you ask yourself “…I could hear the grass?” “I could hear the grass thing?” What does that mean? Apparently BDLR knows, because he certainly doesn’t ask. Here are a few more questions BDLR should have asked at this point:
Please describe exactly what you heard…
How loud and clear was this?
How long did it last?
Why do you think “somebody bumped Trayvon?”
What does grass have to do with this?
BDLR: OK, and then what happened?
Perhaps BDLR did not ask about the grass because he was afraid Dee Dee might tell him that was Zimmerman’s body hitting the grass after being “bumped” in the nose by Martin, which is part of the account the prosecutor’s investigator has testified he cannot refute.
Dee Dee: And then…I was still screaming, I was saying, ‘Trayvon, ‘ ‘Trayvon’…
BDLR: And there was no response?
Dee Dee: Yeah, and next thing I hear…and next thing, the phone just shut off.
BDLR: The phone shut off?
Dee Dee: It just shut off.
BDLR: OK, did you hear any kind of screamings like ‘Help me’ or anything like that?
Because we still don’t know the exact time frame of events—and BDLR still isn’t helping—we don’t know when Martin stopped speaking with Dee Dee. If we can take her account at face value, the evidence suggests that by this time, Martin had already removed his earphones and put them in a pocket (that’s where they were found). When he began the altercation, he dropped the phone, which was found on the ground. Once again, BDLR is trying to lead Dee Dee, trying to put words in her mouth. It doesn’t work. No one is screaming at that point because Martin has just punched Zimmerman who is on his way to the ground, stunned.
Dee Dee: No.
BDLR: OK. Did you hear any kind of shot?
Dee Dee: No.
BDLR: OK. When the phone shut off, did you try calling back?
Dee Dee: I try calling back like 3 or 2 times.
BDLR: OK, did you ever get any response?
Dee Dee: No, and text [unintelligible]…
Notice she mentioned texting, which BDLR ignores. Here comes the fishing expedition:
BDLR: OK, so the last thing you heard was some kind of noise, like something hitting somebody?
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: OK, and uh…when you heard that noise…something hitting somebody…you didn’t…did you hear the man say anything, or did you hear Trayvon say anything?
Dee Dee: I can hear a little bit…[inflected to emphasize “a little bit”]
BDLR: OK, what could you hear?
Dee Dee: I could just hear like…like, it’s like…the headphone…cause the headphones, he might got off. But I can still hear a little bit…like….
BDLR: OK, what could you hear?
Dee Dee: Like a little ‘get off’ some stuff…
BDLR: You heard ‘get off’?
Dee Dee: Like a little ‘Get off’ [unintelligible—sounds like “now college”]…
BDLR: Could you tell who was saying that?
Dee Dee: I couldn’ know Trayvon.
BDLR: I’m sorry.
Dee Dee: I couldn’t hear Trayvon…Trayvon.
BDLR: OK, let me make sure I understand…you could hear Trayvon saying that?
Dee Dee: Yeah. That’s why I was calling his name.
BDLR: And he was saying what now?
Dee Dee: Like “get off.”
BDLR: “Get off?” Is that clear that you were hearing that, or you think you heard that?
Dee Dee: Yeah, I could hear it a little bit…”get off…get off,” then the phone just hung up.
Are you, gentle readers, beginning to see why Dee Dee is so dangerous to the prosecution? Not only is BDLR putting words in her mouth, she’s continually contradicting herself. Any competent attorney would slaughter her testimony merely by calling attention to all of its contradictions and to BDLR’s pathetic and unethical attempts to shape Dee Dee’s answers.
So we are now to believe that immediately after the “bump,” which had something to do with grass, the phone call ended and Dee Dee heard no more from Martin, nor did she hear any screaming or a gunshot. But upon prompting by BDLR, Dee Dee now can hear—because of headphones or something—”a little bit,” like “get off some stuff.” And Dee Dee could not hear Martin saying that—she said it twice—but BDLR turns it around and gets her to say that she could hear Martin saying it: “That’s why I was calling his name.” It appears that she is answering some other question.
Is this merely the product of incompetent questioning and general confusion, or are BDLR and Dee Dee trying to salvage something from this interview? Are they trying to interject the idea that Martin was, in some way, defending himself? There is reason to believe it’s a combination of both factors, but more on that shortly.
UPDATE, 03-12-13, 1740 CST: Notice that Dee Dee essentially says that the phone went dead after the–bumping”–whatever that was–that she tried to call Martin back 2-3 times, but never again spoke with him. Yet, she is saying that she heard Martin saying “get off”–possibly repeatedly–through a dead phone, or headphones attached to a dead phone. BDLR, of course, does not follow up on this physics-defying contention.
BDLR: OK, alright, now, uh…before all this started, when it…earlier in the day, had Trayvon been talking to you, right? So you recognized his voice, right?
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: And you heard him on prior occasions, so it was crystal clear it was Trayvon talking to you, right?
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: The other voice of the other person you heard, you had never heard before?
Dee Dee: No.
BDLR: OK. Could you tell it was a man versus a woman? The other voice.
Dee Dee: I thought it was a man.
Notice how BDLR has almost tripped himself up.
BDLR: You thought it was a man.
Dee Dee: It is a man, ’cause it had a deep voice.
BDLR: OK. And could you tell the man whether his voice was real loud… screaming at Trayvon, or was it just a normal conversation like you and I are having? When you said Trayvon said, ‘What are you following me’..or something, whatever…and the guy replied something, ‘What are you doing here?’ Was it a normal conversation, or could you tell the man was like loud?
Proper, non-leading question BDLR should have asked: “How was this man speaking?”
Dee Dee: Kinda angry.
BDLR: Angry?
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: Why do you say kind of angry?
Dee Dee: ‘Cause he said it like so deep…”What are you doin’ ’round here?'” [mimicking a lower pitched voice]
Likely question from Mark O’Mara, Zimmerman’s lawyer, in court: “So Dee Dee, anyone with a baritone or bass voice sounds ‘kinda angry’ to you?”
BDLR: But you could clearly hear that…
Dee Dee: Yeah.
Hear what?
BDLR: OK…alright. Um….
BDLR is about to get surprised again:
Dee Dee: And you could hear he was tired too.
BDLR: Who was tired?
I’m with BDLR on this one; she’s confusing me too.
Dee Dee: The old man.
BDLR: How could you tell that?
Dee Dee: He was like, ‘What are you doing ’round here?’ He breathin’ [mimicking a breathy tone], ‘What you doin’ ’round here?’
BDLR: OK, in was a louder…
Dee Dee: Yeah.
OK, so Zimmerman was “tired,” but “kind of angry,” because “he breathin’, “…in was a louder…?” Of course. Again, BDLR does not take the few seconds required to ask the questions necessary to clarify yet another linguistic tangle.
BDLR: OK, let me go back a second, when you said Trayvon told you the guy was in some kind of car.
Dee Dee: Yeah…on the phone.
BDLR: On the phone. Did Trayvon ever expand on that? Did he ever say something else about that , now he’s out like that…like, uh…whether the guy had gotten out of the car? Did he ever describe, “Yeah, the guy, now he’s out of the car, he’s chasing me.” I know you said the guy, he said the guy was following him. But did he ever say the guy got out of the car?
Dee Dee: You want that too? [Obviously surprised tone]
At this point in the tape I was actually amazed. Did BDLR really try to get Dee Dee to say something he earlier told her to say? Is he really trying to obtain invented testimony? I say this because of Dee Dee’s reply. She was genuinely surprised, and she obviously knew what “that”–which in this context can only be what BDLR clearly wants her to say—is. They have apparently discussed it before so she can recognize “that” when it comes up again. If this is the case, BDLR is possibly engaging in conduct that could lead to discipline or worse. Do I know without doubt this is what is going on? Of course not, but the exchange is suggestive, as is BDLR’s hurried attempt at a walk back. Again, I encourage you to listen to the audiotape yourself; see what you think. I have no doubt with Mr. O’Mara will think and do, and I’m pretty sure what a jury will think…
Notice that the transcript quickly degenerates into gibberish and farce as BDLR scrambles to recover:
BDLR: I want to know the truth whether…did he say that or not? If he didn’t say that, that’s fine. I mean, I don’t, I don’t need to know….
Dee Dee: Like, when he like walking.
BDLR: I know Trayvon is running, right? Or walking…
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: My question is, did Trayvon ever describe to you, ‘Hey, you know like how if I see a football game, I say yeah, the guy is running fast…or you know, the guy ran to the left…did he ever…
Dee Dee: When he was at the…um…the mail thing
BDLR: Yeah.
Dee Dee: The man was on the phone.
BDLR: Alright.
Dee Dee: That’s what he was telling me.
BDLR: I’m sorry…what, what?
If I didn’t suspect that he might be trying to tamper with a witness, I would almost feel sorry for BDLR at this point…
Dee Dee: He was telling me the man was on the phone. He put his hoodie on.
BDLR: Right.
Dee Dee: So, the man was still in the car, then Trayvon started walking, and then he said…I think the man got off by some reason…cause he said…
The man “…got off by some reason?” And BDLR seems to understand this?
BDLR: That’s what you believe?
Dee Dee: Yeah…cause he said the man was still following him.
BDLR: OK, so he didn’t say like the man got out…
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: You just believe that…
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: …but Trayvon didn’t tell you the man got out…
Dee Dee: Yeah.
Do you see what I mean? BDLR is just about to go down for the third time and Dee Dee isn’t throwing a life preserver. It gets worse:
BDLR: OK. Alright. Uh, did Trayvon ever say he hit the guy?
Dee Dee: No.
BDLR: Did he ever say he was going to go hit the guy?
Dee Dee: No.
BDLR: Did Trayvon ever say, ‘The guy’s coming at me…he’s going to hit me?”
Dee Dee: …yeah…you could say that.
I suspect that at this point, BDLR realizes he is in real trouble, and is suddenly rediscovering at least some legal ethics:
BDLR: Now I don’t want you to guess. Did he ever say that?
Dee Dee: How he said it? He did say… [sounds confused as though seeking guidance]…
BDLR: No, I want…do you understand? Did he say that or not? If he didn’t say it, that’s alright…I, I…
Is this another bit of confusion, or is Dee Dee getting her signals crossed, signals she earlier worked out with BDLR? Is she trying to figure out whether he really wants her to say what she thinks he wants her to say, or instead, actually tell the truth like he is currently suggesting? I only wish I could have been in the room, invisible, during this exchange.
Dee Dee: He got…the man got…
BDLR: Do you understand, I’m not trying to get you to say anything…
Dee Dee: He got problems…like he crazy.
BDLR: Trayvon told you that…
Dee Dee: Yeah, the man looking crazy.
BDLR: OK.
Notice how thrilled (i’m being ironic) BDLR is with this answer. Is this what it appears to be? Dee Dee realized she couldn’t say what they agreed on earlier (wink, wink, nudge, nudge?) but settles for Zimmerman being “crazy,” perhaps thinking that’s somehow helping? It only gets worse for BDLR from now on. He really seems to be completely disheartened. She won’t drop it and he has to follow up at least a little bit or look completely idiotic.
Dee Dee: And look at him crazy.
BDLR: When did Trayvon tell you that?
Dee Dee: When he was walking.
BDLR: OK, but you didn’t mention that earlier. That’s why I ask you that.
No kidding. Now BDLR is forced to raise the contradiction—something he has not done to this point—to protect himself. Of course, again, all of this could be mere coincidence and confusion born of BDLR’s obvious ineptitude as an interviewer.
Dee Dee: Yeah…walking home…
BDLR: OK.
Dee Dee: …to that house.
What house?
BDLR: Right…
Dee Dee: And right before he say he’s going to run.
WHAT?!
BDLR: And he’s saying the guy looks what?
Dee Dee: Crazy…
BDLR: And did you say “what do you mean…”
Dee Dee: …and creepy.
I can just hear BDLR thinking “Stop it! Please God, make her stop!” Unfortunately, she keeps adding odd things—now Zimmerman is “creepy” too–and he has to play along or abruptly cut her off and risk savaging his own witness, a witness the narrative claims to be pivotal.
BDLR: And did you say, “What do you mean by that?”
Dee Dee: I said….because he said this dude is like watching him…like watch…
BDLR: OK, so that’s what he meant, the guy keeps watching him.
Dee Dee: Yeah.
Oh. Well. Now that you put it that way… I am almost feeling sorry for BDLR. I can only imagine what the real cops—if they’re competent at all—were thinking during this debacle. I know what I’d be thinking, and that I’d desperately be struggling to keep from laughing out loud. It would have been most interesting to be able to hear their conversation in the car on the way back.
BDLR: OK, OK. Alright. Now you previously, you were called by Mr. Crump, Mr. Benjamin Crump that was here earlier, and some attorneys called you up, right?
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: You remember talking to them on the phone?
Dee Dee: Yes.
BDLR: And did you attempt as best you could to tell them the truth too…about what happened? Do you remember talking to them at all?
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: OK, did they make you any promises or trick you in any way?
Dee Dee: No.
Additional relevant questions BDLR should have asked:
And did they threaten you, even subtly?
Did they appeal to your racial pride?
Did they suggest what you might say or how you might say it?
Did they express their opinion of the case? Forcibly?
Did they express their opinion of what should happen to George Zimmerman?
VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION: With who else have you talked about this case (followed by all the details of those conversations)?
This is a very, very dangerous matter for the prosecution. Mr. Crump clearly falls into the category of what I’ve come to call a “black attorney.” I think of this in the same way that I think of a person that calls them self a “defense attorney.” What I mean is there is a substantial difference in mind- set, motivation and behavior between an attorney who happens to handle defense cases, and a defense attorney, and the same is true for an attorney who happens to be black, as opposed to a “black attorney.” I’d be equally concerned about anyone calling them self a “white attorney.” Mr. Crump is one of the primary purveyors of the narrative, which requires keep racial strife and division alive and boiling. He makes no bones about his beliefs in this matter.
In fact, Mr. Crump asserted that Dee Dee’s statement: “‘completely blows Zimmerman’s absurd self-defense claim out of the water,’ lawyer Benjamin Crump told reporters.
The girl — who he said does not wish to be identified – ‘connects the dots” about what happened that day when she lays out what she overheard while on the phone with him, he said.'”
Crump continued: “The girl said Martin was ‘his regular self,’ Crump said, arguing that any suggestions that the boy was ‘high’ are ‘preposterous.’
‘It’s what Zimmerman wants you to believe so he can justify killing this kid in cold blood.'”
As you can see, Dee Dee says no such things, and the only thing her testimony will blow out of the water is her own credibility, that of BDLR—I suspect he’s beginning to realize that by the end of the interview—and the prosecution’s case.
If the prosecution puts Dee Dee on the stand, they’ll have to enter her transcript into evidence (they already have to provide a copy to the defense). That alone opens the door to putting Mr. Crump on the stand. Imagine what Dee Dee might say about her conversation with him as opposed to what he might say about that conversation.
BDLR: OK. I’m not saying that they did. I’m just making sure the records’ clear on that….Um…you obviously found out about what happened to Trayvon, right? And at some point you ended up knowing that he was killed, right?
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: Were you able to go to the funeral or to the wake?
Dee Dee: I was goin’ to go, but…
BDLR: OK, what happened?
Dee Dee: I didn’ feel good.
BDLR: OK, did you end up going to the hospital or somewhere?
Dee Dee: Mmmm…Yeah, I had high blood pressure.
This would seem to be BDLR trying to defuse what he suspects the defense might bring up (it would have to be done carefully). Her failure to attend the funeral might not look good in some quarters.
BDLR: Again, I’m sorry to have to ask you this. Um…did..when this was going on…I’m talking about that day, February 26, did Trayvon send you any text messages?
Finally! Now he gets around to texts; but why?
Dee Dee: I..one…like…
BDLR: You know, like, ‘I’m going to the store, or did he ever text you and say, like, this guy’s following me, or did he just tell you that?
Dee Dee: He just tell me.
BDLR: OK, then he never texted you that..this all that you’ve told me.
Dee Dee: Mmm…mmm [No].
BDLR: Did you ever text him….during this time?
Dee Dee: Like when the phone just hung up?
BDLR: Yeah.
Dee Dee: Yeah.
“And what did you write?” Isn’t that a relevant question?
BDLR: OK, but prior to that did you text him at all in terms of communicating what you’ve told me here?
Dee Dee: Mmm-mmm…[No]…actual…
BDLR: Do you understand what I’m saying?
Dee Dee: Like…
BDLR: what I’m asking you..while this was going on, let’s say when he left the store [??], did you text him? You were talking to him the whole time, right?
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: Was he texting you at all?
Dee Dee: Mmm-mmm [No].
BDLR: OK. I’m just saying…people text these days. I just want to know if he texted you…and if by chance…you had a text still on your phone.
Dee Dee: Mmm-mmm [No].
BDLR: You don’t?
Dee Dee: Mmm-mmm…
BDLR: OK, is that a “No.”
Dee Dee: No.
This is nothing more than a guess based on experience, but why is BDLR bringing this texting issue up now, and why is he so doggedly pursuing it? He certainly hasn’t shown such persistence earlier in this interview. I suspect they have evidence that she did text Martin and perhaps vice-versa, but for some reason, she believes she shouldn’t admit to that. Instead of answering with a clear yes or no, she’s resorting to essentially mumbling, which is what people often do when lying as though not clearly stating an answer isn’t really a lie. Is this more confusion, or is BDLR trying to trip her up and set her up for perjury later, or just desperately trying to communicate to her that he really wants her to answer this as they’ve earlier discussed? Hard to tell.
BDLR: OK, thank you. Um…I think I already asked you, but let me make sure…he did tell you what he was at the store…the store where he had gotten candy or something, and you said iced tea, right?
BDLR knows it wasn’t iced tea and he hasn’t asked her before, at least not during the recorded portion of this interview.
Dee Dee: Yes.
BDLR: OK, alright. earlier that day, when he was talking, he being Trayvon, was he talking about his mom at all?
Dee Dee: Like, what you mean? When he went to the store?
BDLR: Was he talking about his family earlier that day, talking about his mom
Dee Dee: Yeah, and he told me he ready to go home and watch…finish watching the game.
BDLR: The game?
Dee Dee: Yeah, he left his little brother, so he trying to rush and…
BDLR: Rushing to go back home and watch the game?
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: Did you know what he was talking about when he was talking about a game?
Dee Dee: Yeah…he talking..
BDLR: What was he talking about?
Dee Dee: Oh, I think the…basket, basket…basketball…
BDLR: Basketball?
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: I think that was like the All-Star Game?
Dee Dee: Yeah. That one. I didn’t really care, but…
What was that all about? Iced tea? BDLR knows Martin did not buy iced tea. Martin’s parents and anything he said to them or about them have no bearing on this case. BDLR knows Martin wasn’t rushing to return home to his little brother, and what he or anyone in his family was watching on TV also has no bearing on this case. Has BDLR simply lost track of where he is and what he is doing, or does he have some motive in asking such trivial, off the point questions? I have no real idea where he was going with this line of questioning unless he’s trying to bolster the narrative by portraying Martin as positively as possible.
BDLR: If you could describe Trayvon, how would you describe him?
Dee Dee: Uh, funny…
BDLR: Is that it?
Dee Dee: A Momma boy.
BDLR: Huh?
BDLR also appears to be genuinely surprised by this answer. It’s hard to know what he’s trying to accomplish here. Perhaps he’s trying to get Dee Dee to say that Martin was akin to Mother Teresa in terms of religiously pursuing a life of self-sacrifice, non-violence and inner peace, but he succeeds only in getting her to say that he is a “funny” “Momma boy” “baby.” That’s going to go over badly in court, and BDLR seems to realize that.
Dee Dee: A Momma boy.
BDLR: OK, a Momma’s boy. OK…OK…
Dee Dee: A baby.
BDLR: A baby? OK. How else would you describe him? Sheltered in other words? You mean, like a momma’s boy?
Dee Dee: Yeah, like I said, a Momma boy.
BDLR: OK…OK…
“Make her stop…”
Dee Dee: He love his family. He love his family.
BDLR: OK…
“Please, PLEASE make her stop…”
Dee Dee: Love to play on, love to ride his bike.
“Hey! Maybe I can do something with this…”
BDLR: What kind of bike did he have?
Dee Dee: I don’t know. I din’ pay attention his bike.
“Damn! I’ve got to end this before it completely blows up in my face!”
BDLR: Alright, listen, I know this has been very hard for you. But I do appreciate you taking the time to talk to me today, and obviously you know we record all this, because we’ve had a recorder right in front of you. But I do thank you from the bottom of my heart that you’ve come forward, and you’ve agreed to give this statement today. OK? I know this is very hard I can tell by looking at you, that you’re very emotional about this. It’s very understandable…
Dee Dee: [Makes a kind of “uh-uh” sound].
BDLR: …because you cared about him. But all we’re trying to do right now is seek the truth here. That’s why I’m taking this statement.
“KABOOM!!!”
Dee Dee: I got guilt.
BDLR: Huh? [Obviously surprised]
Dee Dee: I got guilt.
BDLR: You’ve got guilt?
I actually do feel sorry for BDLR here. She just dropped this bomb on him and he has no choice but to ask the obvious question and try to at least contain this explosion. He knows he probably can’t defuse the bomb.
Dee Dee: Mmm-hmm [Yes].
BDLR: Why do you feel guilt?
Dee Dee: Real guilty.
BDLR: Huh?
Dee Dee: Real guilty.
BDLR: Why do you feel real guilty?
Dee Dee: Real guilty.
“Oh please, please…save me…I’ll try this…”
BDLR: Because you were talking onto the phone and you couldn’t do anything about it?
Dee Dee: I ain’t know about it.
BDLR: Huh?
“Oh my God…”
Dee Dee: I ain’t know about it.
BDLR: You didn’t know what had happened to him?
Dee Dee: Nuh…
BDLR: You’re saying, right? In terms of you were on the phone…
Dee Dee: ‘Cuz I know him.
BDLR: OK. Alright.
Dee Dee: [Unintelligible]
BDLR: OK…
By this time, BDLR is probably grateful that he might be able to leave the room alive. And then Dee Dee throws him a bone that he might have tried to chew a bit earlier in the interview, but he is too disheartened to even nibble it. Clearly, BDLR just wants to get out of there.
Dee Dee: He would never fight, that’s the problem.
BDLR: He was not one of those people?
Dee Dee: Hmm-mmm [No].
BDLR: OK…
BDLR knows Martin’s school record. If Martin did try to assault a bus driver—which resulted in a ten-day suspension (that’s why he was in Sanford)—BDLR knows it. He also knows about Martin’s thuggish Internet activities, and he knows about the videos on the Internet that supposedly show Martin not only refereeing a street fight, but engaging in at least one.
Dee Dee: He would never fight [almost whispered].
BDLR: OK. Thank you very much.
At the end of all competent interviews, the interviewer notes the ending time. BDLR did not. The poor guy was obviously anxious to get out of there.
FINAL THOUGHTS:
In my police career, I’ve seen many bad interviews. In recent years, I’ve analyzed bad interviews in a number of cases, such as the Erik Scott case (SMM archive here) and the Jose Guerena case (SMM archive here). In all of those interviews, when the police are trying to cover up things, when they aren’t seeking the truth, but trying to fulfill a narrative, certain characteristics are always—always—present:
(1) The interview is short, far shorter than necessary to complete a competent, complete interview.
(2) The interviewer fails to ask logical follow up questions. Details, particularly those that don’t conform to the preferred narrative, are ignored.
(3) Time frames become unimportant and are often completely ignored.
(4) Witnesses are allowed to ramble or make irrelevant statements.
(5) The interviewer seems ill at ease and unprepared and seems surprised by answers.
(6) Obvious questions any competent investigator would ask are ignored and trivial, unrelated questions take their place.
There are other warning signs, but these will suffice. The Special Prosecutor erred from the start by having Mr. DeLa Rionda (I’m not certain I’m spelling his name correctly) handle this interview for the reasons I’ve already mentioned. Some might imagine that an experienced prosecutor would be adept at such things, but as Mr. DeLa Rionda has proved, that is not the case. And that is to be expected; that’s simply not a prosecutor’s job. Asking well prepared questions in court, questions to which one knows the likely answer, is a very different thing. The SP has now set Mr. DeLa Rionda up for a brutal grilling on the witness stand, a grilling that will seriously damage his credibility, and if he did, in fact, in any way try to tamper with Dee Dee’s testimony, damaged credibility is the least of his worries. Again, I do not know this to be true, but it is a possibility suggested by the interview. If Ms. Corey has any legal acumen, she will remove Mr. DeLa Rionda from any active role in prosecuting this case.
In many cases, and particularly this case, an accurate time frame is vital. There still are—as far as I am able to determine with only about half of the information about this case available—stretches of time not strictly accounted for. One of the highest priorities of any competent investigator interviewing Dee Dee should have been to nail down every phone call, every word spoken, to the second. Even if Dee Dee wasn’t able to be accurate, or made statements that obviously couldn’t be reconciled with what is known to be true, every investigator knows that will be true in almost every case. At the very least, it would help to understand Dee Dee’s memory and to assess her effectiveness as a witness. If one is actually seeking the truth, there will always be apparent contradictions and conflicts between the statements of witnesses and other evidence. This does not stop the progress of actual justice. Yet Mr. DeLa Rionda utterly ignored this absolutely critical factor. This interview, if done properly, should have taken at least an hour. It was completed in a bit over 20 minutes.
Obviously nonsensical statements were never clarified. Obvious questions were never asked. The interview is revealing primarily for where it does not go: into Martin’s actual behavior and drug use. Considering the fact that he was under the influence of Marijuana (and possible other drugs—we’ll have to see what the urine results reveal) at the time of the incident, and considering the prosecutor had the 7-Eleven tapes that reveal Martin obtained blunts, anyone seeking the truth would have to have pursued that line of questioning. And who better to provide that kind of information than Martin’s girlfriend (possibly and in some way—BDLR didn’t clarify this either), a girl who has known him since kindergarten and who speaks–and texts–with him daily? Yet this too was never raised.
What we do know is that this interview changes nothing. When Investigator Gilbreath testified on April 20, 2012 that the prosecution had no information to refute Zimmerman’s account, he was speaking knowing the content of this interview, which was conducted eight days earlier. Dee Dee’s statement does not in any material way refute Zimmerman’s account of the incident. Nothing she said makes impossible—or even unlikely—any action Zimmerman is reported to have made.
Remember that the most recent witness list provided by the prosecutor includes two private audio experts and two FBI audio examiners who have admitted that their final word on their work in this case will be “we have no idea whose voice was screaming for help.” In other words, they have nothing at all to contribute to the evidence in this case. And now Ms. Corey has Dee Dee: a prize witness, whose testimony only confirms the case of the defense.
As I’ve frequently observed, we have only about 50% of the evidence in this case. It’s possible that evidence will eventually be released that could cause reasonable people to change their minds about various issues in this case and potentially even Zimmerman’s legal culpability. But considering everything I’ve seen to date, the Sanford Police Department and the local prosecutor made the right call. Florida law does not support prosecution, rather, it actually prevents it. In pursuing this case, Ms. Corey may not be behaving lawfully or ethically.
Dee Dee isn’t dangerous to the prosecution’s case. She’s unstable nuclear device deadly. If Ms. Corey doesn’t understand that, no wonder she’s doggedly pursuing this unjustifiable prosecution.
NOTE: For your convenience, once again, here’s the link to Dee Dee’s interview.
FINAL NOTE: George Zimmerman’s wife, Shellie Zimmerman, has been arrested for perjury and released on $1000.00 bond. This development was expected. I’ll be reporting on this in the near future when more information is available. For the moment, I remain confused by this entire matter and suspect this charge will not stand.
juggler523 said:
Mike – very good analysis. I have one thing to add that I believe shows fabrication in Dee Dee’s overall story. My research indicates the following:
1. George Zimmerman’s phone call with the Sanford PD dispatcher began at 7:09:34pm (please correct me if I am wrong, because this is key to the points I am about to make here.
2. Trayvon Martin’s phone call (according to T-Mobile) began about 7:12pm (this could be anywhere from 7:12:00 to 7:12:59.
3. Trayvon Martin took off running toward the back of the housing complex at approximately 7:11:42 (+/- 2 seconds)
So, if Dee Dee and Trayvon’s phone call didn’t even BEGIN until at LEAST 15-18 seconds after Trayvon Martin had taken off running, how could Dee Dee describe being ON the phone with him while Zimmerman was watching him from his car? How could she describe ANY of his actions or any of the surroundings or actions immediately associated with George Zimmerman at that time? Like the mailbox “thing”. Like Zimmerman being “white” and talking on his phone in a car.
I tell ya, Dee Dee’s interview comments are as smelly as Pusan, South Korea’s famous FIsh Market at the end of a long hot summer day. I’ve been there (and RECENTLY), so I know.
SlingTrebuchet said:
Juggler,
That 7:12 call (4 minutes) on the t-Mobile logs is an incoming call
Presumably this is the girl ringing him back after she says that the previous call dropped.
The 7:04 one (1 minute) in the list is also an incoming.
The pages in the released logs don’t seem to be in proper sequence, so the other calls for the time are a couple of pages down
6:49 Incoming 4 minutes
6:46 Outgoing 2 minutes
6:45 Outgoing 5 minutes ( WTF-type note below)
6:41 Incoming 4 minutes
6:30 Outgoing 13 minutes
T-Mobile timestamps seem to be a very systematic mess.
The stamps on the calls can be off by up to 59 seconds.
But by heavens, it your call starts at 00:00:59 and ends at 00:01:01, what you think is a 1 one minute call gets billed as 3 minutes.
If this case gets one good thing done, it will be to get people to be more aware of what’s happening in their phone bills!
There are indications that Zimmerman spotted Martin coming into the community via the unfenced area in the NW corner used by pedestrians
It’s probably that Zimmerman has slowed to watch him crossing Retreat View Circle and down between the houses to the paths and lake to the South.
Martin may have developed an awareness of being followed before he got to Twin Trees.
I don’t think that there is any issue with the reality and the approximate times of the calls.
The real issue is the content of the calls – which is far from clear.
into the ar
comm
juggler523 said:
Au Contraire, Sling:
You wrote: “I don’t think that there is any issue with the reality and the approximate times of the calls.”
As I said, Dee Dee claimed she was ON the phone with Trayvon when he was still standing, loitering, concerned that a white man in a car was on the phone watching him.
But if a call between the two commenced at 7:12:00 or later, as the T-Mobile records suggest, then Dee Dee couldn’t POSSIBLY have been on the phone with Trayvon Martin until at least 15-18 seconds after he took off running – unles you can point out a phone call that encompasses the 7:11:42 time hack. If not, it DOES matter. Because it calls into question Dee Dee’s credibility. Do you know of a call that came in or went out AFTER the four minute 7:12 phone call ended?
If so, plase share. If not, it DOES matter.
As far as apparent overlapping calls – I wonder if there is a possibility that one person was on hold or whatnot. We would really need to know how many different numbers were involved. One ought not assume all the calls were between Trayvon Martin and Dee Dee. If so, then I agree T-Mobile’s billing practices are criminal. But do we know for sure?
Thought.??
SlingTrebuchet said:
Ok Juggler,
But only because you spoke French – and that makes me all warm and fuzzy – but don’t abuse it. OK?
If you were going by the call list I had in the post, I had omitted one.
These calls were not of great interest to me because of the difficulty in trying to synchronise them – and the problems of confirming the content.
I had left out one call in the split list.
The full list is:
6:30 – 6:43 Outgoing 13 minutes
6:41 – 6:45 Incoming 4 minutes
6:45 – 6:50 Outgoing 5 minutes
6:46 – 6:48 Outgoing 2 minutes
6:49 – 6:53 Incoming 4 minutes
6:54 – 7:12 Incoming 18 minutes
7:04 – 7:05 Incoming 1 minute (Other caller interrupt?)
7:12 – 7:16 Incoming 4 minutes
Those times above T-Mobile times are said to be imprecise. There is a margin of error of up to a minute
They seem continuous. Apparently some other person called and Martin had the girl on hold. I suppose that investigators have traced all numbers involved.
The time line per my analysis for Zimmerman’s call and up to the shot is:
7:09:34 Zimmerman connects
7:11:43 Martin enters pathway area
7:12:14 Zimmerman enters pathway area
7:13:21 Zimmerman suddenly changes his mind about where to be
7:13:41 Zimmerman ends call
7:16:00 Guess at time of disturbance being noticed by 1st 911 caller
7:16:11 1st 911 connects
Again, the T-Mobile times are imprecise.
They do indicate a continuous connection through the events.
The 6:54 (18 minute call) drops at about the time that Martin disappeared down the central path.
She rings him again. That call stays connected up to the time of the fight.
T-Mobile has that reconnection at 7:12 – but that could be between 7:11 and 7:13
I have Zimmerman rounding the corner into the area at 7:12:14
At 7:13:21 (3:47 in the call) he suddenly changes his mind, breaking in over the Dispatcher. He won’t meet the patrol back at the mailboxes. He asks that they call him.
That might imply that he has noticed something just then.
From the T-Mobile timestamps, that instant is on the outer margins to coincide with the girl ringing Martin. It depends on any gap between the call being logged and the ringing process happening on the phone – and Martin answering.
Maybe Martin looks at the phone to check who is calling and the display is lit up?
That’s the problem with inexact timestamps.
If things were down to the second – and the T-Mobile system clocks and the Sanford PD system clocks had a zero or fixed synchronisation different, there would be less scope for guesswork.
So.
The existence of the calls appears to be fact as they are logged automatically. They are not opinion or memory.
The real question is the content.
For that you have that awful disorganised interview – or whatever a more skilled person can do to recreate a coherent timeline.
SlingTrebuchet said:
I’ll try that one more time
The line drops and Dee Dee calls him back
The T-Mobile stamp has the call connecting at 7:12 (and T-mobile stamps are +/- up to 59 seconds)
She describes him as running straight after he answers.
7:11:41 (2:07 in recording) Zimmerman: “Shit! He’s running”
7:11:43 Martin enters pathway area (in my analysis)
Out of all the confusion in that interview, we have the point at which Martin has entered the central pathway area. Then
7:12:14 Zimmerman enters the area 31 seconds later.
The girls describes Martin as seeming scared. Which he might be when he realises that Zimmerman has left the truck and has followed him here.
And then…… the interview goes to hell in a basket.
The call stays connected right up to the start of the struggle at 17:16:00
That last call is the entirety of both of them in the pathway area, and the interview is jumping all over the timeline.
everlastingphelps said:
The printout I’ve seen says all times are Pacific Time Zone.
SlingTrebuchet said:
It’s another funny in the T-Mobile billing.
Text charges are the same 24 hours a day.
Voice calls are charged by time of day in the area in which they are made.
So the bill has a mixture of time zones.
Probably really confusing if someone crosses one or more zones in the course of a day.
“I was told by another T-Mobile person it’s because calls are translated to local time zone of where they’re made because of billing purposes, but data & texts don’t have different prices for peak and off-peak.”
http://support.t-mobile.com/message/117416
SlingTrebuchet said:
Strike that last bit.
Now that you have me started thinking about connecting timelines, I see it now.
The T-Mobile 5:54 call drops after 18 minutes
It reconnects at 7:12
7:11:41 (2:07 in recording) Zimmerman: “Shit! He’s running”
7:12:14 Zimmerman enters pathway area (in my analysis) http://zimmermanscall.blogspot.ie/p/ground.html
7:12:14 Zimmerman enters pathway area ( in my analysis)
OH SWEET SUFFERING J******** !!
He lost him when he ran from the back, and then he’s near again.
And then he lost him.
And it goes round and round.
I’m sure she is repeating things over and over here, and BDLR has totally lost the plot.
I’ll have go back and listen to that interview recording again….. more mental scars.
Looolooo said:
I don’t think that BDLR could’ve done much better if he tried,…..given DeeDee’s shockingly poor grasp of the english language. I got the impression that BDLR was trying not to embarrass or humiliate her any more than neccessary. I also got the impression that he’d never interviewed someone of such low intelligence and almost non existent vocal ability. However difficult that was to listen to (and my goodness did it ever hurt), she seems perfectly credible, and she will be believed should she testify (is there some sort of translator for a case such as this), and I think that her testimony will be an integral component of the prosecutions winning case. Poor, poor, girl:(
juggler523 said:
I must respectfully disagree. Listen tot he audio of Dee Dee and de la Rionda again. Dismiss ALL questions for which de la Rionda provides the answer IN the question. Then dismiss all the questions that are ludicrously irrelevant (like most of what de la Rionda asks). Now focus on just Dee Dee’s comments about what Trayvon Martin was doing and when he was doing it.
She is plain inconsistent and in direct contradiction in too many ways to what is known.
1. She says she was on the phone with Trayvon Martin while he was being watched/followed by Zimmerman, Before Zimmerman exited his vehicle – yet the start time of the call with Trayvon begins AFTER Trayvon Martin ran and AFTER Zimmerman would have exited his vehicle.
2. She says Trayvon Martin pulled his hoodie up after leaving the 7-11 – yet, the 7-11 video shows Martin entering, circumnavigating, and exiting the store WITH hoodie on.
3. She says Trayvon Martin was tired, breathing heavily from running. But he had only 450ft to go in total, and only managed to get 150ft along. How could he have been out of breath?
There are other things. She will NOT be seen as credible because she didn’t come forward when her friend was killed, never made a statement whatsoever until contacted by Crump, and never talked to police or investigators for 35 days after Trayvon Martin’s death. She will not be considered credible because she is incapable of piecing together a complete intelligible sentence. She will not be considered credible because she is incapable of multi-syllabic responses unless the response is spoon-fed to her. She will not be seen as credible because, despite having learned of her “friend’s” death on the very day after the shooting, she did not tell a living soul she had been speaking with him during his initial physical encounter with Zimmerman – a clear indication that she indeed was not.
Liberals USED to be the Optimistic ones said:
She heard the phone go dead AND then she heard a “Little get off”.
.
Not only can she talk to the grass, she can hear through a dead phone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.
And BDLR didnt need any confirmation to her claim cuz he knew she was the grass whisperer (who can also hear through dead phones)
Aussie said:
she does in fact lack total credibility. Where to begin with the many things that are wrong in the whole of her statement.
I think Mike did a really good job in pointing out many of the problems.
In light of the fact that TM did not leave the area of the 7-11 for a further 5 minutes after he exited the store, I do think that DeeDee’s testimony has even more holes than Swiss cheese.
Allyn said:
Looolooo,
With that name, I assume you are jesting or are actually looolooo.
ksincfl said:
Yes, I realize a 6 mon old post, however, this very topic is back in the news the last few days
Looolooo writes: “she seems perfectly credible”
Say what? To me it sounds like a made up story. She’s attempting to fit actual conversations, maybe enhancing what she’s come to learn are the facts that will best support the theory of the Martin Family’s attorney, Ben Crump. Don’t forget, this interview occurs 6 to 8 weeks after the incident AND after SHE has spoken to Crump, AT LEAST twice (once face to face immediately prior to this very interview). Although possible, I’m NOT suggesting anyone actually outright asked her to do this, but she is quite aware of the circumstances surrounding the events and perhaps takes it upon herself to embellish where she believes it might help.
Perhaps she DID hear this part of the incident. However, I doubt it because there is no one who would refer to Zimmerman’s voice as gruff, deep or otherwise.
“I could hear the grass thing.” Except for explicitly saying “the grass ‘PART’ ” IMO, it sounds like she has been told about Zimmerman’s story regarding struggling on the grass. It could be argued to a jury that, “the grass thing,” CLEARLY refers to what she had been told about a struggle and while she might not have lied, she certainly felt an obligation to make the details fit in a light most favorable to her friend. Anyone normally describing what they thought to be a struggle, and a ear piece falling off would suggest the ear piece/phone fell to the “ground” not the grass.
She also refers to “that part” as if shes been made aware of portions critical to the family’s theory.
IMO its extremely likely this witness has attempted to bolster the importance of her own testimony. She is certainly aware portions of her first interview with Crump was played for the World on TV. She’s young, impressionable and wanting to help her friend not realizing embellishment wont help.
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear ksincfl:
Thanks for your comment and welcome to SMM. “Say what?” indeed.
Looolooo said:
I said what I meant, and I meant what I said. DeeDee will likely prove to be a difficult witness (due to her alarming unintelligence, and shocking inablility to speak coherently) for both sides, but ultimatley she WILL be believed. There are phone records that prove her conversations with Trayvon, and even though she COULD’VE greatly embelished the fatefull altercation……..she DID’NT. She chose to simply tell the TRUTH …… as she was told by Trayvon, and as she heard it. I believe that George Zimmerman has mental illess (as does his father and brother), and violent tendencies, which manifested tragically for Trayvon Martin.
George is very fortunate that that trained (real life) ATF agent KNEW when and when not to use his weapon. George’s gain, has turned into Trayvon’s permanent loss.
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear Looolooo:
Thanks for your comment. I’m a little confused by what you think will be believed. Dee Dee’s statement is so logically incoherent and full of so many odd assertions and nonsensical statements I’m not sure what there is for anyone to believe, other than she may have been speaking with Martin at some point and for some period of time. As I’ve previously written, she had nothing to say that in any way contradicted Zimmerman’s statement, and nothing at all that in any way harms his self-defense claim.
Zimmerman is mentally ill? Evidence please.
I must admit to being completely confused by your mention of an ATF agent. To my knowledge, the ATF has no involvement whatever in this case.
SlingTrebuchet said:
Mike,
DeeDee’s interview is clearly “all over the place” in terms of establishing a timeline. Whatever her legal age, she comes across to me as a child as far as communication is concerned. Such a person requires very careful handling to draw out a coherent story without the danger of leading them.
That being said, she does have a simple overall story.
It has Martin worried by some stranger following. It has Martin thinking the following has stopped, then reporting the follower getting closer. It has an altercation just before the line drops.
There is a rounding issue with T-Mobile times, but it is still clear that Martin’s phone was in a series of calls with others during the events. The ending of the last call corresponds (only roughly because the rounding issue) with the start of the final struggle.
Her story does contradict that of Zimmerman.
1) The Mailbox structure
She mentions the mailbox area and Martin saying he was sheltering there.
If we accept that he did pause there, then this blows part of Zimmerman’s Walk-through out of the water.
Zimmerman’s downfall is the timeline fixed by the NEN call. In the Walk-through, he says that he started the call while parked at the front of the clubhouse – that Martin walked past him there and walk down into Twin Trees. He says that he then drove into Twin Trees and saw Martin walking up at the far end near the T-Junction and disappearing there (for the first of two times).
His problem is that the timeline and the map indicate that for this to happen, Martin would have to walk down Twin Trees and break into a run the second that Zimmerman lost sight of him. He would then have to stop running and resume walking just at the instant that Zimmerman drove into Twin Trees and regained sight of him.
Even at a run, his path would have to be the most direct diagonal route. There would not be time to divert in order to pass through the mailbox area. There certainly would be no time to pause and shelter there.
If Martin was at the mailbox area, then Zimmerman’s account in the Walk-through can not be true.
There is another report that contradicts that Clubhouse_to_Twin_Trees section of the Walk-through. Frank Taaffe reports that Zimmerman told him of being parked in Twin Trees and watching Martin approaching the truck from the direction of the clubhouse. See Frank do this at 1:03 in ABC7’s report at youtube dot com/watch?&v=kvHLnN4UAUU
((Note I’m doing the URL this way to avoid the blog software automatically loading up Mike’s server space with a screenshot of the video at a URL))
.
2) A following by Zimmerman immediately before the struggle.
Zimmerman in statements and Walk-through says that he ended the call at the end of the East-West path at RVC. He says that he began to walk back to his truck and was attacked just past the T-junction.
There is a huge problem with that.
That walk took him 20 seconds to do in the Walk-trough. It was an easy stroll. Say it would take him 30 seconds at a much slower pace.
The NEN call ended at 19:13:41
The first 911 call connected at 19:16:11
The caller had noticed a loud argument and decided to call. In her interview, she sounds like she was quick on th draw to do so. Say the struggle began at 19:16:00.
That would make 2 minutes 19 seconds from the end of the NEN to the start of the struggle.
Zimmerman’s story only accounts for 20 to 30 seconds of that time span.
The girl’s story would allow for all of it.
On top of the 2 minute unexplained gap, there is another indication that a search/following could have actually happened.
In the Walk-through, Zimmerman says that he ended the call with an agreement to meet the incoming patrol at the mailboxes and that he started back immediately. He says that this was his suggestion.
Listen to the NEN. What actually happens is that it is the dispatcher who suggests a meet at the mailboxes. Zimmerman agrees. But then…. at the last moment, he breaks in over the dispatcher to ask that the patrol ring him on arrival in order to find out where he will be.
There’s something else.
Zimmerman reports that the fight started within a few feet of the T-Junction. He says that Martin punched him on the nose, decked him, straddled him and began pounding his head on the concrete path.
There are no eyewitnesses to where or how the fight actually started.
There are unclear reports of running but the first solid sighting of the pair is that of witness John. The sketch map that he made was not initially released along with his statement. Now that we can view it, it places the pair first on the grass and then moving onto the concrete path – directly and centrally opposite his porch window. This firmly places the pair 58 feet South of the T-Junction – and about 10 feet South of where the body ended up. John did not see the end of the struggle. He just heard the shot.
Zimmerman’s simple account is not a satisfactory explanation for this.
It does not seem credible that they would wrestle on the ground and move first 58 feet to where John reports first seeing them , and then 10 feet North again. Martin’s phone was found just by that ‘John’ position, South of where his body ended up.
.
3) A verbal exchange
Earwitness report hearing a loud extended argument – perhaps six or so exchanges back and forth.
Forgetting about the actual words that she reports – DeeDee hears one voice say something and another voice saying something. Then there are some sounds (say of a struggle) and the call drops. That would match the earwitness statements. The girls does not hear the five or so further exchanges as the call has been disconnected.
Zimmerman’s account does not match the earwitness statements. He reports “Got a problem?” – “No I don’t” – “You do now”. This falls far short of what earwitnesses report.
.
A note on the time of the NEN call:
Some insist that the call started at 19:11:12
This is both the “Created Time” and the stamp on the first entry of the Event Log.
The problem is that for the dispatcher to hit return and create that entry, he first has to listen to Zimmerman give him all of the information that is recorded in the Headers and that entry. The call could not possibly have started at that time.
The call actually started at what is automatically logged as the “Connection” time – 19:09:34.
Listen to the NEN call again. Over a minute passes before the dispatcher has all the information that he would need to type in the header info and that first entry.
Check the the entry at 19:11:59 “SUBJ NOW RUNNING TOWARDS BACK ENTRANCE OF COMPLEX”
This is 2:25 into the call from a start time of 19:09:34
Check the NEN call
2:14 Sound like the door slamming shut
Dispatcher: OK. Which entrance is that that he’s heading towards?
2:15 Zimmerman: The back entrance
The dispatcher hears that just after 2:15 and has typed it up and pressed Update by 2:25
A start time of 19:11:12 is quite clearly impossible. It started at the Connection time – 19:09:34
This leaves Zimmerman with a gap of 2 minutes after the NEN call that his story in no way accounts for. Add to that his last-second change from an agreement to meet at the mailboxes.
That gap absolutely opens up the possibility of what the girl reports Martin as relating to her. The guy who he thought he had lost getting closer and finding him.
The first sighting of them is 58 feet South of the T-junction – where Martin’s phone was found.
.
Phelps said:
Here’s the problem, sling. Lets say that everything you posit was correct — that it happened just like you say.
None of that changes it from self defense and into murder. Zimmerman waking around and “finding” him, an extended argument, all of it — none of it changes Martin’s broken nose and busted head. Martin was in danger of death or maiming, and he defended himself to prevent it.
juggler523 said:
Sling –
OHHHHH Goodness….here you go again.
You wrote: “Zimmerman reports that the fight started within a few feet of the T-Junction. He says that Martin punched him on the nose, decked him, straddled him and began pounding his head on the concrete path. There are no eyewitnesses to where or how the fight actually started. There are unclear reports of running but the first solid sighting of the pair is that of witness John. The sketch map that he made was not initially released along with his statement. Now that we can view it, it places the pair first on the grass and then moving onto the concrete path – directly and centrally opposite his porch window. This firmly places the pair 58 feet South of the T-Junction – and about 10 feet South of where the body ended up. John did not see the end of the struggle. He just heard the shot. Zimmerman’s simple account is not a satisfactory explanation for this. It does not seem credible that they would wrestle on the ground and move first 58 feet to where John reports first seeing them , and then 10 feet North again. Martin’s phone was found just by that ‘John’ position, South of where his body ended up.
Me: FOR GOD’s sake!!
First, Zimmerman’s injuries are consistent with everythign he said happened.
Second – John’s next door neighbors HEARD the scuffle begin to the left of their home (on the north end of the west side of the dogpath sidewalk – aka, near the “T”. They heard the struggle progress into John’s backyard, heard John come out, and heard the gunshot – all in that order.
Third – When Officer Santiago arrived at the scene of the shooting – according to his report, he “observed a key chain lying on the grass near the T portion of the walkway, a black flashlight lying on the grass just east of the key chain.”
Conclusion – These two alone support Zimmerman’s statements that the encounter began at the “T”. Why would he have dropped his his keys and flashlight (he had two flashlights) there at the T if the fight didn’t begin there? And if there was a struggle to near the T that progressed south (as the earwitnesses stated) then how is Zimmerman incorrect on that point?
You wrote: “A verbal exchange
Earwitness report hearing a loud extended argument – perhaps six or so exchanges back and forth. Forgetting about the actual words that she reports – Dee Dee hears one voice say something and another voice saying something. Then there are some sounds (say of a struggle) and the call drops. That would match the earwitness statements. The girls does not hear the five or so further exchanges as the call has been disconnected. Zimmerman’s account does not match the earwitness statements. He reports “Got a problem?” – “No I don’t” – “You do now”. This falls far short of what earwitnesses report.
Me: First of all, Dee Dee’s statements are suspect. She never told a living soul about her conversation with Trayvon Martin until she was tracked down by Benny Crump – until then, she had not even told her mother…no friend…no teacher…no police officer…no one!! And then her story is revealed conveniently about four days AFTER the non-emergency call and the 911 tapes were all released. Oh, and your claim that Dee Dee requires tender loving care during questioning is a crock. She is 18 years old. She is not a baby, and if she is going to claim that Zimmerman did what Zimmerman said he did not do, she is going to have to stick her chin up and just tell the truth. And also explain why she didn’t tell a living soul until Crump hunted her down.
Second, your claim of what falls short or not is mere opinion. But I’ll tell YOU what falls short. Dee Dee’s claim that she heard ANYthing of the exchange. In part of her testimony to Bernie de la Rionda, she claimed that Trayvon Martin was using his headphones connected to his cell phone to talk to her. But the headphones were not found on the ground, or attached to Trayvon Martin’s cell phone. They were found INSIDE his pocket after his death. So, THAT kinda falls short of explaining how Dee Dee heard anything – Trayvon Martin’s phone was not a smart phone or the kind that could be closed (as if was found) and still be used to carry on a conversation. And that’s just ONE of Dee Dee’s many comments that fall short.
Finally – you seem fixated on the distance – 58 feet. As if that is a great distance. It’s not. It is not even 2/3 of the distance from home to 1st base in baseball. It’s about ten of Trayvon Martin’s body lengths. There’s nothing magic at all about it. Nothing unusual to even consider as a distance two struggling men may travel in a short scuffle. And again – John’s neighbors HEARD the scuffle begin at the T.
I know you think Zimmerman is making it up – but are you suggesting they are as well?
SlingTrebuchet said:
I don’t think that it as a simple as you might like to think Phelps.
Think about how the Zimmerman family and the defence are managing this aspect.
In the NEN call, it’s “Are you following him?” – “Yeah” – “We don’t need you to do that”
Add in the NW rules about “Observe from a safe distance” / “don’t approach” / “just call it in” / “No weapons”. The police NW coordinator Wendy Dorvial says she gave a talk at a meeting attended by Zimmerman in which she emphasised this.
First of all, no matter about unexplained minutes, Zimmerman went in blind. He couldn’t see where Martin was. He could have been ambushed (Due to not observing for a safe distance) at the first corner.
So let’s say that at the end of the call, he decided that he would go in search of “these assholes / punks / goons who always get away. He changes from an agreement to meet at the mailboxes and asks that the patrol ring him on arrival to find out where he’s at then.
He goes in search and 2 minutes later he’s face to face with Martin.
Let’s say there is an extended argument, maybe some shoving, brought to a halt by something like Martin punching Zimmerman. They end up wrestling ( no straddling or MMA) on the grass outside John’s porch. The last thing as John turns his back and goes for his phone is that the pair are still wrestling horizontally on the grass, but their heads are moving towards the concrete path.
At the path, Zimmerman receives two minor cuts to the back of his head. These will not need stitching. The only treatment specified by his doctor the next day is washing. No swelling bruising of the back of the head is reported. Just two clean cuts.
He has a bruised nose – apparently the effect of a blow. His doctor suspects that he might have a closed fracture, but no scan is done.
These are certainly not life-threatening, but in fairness, who knows what exactly is life-threatening? One could survive an extensive beating with no more than bruising. One could die from a simple fall.
The police arrive.
Zimmerman tells them everything of course. His concience is clear. He tells how he searched for Martin for 2 minutes and that Martin attacked him. Right?
He’s perfectly safe in telling them that as by your lights, it was simple self defence.
No. He has a different story.
He wasn’t following. He was simply going in the same direction – to get an address.
He never went South of the EW path.
He ended the call and began to walk back to his truck.
Martin came up behind 20 to 30 seconds later and attacked him.
This might seem plausible to anyone that has not gone to the trouble to work out the actual timeline. Once you examine the objective facts of the timeline, it’s clear that Zimmermans account can not be true – at least to the tune of 2 minutes.
Why is he not telling us exactly what happened? It was pure self-defence after all – even if he did go searching in the dark for Martin. No?
By the time of the Hannity interview, something extra has changed.
He’s still not following (evn though he says he was in the NEN)
He’s still just by happenstance going in the same direction.
However, Martin is not running any more. He’s sort of skipping – and certainly not in fear.
The reality is that any suggestion that Zimmerman was following or searching is *NOT GOOD* for the defence.
Neither is any suggestion that Martin was afraid or running away.
Zimmerman’s big problem is that if he goes on the stand, he’s going to get cross-examined.
Up to now, he’s defended by emotion.
On the stand, he will be faced with science. Timelines – maps – forensics.
Phelps said:
It IS that simple. None of the things you cited are relevant. The Neighborhood Watch rules don’t trump Florida State Law. The law doesn’t get changed because someone printed up a flyer and handed it around. The law is what it is. Zimmerman has been charged with 2nd Degree Murder. This is the statute:
The self-defense exception is here:
(776.013 is self defense in your own home.) That means that if Zimmerman reasonably believed that he was in danger or imminent death or great bodily harm (I was slightly off with maiming above — that’s Texas’ standard) then he was justified in using lethal self defense, and you lose the “unlawful” element of Murder.
The end.
All of this other BS does nothing to negate the fact that Zimmerman was beaten severely by a large teenager who had no injuries to him except the bullet wound that stopped him and the damage he did to his own hands with Zimmerman’s face.
Those are the charges the jury will get, and those are the only facts that matter at the end of the day.
SlingTrebuchet said:
Phelps,
Try to think about why the defence is so anxious to assert that Zimmerman was not following Martin, even though he says he was following in the NEN call.
Even Zimmerman and brother – unaided by professional legal advice – had enough sense to realise that in the light of what happened, ‘following’ was NOT GOOD!
Think about the fallback plan. He wasn’t following, but if it should be considered that we was, it was because the dispatcher insisted. Look at the video of the Walk-through. Right from the start, at the front of the clubhouse, Zimmerman claims that the dispatcher is asking him where the suspect is and Z can get to a place where he can regain sight of the suspect. He claims the same demands are made when he gets into Twin Trees.
Listen to the NEN call. The closest we get in reality is a single “He’s running? Which way is he running? Which entrance is that he’s running towards?”
Zimmerman’s response “The back entrance” is a full and sufficient answer to that single inquiry.
Think about why in the Hannity interview, Martin isn’t running any more – and certainly not in fear.
Think about why the story is that Zimmerman finished the call and headed straight back for the truck. This despite an analysis of the timeline showing that such a walk would take him past the attack point 2 minutes before the attack happened.
Think about why Zimmerman claims that he didn’t even realise that he had a gun under his own waistband until the very last moment – and then only because he was reminded of it when he felt Martin’s hand heading that way. Only moments before, he had made a point of telling the dispatcher that Martin “has his hand in his waistband”. In the interim, he says and demonstrates in the walk-through that his own hand had been patting his own waistband in search of a phone.
You might have great faith in your own interpretation of the law, but clearly this is not one that is shared by Zimmerman or his defence.
Based both on common sense and on O’Mara’s approach to the legalities, I would strongly advise you not to go voluntarily barging into dangerous situations while under the misapprehension that shooting people would be a way of getting out that won’t end up with you on charges.
.
So what about this “act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual”?
Zimmerman (in the words of Frank Taaffe) is “not going to take any more”.
He complains to the dispatchers that “These assholes. They always get away.”
He sees one getting away, running out of sight down the dark pathway.
He gets out and follows. He’s moving fast (you think those movement and fast breathing noises are just the wind?).
“punks”, “f**king goons”
He’s heading towards a dark area. He can’t see the target since the time that he ran.
The thug – who had his hand in his waistband, had something in his hand – had just circled his truck in a threatening manner.
Following blind in these circumstances is clearly a very dangerous/reckless action.
But it’s OK. He has a gun.
He’s had formal notice via his NW activity that both of these are no-no’s. A reasonable person would not need such formal notice. The NW rules are not just some silly things that some officious person made up just for the hell of it.
The rules exist explicity to avoid the precise situation that is about to arise.
He can’t see the suspect. It’s really dark in there. The dispatcher suggests that he meet the incoming patrol at the mailboxes. Zimmerman agrees, but then changes his mind. He going to go searching.
It’s dangerous. There’s at last one threatening thug nearby. But.. he feels safe as he has a gun.
He doesn’t have a premediation to shoot the thug that he’s following and searching for. But… if worst comes to worst, he’ll use it. That’s why people carry guns.
Phelps said:
After reading your last response, I don’t think you are arguing in good faith, so I’m done as well.
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear Phelps:
Quite so. While I always encourage civil debate, there comes a point when we’re arguing what the meaning of “is” is. Such is the case here.
I’ve avoided getting into such matters, not only because they do nothing to illuminate the issues in this case, but because I do not have all of the evidence in the case, which would render such speculation nothing more than that: speculation, and speculation highly likely to be wrong.
I remain content to deal with the law–which you have helpfully furnished for the benefit of readers as I have done in past articles–and with the realities of the criminal justice system as my many years of investigative work and testimony have taught.
Thanks again.
Allyn said:
Sling, you say: The reality is that any suggestion that Zimmerman was following or searching is *NOT GOOD* for the defence.
Neither is any suggestion that Martin was afraid or running away.
I say: what word would you use to say that you were trying to see where someone was going? Not for the purpose of confrontation, but to try to see if he went in a door, to get a house number or which way he next turned. Evidently, “following” and/or “searching for” have negative connotations. “Going in the same direction” sounds ridiculous and evasive to you. How about “headed that direction to see what I could see”?
Of course Z was following TM. Follow means to come behind. The fact that he was is of no concern to the defense and is not relevant to the charge unless the prosecution can somehow prove that he was following for the purpose of violent confrontation. They cannot.
And it certainly does not hurt the defense if it is established that TM ran away. You might say running is a sign of fear. Police consider it a sign of something to hide or of guilt. Do you really think GZ “headed that direction” because he thought “boy, I’ve got him scared now!” Remember, if TM was scared, that could actually help the defense. It could explain why he was pummeling GZ and why GZ had to use deadly force to stop him. Take note: GZ’s self-defense does not rely on TM being unreasonable in believing he needed to attack GZ. Reasonable people are wrong all the time. (I do not believe TM feared GZ in any way. Ghetto rats don’t attack people they are scared of. I believe he felt disrespected for being watched and then followed and I believe that TM was up to no good. But none of that matters.)
Sling says “Zimmerman’s big problem is that if he goes on the stand, he’s going to get cross-examined.
Up to now, he’s defended by emotion.
On the stand, he will be faced with science. Timelines – maps – forensics.”
I say, that the exact opposite is true. Up to now he has been prosecuted by emotion. He will not need to take the stand, because the judge will grant the defendants motion to dismiss after the prosecution rests.
Most of the debate on this board concerns how TM and GZ came into contact and minutiae regarding how many seconds are in 2 minutes and what difference 30 or 40 feet can make. I’ve made putts longer than that. I’ve seen people stumble 15 or 20 feet before falling as they try to regain balance. Folks, none of that really matters.
It does not matter what was in TM’s mind or what his motives were that night. He is not on trial. He may have felt justified in throwing the first punch. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn’t. Maybe he thought GZ was pulling a gun rather than his phone. Many police have shot suspects thinking (incorrectly) that they were a threat. Doesn’t matter. If GZ had just stayed in his vehicle, none of this would have happened. Doesn’t matter. Investigators stated they have NO evidence to dispute GZ’s story. No evidence that GZ started the violent confrontation. No evidence that GZ had done anything unlawful to provoke the violent confrontation. Check mate! Anything short of that will permit the self-defense to be lawful.
SlingTrebuchet said:
Allyn,
When considering what might be bad for the defence, a good guide to reality would be those things that the defence appears very intent on denying. This intent takes them to the borders of ridiculousness – and maybe a bit beyond them.
From the get go, “following” seems to be something very much to be denied.
Come Hannity,
“He’s running” and “He ran” are also bad.
Why can’t he run? it must have some significance. Why on earth would O’Mara use up time for that?
Why can’t Martin be in fear? Ditto.
Not only is Martin not running. Zimmerman isn’t running either
Also in Hannity, Zimmerman the law student, who bought a gun and was coached by Osterman, had never, ever, ever heard about the SYG law and therefore could not possibly have gone into a situation in the belief that he could rely on such a thing,
On top of that, even though Zimmerman appeared to freak in the NEN call, he actually wasn’t in the least concerned.
“He’s got his hand in his waistband”
See? There was absolutely no air of threat. Nothing at all happened to make Zimmerman think that there would be even the slightest danger of any unpleasantness if he should end up face to face with the young gentleman – due to accidentally going in the same direction.
.
EMOTION:
Remember the photo of the back of the head?
“IS THAT ENOUGH BLOOD FOR YOU?” was one headline
Clearly a savage beating.
The reality was two minor cuts that needed wiping and washing – and nothing else.
Then the nose – in high definition color
OH __ MI __GAWD!!!!
The reality was a police photo some 3 hours after the incident in which the nose looked not the slightest bit alarming. His doctor suggested that there might be a closed fracture, but no test was done.
Two small cuts and a bruised nose is apparently what you get when someone
– punches you on the nose and knocks you to the ground.
– straddles you and for the following 50 or so seconds, they pound and pound your head into the concrete, while punching you and punching you on the face.
.
The LAW
What you are saying that it perfect legitimate to
– go a place where there are no witnesses
– somehow get a bloody nose
– shoot someone dead
– come out and say it was self defence.
It doesn’t matter if there are glaring inconsistencies in your story that damage your credibility.
It doesn’t matter if you’ve had formal notice that going into a place like that was very inadvisable and in fact against the rules of an activity that you were engaged in.
Just so long as you have some injury, you get off on self defence.
I think that this is a view of applicable law that is about to get an airing in court if a few months.
Certainly, O’Mara has been performing acrobatics in order to deal with issues that you consider to be completely irrelevant.
Allyn said:
Sling, I always enjoy our discussions. But we seem to be looking at things from different ends of binoculars. In no particular order:
No witnesses? Huh? Multiple witnesses and none are so inconsistent with GZ’s statements as to damage his credibility.
Why did O’Mara waste so much time on an issue? O’Mara was leading the interview. Hannity did.
Not running? Semantics. If GZ had said “he is skipping away” during the NEN conversation, it would have sounded silly and perhaps GZ didn’t feel he had time to fully describe the cadence of his steps. He was moving away fast. Why would GZ say TM wasn’t scared. He stated, because he wasn’t running. Credibility problem with that? Not for me.
Glaring Inconsistencies? Didn’t GZ pass a voluntary lie detector exam? Most of the “glaring inconsistencies” to which you refer, are differences between the terms he used in the NEN call vs. the words and terms he has used after the fact. While different, they are not so different in meaning as to damage ones credibility.
You seem to be under the impression that if you enter an area that may not be safe, you cannot claim self defense should you in fact need to defend yourself. Nonsense. That is like saying a lady can’t wear a short dress and revealing top and charge rape if she is in fact raped.
Focus on the self-defense statute and explain why that does not apply.
SlingTrebuchet said:
Allyn,
There is one very reliable witness to the events leading up to the shooting. Call him Witness.G
That witness is George Zimmerman speaking in the NEN call. He tells it as he sees it and when he sees it. It’s recorded in real time. There is no need to rely on memory. Everything he relates is time-stamped by an objective and automated process.
There is one major witness whose account of events leading up to the shooting is completely unreliable. When run against the reliable account by Witness.G, the credibility of this witness is shot to hell. Call him Witness.Z
That witness is George Zimmerman speaking after the event.
View the Walk-through video and compare it with the NEN call.
Witness.Z’s walk-through description of his conversation with the dispatcher is wildly different to the actual conversation. It is blatantly self-serving. It invents whole sections of conversation. The BLDR/DeeDee interview is a model of precision when compared with Zimmerman’s surreal memory of any part of the entire NEN call.
His walk-through description of Martins movements is impossible to match to the geography and the timing of the NEN call.
The crowning glory of this utter shambles of a witness account is where he relates that at the end of the call that he suggested to the dispatcher that he meet the patrol at the mailboxes – that he immediately set off for his truck and was attacked some 20 to 30 seconds later while on that walk.
The reality is that in the NEN call, it was the dispatcher who suggested the meet at the mailboxes and it is Zimmerman who initially agrees and then changes to the patrol ringing him to find out where he will be.
The timeline shows that 2 minutes and 30 seconds elapse between the NEN call ending and the struggle breaking out.
2 minutes and 30 seconds is a major amount of time in the circumstances. It is more than half of the duration of the entire NEN call.
Consider the amount of information that he describes in the walk-through as corresponding to the NEN call’s 4 minutes+
Witness.Z’s entire account of the 2 minutes and 30 seconds after the NEN call ends is that he walked towards his truck for about 30 seconds.
Witness.Z is grossly unreliable. This is not opinion. This is demonstrable fact. Listen to the call. Watch the video and compare.
In the credibility stakes, Witness.Z trails way behind DeeDee.
.
Are we to believe that Witness.Z, who has proved incredible up to the start of the fight, will suddenly snap into credibility mode?
Seems not.
His account is that there is exchange of “You got a problem?” – “No, I don’t” – “You do now” at which stage Martin punches him on the nose, knocking him to the ground near to the T-Junction. He says that from that point on, Martin straddled him and continually pounded his head on the concrete, while also punching his face.
Earwitnesses tell of a much longer exchange of perhaps six back and forths.
The first eyewitness sees them on the grass about 60 feet South, both horizontal and wrestling. His last sight of them has them moving like that towards the concrete path. He does not see the final movement of some 10 feet North to where the body ends up. Nobody witness that phase. Nobody see what happens in the seconds leading to the shot or the moment of the shot.
Zimmerman has two small cuts on the back of his head and a bruised nose.
There are some very dramatic images of blood, but all that is underlying that is the above. I’ve seen simple nosebleeds that looked far more alarming.
This is consistent with the back of his head being in contact with something and his nose being in contact with something.
The extent of these injuries is not consistent with his account of the scale and seriousness of the fight.
The place where they end up is not consistent with his description of the fight.
There are no marks or DNA traces on Martin that are consistent with Zimmerman’s description of the nature, scale and seriousness of the fight. He has a scratch on one finger. Where’s all the blood from him pressing on Zimmerman’s bloody nose while trying to suffocate him?
From start to finish the story of Witness.Z does not stand up to scrutiny, beginning with a woeful mismatch to the evidence of Witness.G
Why on earth should anyone give any credibility to his account of the final seconds of the fight?
.
What’s this about a “voluntary lie-detector test”?
Zimmerman specifically requested and obtained a voice stress test. This is a completely different technique. Let the experts do their stuff in court. I’m saying nothing about it.
He had to know about such things and would be aware of the limitations.
Watch the video of the preparation and conduct of that test. Think about the particular two questions. Think about his demeanor as he gave an account of events that very clearly did not match the objective evidence of the NEN call.
He appears to sincerely believe what he is saying. Yet what he is saying is demonstrably not matching what happened in the NEN call and for 2 minutes 30 seconds after it. There are also clear problems with his description of the fight.
.
Putting to one side his self-serving and non-credible account of events..
Zimmerman followed Martin into that dark area after complaining about assholes who always get away. His tone was aggressive. He swore about the f**king goons.
After the call ended he spent 2 minutes and 30 seconds searching out trouble. He found trouble or trouble found him.
Your self-defence parable does not work.
This is not a woman in a revealing dress.
This is a naked woman going into a bar while shouting “Anyone want a piece?” – except that she is naked apart from carrying a gun.
JC said:
I don’t think she’ll ever testify, she’ll get sick again. I’ll eat my hat if she hasn’t been coached by Crump and the DA and if she has a half way decent attorney he won’t let her expose herself to perjury charges, she’s going to delaminate under cross exam.
chrishanger said:
Interesting update. Thanks for writing it.
Chris
SlingTrebuchet said:
I came away from listening to the recording with mental scarring I think.
It is clear that the girl does not have ability to relate a coherent account.
Her use of language indicates to me that it would be highly dangerous to interpret anything that she says literally. In a way, she is speaking a different language that is related to English.
For example, maybe BDLR knows what “Run from the back” means. I certainly don’t. I might guess, but that could be misleading.
“right by his father house” could mean standing on the door step. It could also mean up at the top of the central pathway area, or anywhere along it. It’s sort of “In the vicinity”-ish. If we had a timeline, we might be able to make sense of it.
That should indicate particularly careful handling. In the event, the interview seems shambolic to me.
BDLR appears to be taking a line of getting her to fill in a narrative that he already has in his head. He does not exhibit an investigative mindset.
Maybe my view is coloured by my own mindset, which has me in the absence of any other solid information, building a detailed time line by analysing almost every breath that Zimmerman takes in his call recording. Then I have to listen to BDLR and the girl!
Just like your analysis, I kept hearing something come up. I think “Sounds interesting, so now he’ll have to tease that out” – but he doesn’t.
The girls seems to have a cloud of memories in her head. She seems to toss pieces at BDLR that she thinks match the questions. The result is a timeline and narrative shot to bits.
My analysis supports that route and him stopping there, but my guess based on the times and distances has a different motive.
My guess would be that as he has not seen the truck making any move or Zimmerman getting out (see below and/or my analysis) then he relaxes and wants to talk to the girl without having to concentrate on guys following.
Even Zimmerman realises the good possibility of Martin being still close by. He’s up near the T-junction and speaks his name, phone and address out loud for the Dispatcher. Then it hits him – “Oh crap. I don’t want to give it all out, I don’t know where this kid is.”
Weather:
Accidentally or not, BDLR is close to a timeline question here, if he can tie her account to the rain or not and the intensity of any rain.
We know that there had been heavy rain. Zimmerman mentions it.
The girl asserts that Martin had run for shelter in “the mail place” and that Martin had started walking again when it eased.
We know from the recording of Zimmerman’s call that the rain had eased at the time Martin passed his truck in Twin Trees. There is a sound like windscreen wipers on slow intermittent in the background. Assume that he would choose a wiper speed that allowed him to observe Martin as well as possible. So it’s probable very light rain or drizzle.
We know that by the time the struggle broke out that it had stopped raining. The boy who took his dog out just as the fight was happening says that it had stopped raining – hence the timing of the walk. This indicates that it had stopped raining long enough for him to notice and get set with the dog.
“hear him OK” could be to with the noises of rainfall perhaps, but it could equally have to do with the state of a particular phone’s wireless performance in that location and held in a wet hand or buried in damp clothing if a headset is in use.
Now BDLR wants to know about the moment of contact
He wants to know something about the tone she hears from the other voice.
It would be easy to slip into merry quips like ‘smoking grass’ rather than ‘hearing’ – But this sort of thing is where well constructed questioning could be illuminating. Whatever she can remember about the sounds could be very useful. Leading her in any way would be fatal.
You can see what BDLR is fishing for.
He has earwitnesses reporting a relatively extended loud argument that might have been moving before the sounds became a series of cries for help.
No way does “Why are you following me?”- “What are you doing here?” qualify for that.
He can’t even get that these words are being shouted.
Maybe the thing started with a relatively conversational volume, but if it did, some indication of the duration and exact nature of sounds before the line dropped would be good.
The timeline for most things in the interview is all over the place.
I think I know what BDLR might be trying to confirm here.
By my analysis, Martin never saw Zimmerman get out of the truck. He had disappeared down the path just as Zimmerman said “He’s running”. It takes 3 seconds from that before the door chimes. It takes a total of 9 seconds before Zimmerman is on the ground with the door locked.
Martin would not know that Zimmerman had got out until he saw him arrive into the central area.
So now her timeline is in the central area.
And then it warps back to Twin Trees.
….
If BDLR had done homework, he would have realised that the girl is recounting an accurate description of what Martin saw as he passed Zimmerman’s truck.
If you listen to the call recording from 1:00 , where Martin is approaching the truck, you hear Zimmerman rapidly sounding concerned and having a crisis moment at Martin’s closest. He cuts across the Dispatcher’s speech to ask about getting an officer over there.
If he’s parked where he seems to have been, and Martin is walking along the road, he’s on the driver’s side, with Zimmerman close to the glass looking out at him. You just know from Zimmerman’s voice at that moment that his face is going to seem very strange. Crazy guy on the phone – staring out.
BDLR might be thinking that the man was looking crazy when the two encountered each other in the pathway area, but …
There’s a bunch of stuff that she’s not going to ‘mention earlier’ because BDLR is screwing up the interview.
The girl’s timeline has snapped back to the walking in Twin Trees, but BDLR isn’t with the program.
As an investigative interview, it sucks.
John McLachlan said:
BDLR: It started raining, and did he go somewhere?
Dee Dee: Yeah. He ran to the um…mail thing.
BDLR: Like…I’m sorry…what?
Dee Dee: Like the mail…like a shed…
BDLR: Like a shed…like a mail area…
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: Like a covered area…
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: Because it was raining?
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: So, did he tell you that he was already inside, like the gated place?
Dee Dee: Yeah, he ran in there.
Unless Trayvon Martin had had a premonition of death and wished to establish his exact whereabouts, at that time, during the telephone conversation with DeeDee, how likely is it that he would have mentioned the “mail thing”?
I can imagine someone saying that they were taking shelter from the rain in a shed, perhaps, but not going into any detail about mailboxes etc.
These mailboxes only achieved importance, when Trayvon Martin’s death was being investigated and the attempts were made to establish the movements of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman.
Do teenagers phone conversations consist of detailed reports about their movements and descriptions of the buildings nearby?
BDLR: OK…did he describe the man who was watching him?
Dee Dee: Yeah, he said white.
At the time when Crump et al discovered Dee Dee, it was still reported that George Zimmerman was white.
How likely is it that Trayvon Martin would have described George Zimmerman as being white, rather than hispanic?
If Dee Dee was coached to provide testimony consistent with a predetermined narrative, without conflicting with known and provable facts, the police report, which was made available to Crump stated George Zimmerman to be white and his name sounds white, rather than hispanic. Anyone who had not seen George Zimmerman, but was reliant on written documents would not realise that they were conflicting with an established fact, when they were coaching her.
SlingTrebuchet said:
John,
It seems to me that there is a lot of leading in the interview.
I’m not sure that it’s at the level of having her recite invented information though.
A conversation along the lines of “Where are you now?” “Some sort of mail place” “Still raining”, etc seem to me to be quite normal.
From all the photos and video of Zimmerman that I had seen from the start, it never struck me that he looked other than white. When people started saying “Hispanic”, presumably because of the race discrimination thing, I thought “OK, but wut?”.
It was only when it came images of him at the bond hearing that I saw a marked difference. He seems way thinner and smaller than I had expected, and his skin did look darker (for want of a better word).
I would have described him as “white”. Ditto for his brother.
Do black people in Florida/Miami specifically refer to people as Hispanic, rather than White? I don’t know.
Aussie said:
Actually, GZ looks quite dark in a lot of the photos. It could be that some of the early photos were photoshopped to make him look white rather than someone who is multi-racial.
John McLachlan said:
BDLR: OK, thank you. Um…I think I already asked you, but let me make sure…he did tell you what he was at the store…the store where he had gotten candy or something, and you said iced tea, right?
BDLR knows it wasn’t iced tea and he hasn’t asked her before, at least not during the recorded portion of this interview.
Dee Dee: Yes.
Why would Trayvon Martin tell Dee Dee that he had bought Iced Tea, when in fact, he had bought Watermelon Juice?
Dee Dee’s testimony reflects the errors of fact recorded on the official police report and conforms to the media narrative created by Crump et al.
Two different errors of fact which are consistent with incorrect fact recorded in police reports, to me, suggests that Dee Dee was coached by persons who wished her testimony to further a narrative, by intorducing falsehoods, while not conflicting with already known facts, which were considered provable.
Liberals USED to be the Optimistic ones said:
so obviosu they photoshopped pics ot make GZ look whit3er than he is (though most folks appear paler in winter than summer due to minimized exposure to the sun, even black and brown and white folks)
Liberals USED to be the Optimistic ones said:
BDLR could have said, “What do you mean, ‘right by his father house’? How far away was he? Appriximately”
.
You are correct, BDLR shows not a single investigative bone in his body in this interview (except where he tries CYA/prove she isnt coached after she says, “You want dat, too?”)
Sandy said:
BDLR: OK…did he describe the man who was watching him?
Dee Dee: Yeah, he said white.
So Trayvon Martin was “racially profiling” George Zimmerman. DeeDee claims that the guy sounded like an old man, Trayvon didn’t say that. She answers that Trayvon just said he was white. Not old, fat, skinny, tall, short, or bald, just “white.”
Yet George Zimmerman is being accused by many as having racially profiled Martin. The feds are investigating him for hate crimes. Serino writes in his police report that Zimmerman only ever called the SPD to report young black males as being the suspicious persons, which is patently false. Two of the dates that Serino names in August were in fact when the young mother, home alone with her baby, watched 2 young black males break in through her sliding doors. She ran upstairs and hid in the bathroom, with her child, while they were robbing her of laptops and TV’s. The police arrived just to watch them run out the back door and disappear. Yet Serino uses these dates to prove that Zimmerman is a racist.
The doctored 911 tapes were played on MSNBC, where they completely delete the dispatcher asking Zimmerman if the suspicious guy was white, black or hispanic. The effort from the get go has been to make Zimmerman look like a racist, while by DeeDee’s own testimony, she admits that Trayvon was racially profiling Zimmerman. Unbelievable.
I believe that if this ever goes to trial, and this recording is released as evidence to the jury, or if DeeDee is interviewed again by BDLR, the jury will be thinking, if not screaming, Please God make her stop! You are correct Mike.
Liberals USED to be the Optimistic ones said:
she says he is “white” through knashed teeth displaying her hatred or contempt for crackas
Liberals USED to be the Optimistic ones said:
Yup, the cops had already given up actually protecting the community and left the community on its own against the thugs locally.
While I dont think we should worry too much about the property, if you catch the thugs, rthey wont be back to burglar that neighborhod the next night (they might have to wait a few days untli they get back out onto the stret before they can do that again).
leander22 said:
First of all I am pleased how well I actually understood Dee Dee, but strictly I am as disappointed as I was listening to her the first time.
A couple of remarks if you allow, Mike?
Yes, but maybe after checking Trayvon’s cell phone and call history was checked shortly after the event? De LaRionda obviously faces the problem that this interview takes place much too late, and obviously even without the help of Crump Dee Dee’s memory would be overlaid by stuff she learned later, coloring her interview. No? Grass? Admittedly I wondered why you leave out this most obvious point. Experience and all?
I find it interesting nevertheless you jump on statements that suit your favorite (plot?) narrative.
Hmm genetic endowment? Why not abilities, interest and knowledge in language and psychology among others?
Yes, that is easy to see. Although it would be admittedly my favorite choice, in a good cop bad cop scenario. Would suit me more too.
See my first comment above, because that would be something solid? Imagine she had texted: Tray, what happened with that guy, or any other statement to that effect. Text messages are not hindered by no available signals as far as I know, or are they? Besides if she still had it on her phone, as some kind of cherished object. My last text message to Tray, that would surely be helpful? No?
This is actually something I may get completely wrong after all I am responding to a former experienced police officer. But he is relying on the case files, remember? Would he always need to over the factual evidence, can’t you trust as a higher officer anything your police colleagues write down, or would you only check if there is a contradiction?
Cahill, an “American Thinker”
Actually CTH makes it Water Melon and Skittles, no?
Interesting how the standard ingrediants migrated into something that is found with Trayvon, but we are still asssumed to believe it’s completely impossible his purchase had any other reason.
There is also something peculiar with this story, if they are so sure this is for a drug mixture, why do they need the blunt too. Three boys buying three blunts, so obviously one must be for Trayvon Martin. What about the third, is that one underage too?
I fail to see the passage in the video where Trayvon asks for a blunt but is denied it. Dito, the dot connection does not convince me till we see a video showing us what is going on outside. That could change my mind, but so far it doesn’t. CTH’s agenda is too easy to see, and American Thinker actually is suspect of racism at least for this reader, I won’t go into details, but it tends to carry over to the reception of other articles with not related content.
Lean – urban dictionary
Which doesn’t solve the biggest riddle why the people initially recording the evidence found are unable to read what is written on the can. At the earliest recording there cannot have been any reason to hide anything. Zimmerman could have been still hoped that whatever parents existed, they wouldn’t give a damn. Something similar may well be true for the respective police officers, given there was no real witness watching the initial encounter.
James F said:
Actually CTH makes it Water Melon and Skittles, no?
No, CTH did not invent it. Watermelon lean or sizzurp has been around for years, as evidenced by the song ‘Watermelon Sizzurp’ released by DJ Diggs in 2006.
http://www.myspace.com/djdigs/music/songs/watermelon-sizzurp-24422322
James F said:
More proof from 2009.
EDITOR’S NOTE: I’ve removed the brief video and replaced it with a link to the same video. Such things eat up my precious graphics memory allotment. While I very much appreciate my reader’s going to the trouble of adding such things, would you please do so via link rather than embedded video? I know that adds a step for people who want to view these things, but it does create some minor headaches for me. Thanks!
everlastingphelps said:
You genuinely don’t get it?
What it comes down to is:
It doesn’t matter if George Zimmerman was a good Neighborhood Watch member.
What matters is whether or not what he did amounts to Murder 2.
Following someone who is running away is not illegal. Going into a dark part of your own property is not illegal.
And apparently you ignore the abundant evidence that he did exactly that and stopped following him. The only reason for you to continue to cling to this contrivance is because you are trying to wrap the evidence around your prejudices, not your conclusions around the evidence.
Reckless has a specific definition in the law. Nothing Zimmerman did rises to the level of recklessness. Florida has specifically rejected the idea of a duty to retreat.
The “some reason” he changed his mind is most likely that he was confronted by Martin.
When he encountered Martin, he had no options. I hope that the reason you don’t understand this is that you have never been jumped. Unfortunately, I think it’s just as likely that you have, but you learned nothing from the experience.
Martin didn’t ask him “Got a problem, homie?” because he wanted an answer. He asked him that question to put him on the mental defensive and talking instead of fighting. It’s a common technique by criminals to get inside the OODA loop of their victims. Martin wasn’t starting a conversation. He was simply keeping Zimmerman off-balance until he had closed the distance.
In fact, Zimmerman responded the best way he could, by doing the same to Martin. That defensive mindset likely saved his life (and cost Martin his.)
Yup. Both Zimmerman and Martin paid for thier identification failures. Zimmerman was smart enough to not use lethal force against the officers. Martin was not.
It’s time to refocus on the basic truth here — at the end of the day, Martin was trying to kill Zimmerman and failed.
leander22 said:
Thanks, James, I actually like the rhythm. But I had to listen to it much more carefully to find out where the cough medicine enters the stage, to be quite honest. Or if this is propaganda for the use of lean, as you seem to suggest.
leander22 said:
Drug forum: The Adderall and Temazepam.experience
SlingTrebuchet said:
The list of items recovered at the scene has:
DMS-8 ARIZONA TEA CAN
One (1) Arizona brand name tea can located and collected from a top the medical blanket over the victim.
Where is this watermelon thing coming from?
everlastingphelps said:
The crime scene photos clearly show that the can on top of the medical blanket is an Arizona Tea Brand Watermelon Cocktail, not an iced tea.
James F said:
Evidence photos show a can of Arizona watermelon juice cocktail, which contains no tea and the word tea is nowhere on the can. Since the Arizona company is so well known for their teas, it seems many assume the juice products are tea, including the police officer who wrote that sloppy evidence statement.
SlingTrebuchet said:
Ah! The crime scene techs couldn’t spell “Watermelon”. Tea was easier?
A photo of a can on a yellow blanket seems to be Arizona Watermelon. THe Arizona Iced Tea can is a different colour.
That seems very sloppy work.
leander22 said:
It’s all over the web, Sling, Google even lists Stormfront. Mike initially picked it up from the Conservative Tree House I forget which article, today he linked to Cashill writing for The American Thinker, who picked up the rumor too. One of the links above he recommends as an introduction or something to keep in mind before listening to DeeDee. Strictly, I still consider this perception management. I do not have a conspectus of the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case as treated here yet. Will need a little time.
SlingTrebuchet said:
Yes. I had gone looking and found that photo.
By the time I had typed and posted, both everlasting and James had got in ahead of me.
It’s not something that I had given any thought to.
I gather that the discussion of it is to indicate the Martin uses it to get high and this would make him more likely to attack someone?
– And because this sort of activity would make him more violent, he must have attacked Zimmerman?
It seems a bit of a build.
—————————————————————————————————–
Speaking of reasons to attack someone, here is a little quiz.
At the first bond hearing, Zimmerman’s mother was asked about his assault on the ATF officers who were questioning his friend about under age drinking.
The following questions are multiple-choice answer:
1. Why are you following me?
(A) I’m the local Neighbourhood Watch
(B) What are you doing around here?
2. You got a problem, homie?
(A) I’m the local Neighbourhood Watch
(B) No
If you have answered (B) to either or both questions, go directly to jail. Do not pass the 7-11
SlingTrebuchet said:
Go on!
Splutter your mouthful of Watermelon drink all over the screen and keyboard.
You know you want to :)
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear Slingtrebuchet:
Hi there. I deleted the rimshot video–funny–but such things do eat up my graphics memory. I’d appreciate it if in the future, you link to rather than embed such things. Thanks!
everlastingphelps said:
That’s why he didn’t follow their orders. As to why he assaulted them, it is because they used force against a friend of his. If you conflate those two when it comes to sworn testimony, you probably also think that Zimmerman’s wife perjured herself.
SlingTrebuchet said:
You genuinely don’t get it?
What it may come down to is:
Zimmerman ignored all common sense and clear Neighbourhood Watch procedures when he left the truck and headed along that path into a dark area, when he had no sight of Martin.
He was not “Observing from a safe distance”
The place he was going into was not safe in the circumstances. He had no guarantee of distance.
He ignored parallel advice in “We don’t need you to do that”.
He had gotten himself into a situation – by being reckless.
In order to defend his actions, he has to be in a position where he had no reasonable means to extricate himself.
Having got there, he had first agreed to extricate himself back to the mailboxes to meet the patrol.
Then he changed his mind for some reason.
When he encountered Martin, he had options.
a) He could get the hell out
b) He could identify himself.
By his own story, he made no attempt to do either.
Martin: Got a problem, homie?
Zimmerman: (See answer 2.B above)
By the girls’ story, he made no attempt to do either
Martin: Why are you following me?
Zimmerman: (See answer 1.B above)
Martin is looking at a stranger who has followed him into the dark.
The stranger makes no attempt to explain what he is doing – either up front or when challenged.
The stranger is clearly some sort of threat.
There are various stories coming out of the Zimmerman family about when exactly Martin noticed the gun.
Both parents and brother seem agreed that they ended up struggling for the gun.
A neighbour of the parents says that they were told that the fight started when Zimmerman went for his phone and Martin saw the gun.
“Gladys says George said the officers never identified themselves as such”
Can you see any pattern here?
James F said:
The point is about reporting facts of evidence as accurately as possible. You never know whether a seemingly insignificant fact might tie in with other evidence during an investigation.
Another point is ‘tea and skittles’ has become a symbol for this incident and thousands of people engaging in hero worship posed with the wrong beverage.
Another point is Dee Dee said it was tea. Are we supposed to believe that during the course of her lengthy conversation with Trayvon, where he relayed so much minutiae, that he never mentioned what he actually bought during his big trip to 7-11? Are we to believe that such a close friend does not know her friends preferred beverage? I know all my close friend’s favorite drinks. Tea was part of the Crump narrative and might indicate Dee Dee was coached, or influenced by the ‘tea and skittles’ media blitz.
SlingTrebuchet said:
Take the #Zimmerman #TrayvonMartin Quiz – http://zimmermanscall.blogspot.com/p/quiz.html
Aussie said:
the photograph from the scene of the death was Arizona Watermelon Juice. The can that was purchased and is seen on the CCTV footage at the 7-11 is Arizona Watermelon Juice.
It was not a can of iced tea.
SlingTrebuchet said:
Hi Mike.
No butt-hurt on my end for you nuking it – the YouTube. I mean :)
I posted the URL just like any other general URL of course, but the blog software processed that into a hyperlinked screen-shot.
I can see that a bunch of people posting links to YouTube could accumulate over all the various threads into a significant issue for hosting.
There really ought to be a blog option to stop that conversion of a link to a graphic. The world seems to be happy with links to web pages just remaining links.
Thanks for hosting the discussion by the way.
It’s stimulating to engage with people who have very different takes on situations.
It’s great when we can all get along like adults and not resort to abuse. Resisting any urge to lash out tones up our moral fibre.
Sandy said:
Leander- With the first discover release, one of the pictures in evidence clearly shows a red Arizona Watermellon Juice can. It is not a lie, it is not a fabrication. It is right there for you to see if you care to look.
Leander, the race card, and the politically correct cards have expired. To imply that Mike and/or American Thinker are racist doesn’t pass the laugh test. Now, if you claimed that both websites are not fans of a continuing Obama presidency, then you would be correct, but, it has nothing to do with race, but everything to do with failed polices.
leander22 said:
but everything to do with failed polices.
bomb, bomb, bomb; bomb, bomb Iran. To the tune of Barbara Anne?
Sandy said:
What does bomb Iran have to do with the present conversation? Obama owns his history as president in 2012, he can’t run from it, much as he would love to. This is not a discussion of Obama though. You claimed that Mike and American Thinker were racist. I disagreed with you that neither can remotely be called racist, which you seem to believe because they are not pro-Obama, or pro-Trayvon. There really are people out there and here that are trying to get to the facts and truth of what happened that fateful night. It doesn’t make anyone for or against Trayvon, as they have looked at the facts in the case and the facts in the case point to a valid self-defense case for George Zimmerman. If you haven’t even gone and read the 183 page prosecution release, you have little room to argue your case. For example, one of the prosecution pictures released clearly showed a red Arizona Watermellon juice can. If you refuse to look at the actual evidence, then you don’t have much room to talk.
leander22 said:
Sandy, I am highly sceptical concerning Obama, but I tend to be even more sceptical concerning the GOP side.
My core problem is actually pretty egoistical, if the US continues with the foreign policy that the GOP in union with the American Neoconservatives suggests, it may well bring the US down to it’s knees, and that will have consequences for us Europeans too. We are far too interconnected. It simply feels to me that The American Thinker is one of the propagandists for the American empire, or a decades long war against series of governments in the ME, the War on Terrorism, that may well fall in the long run even without revolutions. Notice, I am basically a completely non-political person. But I also think the problems we have already due to a changing environment are big enough already. Consider the costs of Afghanistan and the Iraq war, and then look at both countries and ask yourself, is it really that much better now? What are the precise benefits for the US from these wars? Add to that series of similar wars and the cost of it for Americans not only in life. That’s what I am concerned about, as I said, strictly for very egoistical reasons, since I do not want the US to go down. The GOP promises to cut deficits, I understand, but seems to be willing to start another war, where do you think the money for more wars will come from?
That’s were the McCain song enters my mental stage.
leander22 said:
I should start to proofread:
his
futherfuture half-brother?leander22 said:
Sandy, I didn’t imply Mike is a racist, I do not form my judgments that fast. It’s usually a more complex process, sometimes it takes years. But yes, The American Thinker is not my cup of tea, the English say, politically, and some of the articles I consider borderline, twisting racism a little to fit an specific agenda.
And since politics is not my main interest, let me give you one example from the arts:
Jazz Succumbs to Racism by Thomas Lifson himself which I found rather mind boggling.
If I may cite my late web friend screenwriter and music expert David Mills aka Undercover Black Man:
And strictly I wouldn’t even care if Trayvon would indeed have bought the watermelon juice for whatever drug cocktail. To make it matter in our context he would have needed to have swallowed it at the time, don’t you think?
But what about the blunts then, why are they additionally necessary? Or are they not really important, important would be that he met other “thugs”, no? That is the important part with all it’s associations.
Besides the level of THC found in his body does not support the idea that he was heigh, experts say. Remember when he is dead, this stuff can’t be “decomposed” (?) anymore. Besides it stays in the body in traces rather long.
All I ask for is a little bit more precision and expertise. I am willing to not smear George Zimmerman either, see?
Let me pick up on Skittles and Watermelon Juice. Who suggested the Skittles were for his future half-brother? If someone said that, at least the scenario suggests this, he must have known what Trayvon wanted this really for, why else would he say they were for the younger boy? Who would that be? Tracy Martin? Do you think at his age he is still informed about this stuff? Do you think Trayvon told him. So who had an interest to hide something? Police? Really?
Besides using whatever cough medicine, this is centuries old, just as some kids sniff adhesives, or polite society uses legal drugs, painkillers, sleeping pills etc. Even I heard about all this before. Not the watermelon, skittles combination, but I’ll look into the genesis of this, It surely can’t turn into a dangerous drug given the other ingredients and keep in mind, it does not matter here, thus it can serve only to smear.
Besides I am slightly skeptic concerning the origins of the visual Trayvon-the-thug-evidence, I only believe the stuff I have faked myself. ;)
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear Leander22:
Here’s why the blunts and watermelon juice are important factors in this case.
(1) Blood test results indicate that at the time of his death, Martin had been smoking marijuana in amounts sufficient to render him under the influence for the purposes of driving in some states.
(2) Substantial evidence–much of it in Martin’s own words–exists to suggest that he regularly used “Lean,” the concoction made from the particular watermelon “cocktail” and Skittle or Jolly Rancher candies.
(3) The Prosecution refuses to release the results of Martin’s urine test. My guess–and it’s only a guess based on everything else we know–is that this test indicates an even higher marijuana level such that Martin had to have been smoking pot shortly before meeting Zimmerman. It’s also possible other drug traces are in that urine sample as well.
So you see, considering that kids buy cheap cigars–blunts–and hollow them out to fill them with marijuana, and considering that Martin appears to have used the three buys that followed him into the 7-Eleven to buy at least one blunt, these are indeed important matters.
Please be assured that this “lean” concoction can indeed be dangerous, even deadly.
May I suggest you review my earlier articles in this series? I’ve spoken to all of these issues and/or provided links to excellent articles by others that very well document Martin’s less than upstanding behaviors and habits.
I also know that many Europeans believe that most Americans are racist, but I’m proud to say that the civil rights movement has won, and won long ago. Racists are not welcome in police society, and the overwhelming majority of Americans think actual racists are idiots and treat them as such. There are indeed many crying “racism” these days, but their charges are usually not honest and tend to substitute for actual arguments, and as a means to try to shut up political opponents.
Aussie said:
as a follow on regarding lean and the MJ…. I had checked out some links on any connection between lean, MJ and paranoia. From this I did learn that when the consumption of lean is combined with the consumption of MJ the person can end up paranoid.
My own interest here is based upon knowledge gained from a young man who had a history with drugs, who talked about his paranoia when he heard police sirens (because he had broken windows in an abandoned school). Also there is the Jared Loughner case where he had consumed both MJ and another drug which very likely made him paranoid.
Many people refuse to acknowledge the possibility that the consumption of MJ can lead to paranoia so, if there was a combination of drugs this is more likely. My research did in fact indicate that there was a high probability that the consumption of both lean and MJ can lead to paranoia.
From this angle, I look at the facts of this case and what I see is that paranoia within TM could have been triggered because he noticed that he was being watched. He had a fear of being roped (per his own fb page). If he had contraband on him (weed and blunts) it is possible that he ran back to Brandi Green’s apartment so that he could dump the contraband. He then returned to take care of the person who had been watching him.
There are questions about whether or not he was wearing the button during his attack on GZ. In other words was it on his shirt or did he remove it in preparation for the attack. Also, there are questions about whether or not his ear buds were in his jacket or not…. meaning DeeDee’s account is somewhat defective because she could not have heard anything via the earbuds.
Also, some of the DeeDee testimony is meant to counter TM’s own paranoia with the claim that GZ was crazy or weird.
SlingTrebuchet said:
The levels of Adderall and Temazepam in Zimmerman’s system on the night are unknown.
For some reason, he was not tested for alcohol and drugs.
I don’t know if he was tested for these after he had assaulted ATF officers a few years previously.
Whatever about the Adderall and Temazepa levels and thei side effects, it is clear from his voice and words that he was highly dosed on natural Adrenaline at the time.
This would be from the after effects of his ‘Fight or Flight’ moment that we can so clearly hear in the call recording.
His voice goes suddenly from near panic to a relatively aggressive “These ***. They always get away.” and then to “F***ing ****s”.
He’s pumped up.
So this was a fight between two druggies – one of whom had previously been arrested for assaulting ATF officers. Right?
SlingTrebuchet said:
Since this incident would appear to be describable as two druggies in a fight, it might be useful to describe it in a form of street talk.
(I dun take lessons frum de interview I heerd)
———————————————————————————————–
Oooooh! Dat Trayvon. He wuz one bad ass. He da Watermelon Man.
But he done met up wid a badder ass.
Georgie Zimmerman he wuz sick in de hed. He go to de doc and de doc done gib him de chemiculs to mak dat bad sick stuff go way frum hiz hed.
But de chemiculs done made him crazy in udder wayz
Ooooooh! He had de rage a hiden inside back of de eyes. Don’ go mezzin wid Georgie. He liabul to shoot yo n yo dog
So Trayvon done walk up ta Georgie and gib hem de ebil eye. An Georgie he get real mad. He say he gonna git dat Trayvon. Travon not gonna git aways dis time. An Georgie falls to cussin his ass.
So he follows him n he lost him n he run frum de back but den he gits to him.
An Trayvon say WTF an Georgie say you know right WTF an he shoots his ass.
leander22 said:
Mike, I don’t think that can be said in such a general way. Maybe I can speak at least for some Europeans? Just as the topic surely has a specific touch to it in Germany, no?
Besides there is a very simple reason why I would never assume something even closely in its generality, and that has to do with the realisation, maybe I should bother about our own home-grown racists first, understand what I mean?
To the extend racial prejudice exists and is part of every human community, it may well be present in police circles too. I could cite from notes a friend of mine he took during his police training here in Germany between 1976 and 1978, when he had to stop because it was reported, he did this regularly. He left police in 1979 after three years as a fully trained officer and studied art. He had a transcript at home–only the booklet he used for the notes had been confiscated–and published it anonymously after he had left police for friends only with invented names for teachers and students. You would be surprised how easy it seemed to be still in 1976 to joke about “the Jews” and their history during National-Socialism for a teacher with the class joining him in laughter based on rather sick jokes.
I surely will read all your articles concerning Martin – Zimmerman, but it is already apparent we have a different take on marijuana. I met many people using it for recreational reasons, as other people use alcohol. I never met the aggression I experienced with alcohol use. I accept your opposite opinion on that. But there are even police officers over here that would like to see it legalized in some cases based on decades of experience.
leander22 said:
something even closely in its generality,
I shouldn’t have changed that it feels. Maybe I should take a class with you?
something even close in its generality?
OK, the whole sentence is bad. ;)
everlastingphelps said:
No.
leander22 said:
Mike, concerning leander22, usually it’s LeaNder, but that wasn’t available. 22 is simply one of my favorite numbers and since “leander”, was taken already I had to add something. Not that it matters, but it feels odd to me to be addressed with that number, no matter how much I like it. I could have added 13 or 4 too. But don’t read this as my insistance to be addresses as LeaNder, lea is find with me.
Aussie said:
@sling.
First of all when adderal is prescribed it is usually for ADHD and it works to slow the brain down.
Temazepam is usually prescribed for sleep disorders. It is only meant to be taken before going to bed. As such it is extremely doubtful that GZ would have taken a Temazepam and then gone shopping. There is just no way that would have happened.
The dosage of adderal would be adjusted to his needs. From what I understand it would be taken in the morning.
Adderal which is pure amphetamine as opposed to the type made in a drug factory would only have bad effects on people who do not have conditions such as ADHD.
To imply anything else, especially when the drug is prescribed is totally deceitful.
James F said:
I originally posted this several hours ago but it never showed up for some reason, so I am posting it again.
One inconsistency that jumped out at me is how during her interview with Crump, she made a point of stating that Trayvon put on his hood because Zimmerman was watching him, not because of rain as she claims in the BDLR interview. You can listen to her statement at 0:20 in this youtube video:
It is illegal to cover your face with anything, specifically a hood, while walking down a public road in Florida, with the intent to intimidate, threaten, abuse, or harass any other person; or While she or he was engaged in conduct that could reasonably lead to the institution of a civil or criminal proceeding against her or him, with the intent of avoiding identification in such a proceeding.
DeeDee verified Trayvon’s intent to use his hood to hide his face and also testified that Trayvon approached Zimmerman’s vehicle, possibly circling if the leaks are accurate. This could be construed as threatening and harassing behavior.
876.12 Wearing mask, hood, or other device on public way.—No person or persons over 16 years of age shall, while wearing any mask, hood, or device whereby any portion of the face is so hidden, concealed, or covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer, enter upon, or be or appear upon any lane, walk, alley, street, road, highway, or other public way in this state.
876.155 Applicability; ss. 876.12-876.15.—The provisions of ss. 876.12-876.15 apply only if the person was wearing the mask, hood, or other device:
(1) With the intent to deprive any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws or for the purpose of preventing the constituted authorities of this state or any subdivision thereof from, or hindering them in, giving or securing to all persons within this state the equal protection of the laws;
(2) With the intent, by force or threat of force, to injure, intimidate, or interfere with any person because of the person’s exercise of any right secured by federal, state, or local law or to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from exercising any right secured by federal, state, or local law;
(3) With the intent to intimidate, threaten, abuse, or harass any other person; or
(4) While she or he was engaged in conduct that could reasonably lead to the institution of a civil or criminal proceeding against her or him, with the intent of avoiding identification in such a proceeding.
EDITOR’S NOTE: I’ve replaced the actual You Tube video with a link. The real thing takes a great deal of my available graphics memory. I appreciate the information, but please link to such things rather than embed them. Thanks!
SlingTrebuchet said:
Your ‘hoodie’ law does not apply.
The truck was parked on Martin’s route from the 7-11 to where he was staying.
Zimmerman certainly felt intimidated. We can hear that clearly as he freaks when Martin passes him.
Zimmerman feeling intimidated does not mean that Martin intended to intimidate him.
In any case, we have to wait on his statements to se if he asserted that Martin was wearing a hoodie in such a way that it looked as intended to hide his face.
Rumours about what Zimmerman told the cops are about to be dispelled.
His statements will be released within 15 days.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-06-13/news/os-george-zimmerman-records-20120613_1_law-enforcement-high-profile-cases-second-degree-murder
You mentioned circling.
The word seems pretty good on him asserting that.
His problem there is that it is abundantly clear that such circling could not have happened. It’s a mathematical impossibility, withing the record of Zimmerman’s words and voice.
I have a specific analysis of this on my blog.
There are other inconsistencies in his statements, if we go by leaks to the Orlando Sentinel.
We shall see.
James F said:
It is not my ‘hoodie’ law. It is Florida’s.
DeeDee is on record stating Trayvon put up his hoodie in direct response to being seen, presumably to hide his identity. This is suspicious behavior.
At the very least it should nullify accusations of Zimmerman improperly profiling Trayvon because he was wearing a hoodie.
juggler523 said:
To SlingTrebuchet –
Concerning your “circling” dismissal.
First – What is the the relevance whether it happened or not.
Second – you saying it was a mathematical certainty that it did NOT happen is a reach. First, how do you define “circling”? How did Zimmerman characterize “circling”? Did he even USE the word “circling”? Do you assume that “circling” means executing a 360-degree circumnavigation of a particular object or area (in this case, Zimmerman’s car)? Are you dismissing the possibility that perhaps Zimmerman was describing Martin’s general walking pattern (again, if he ever even said anything referencing “circling”? Maybe Zimmerman was describing a circular pattern of walking, without limiting its definition to that which you appear to have adopted, and to which you have apparently applied a mathematical time-distance formula. Since you are merely guessing on this whole issue, pretty much anything you write about it is hypothetical.
SlingTrebuchet said:
We will know within 15 days what Zimmerman said about that night’s events.In the meantime, we only have leaks and what his family say.
The Orlando sentinel appeared to have a fairly reliable inside source. So much so that Sanford issued a press release stating that the stories were consistent with what they had sent to the prosecutor – and intimated that a head would roll if they could find an appropriate neck.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-05-03/news/os-trayvon-martin-circles-george-zimmerman-20120503_1_special-prosecutor-angela-corey-source-police-department
I think we are talking about circling of the ‘walking around the truck in an intimidating manner’ variety.
I don’t thing we are talking about Martin whipping out a tutu from under the hoodie and doing pirouettes.
juggler523 said:
You wrote above:
“His problem there is that it is abundantly clear that such circling could not have happened. It’s a mathematical impossibility, withing the record of Zimmerman’s words and voice. I have a specific analysis of this on my blog.”
My response:
1. How do you define circling? Is your definition the same as Zimmerman’s? Did Zimmerman even USE that exact term?
a. Could “circling” be adequately described as someone walking in an arc-like pattern partially around an object? How BIG of an arc? How many degrees in that arc? What linear distance? (UNKNOWNS!)
b. If circling CAN be described using an arc-like pattern and not necessarily a complete 360-degree circle, could it then have happened, especially taking into account your speculative time/distance calculations?
2. What makes you think that Zimmerman’s narration of events was:
a. real-time (meaning every action he described occurred immediately before or concurrently as he described it)? He could have been quite general in his comments – not bothering to deliver every detail of Martin’s movements. and perhaps not delivering them immediately with a second or two? Certainly, it is reasonable to suggest that SOME of Martin’s more “significant” actions were described immediately, but it is presumptuous to suggest that all of them were.
b. all-inclusive (meaning he described every action that occurred, bar none)? Maybe Zimmerman didn’t feel it necessary to narrate every single innocuous action made by Trayvon Martin. After all, the man had called the dispatcher and was making arrangements for officers to come, was describing how to find him, etc. He was taling about other things as he observed Martin.
3. Your “mathematical impossibility” is based on faulty “math” and moving variables that are impossible for you to pin down absent additional information. You presume far too much, including the following:
a. exact location of Zimmerman’s car (an unknown)
b. exact location of Trayvon Martin at any given time of movement (an unknown)
c. exact rates of movement (an unknown)
d. exact distances traveled (an unknown)
e. exact routes taken (as if all paths were direct from unknown Point A to unknown Point B) (unknown)
f. exact times when movement took place (you seem to presume that actions took place immediately when described) (unknown)
You have taken at least some of these six unknowns (there are certainly more), mixed them up in a recipe with your mathematical formula and you have somehow arrived at what you describe as mathematical impossibility.
The only mathematical impossibility here is YOU being able to support with any reasonable certainty that which you have claimed is a mathematical impossibility
SlingTrebuchet said:
Juggler
“Circling” of a nature that Zimmerman appears to have made a point of describing it in his statements. We’re talking behaviour of significance. Not some vague ‘might be’.
As in the comment that you are responding to:
The source said Zimmerman’s account of events hasn’t changed in his several statements to police — in which he said he was so unnerved by the teen’s behavior that he rolled up his window to avoid a confrontation. However, he never mentioned any of that while talking to the dispatcher.
………
At an April 20 bond hearing in Sanford, Dale Gilbreath, an investigator for Special Prosecutor Angela Corey, testified that Zimmerman told authorities he was frightened because Trayvon circled him while he sat in his SUV.
“Mathematics” as in very simple = He runs out of available seconds in which it can be done.
The analysis does not consider innocuous actions or their timing. It notes actions that are considered significant by Zimmerman. The significance is denoted by Zimmerman’s describing them together with the tone of his voice. Naturally the analysis considers that the description can only follow the action.
What is the significance of this?
Within 15 days, we will have sight of Zimmerman’s statements. The strong indications (above) that he described circling of a significant variety indicate that the actual statements will show this.
Nobody need take my word for anything. Anyone can do that circling exercise with a stopwatch. Anyone an run that timing against Zimmerman’s voice tone and words in the recording. Bring in specialists & experts to analyse the recording.
The recording of what and when Zimmerman said, the tone of his voice and the background sounds are set in concrete for all eternity.
This will speak volumes for Zimmerman’s credibility when set against his statements.
His own words and voice in that recording could spell his downfall.
A similar situation arises for his explanation of the time gap between the call ending and the the struggle beginning. Much will depend on how closely he was questioned.
Questions may also arise about his description of the struggle in those statements.
How did he end up 50 feet down the path?
Did he describe an argument longer than “You got a problem Homie?” – “No”
If not, how to explain the earwitness accounts of something loud and extended before it got to screams for help?
We will find out a great deal within 15 days.
juggler523 said:
To SlingTrebuchet –
You wrote: “T-Mobile has that reconnection at 7:12 – but that could be between 7:11 and 7:13”
I believe you are incorrect here. If the call began BEFORE 7:12, it would not be recorded as having begun at ANY time after 7:12.
The margin of error for the start of a phone call is potentially +59 seconds (never potentially -59 seconds). So, if the phone call is recorded as beginning at 7:12, it could actually have begun at any point from 7:12:00 to 7:12:59. Likewise, if the call ended even ONE second after a new minute began, it would be counted as a FULL minute, even if it lasted only one second beyond that minute.
So, the call between Dee Dee and Trayvon Martin could NOT have begun before 7:12:00, and, since it lasted “four minutes”, the earliest it could have ended was 7:15:01. The latest it could have ended would have been 7:16:00.
Bottom line – Dee Dee claimed she was talking WITH Trayvon Martin when he took off running, after seeing Zimmerman in the car on his phone, etc. That is impossible.
SlingTrebuchet said:
I’ve seen pages on this T-Mobile timing that indicate a – as well as a +. T-Mobile stamping seems to be dodgy.
I’ll have a look later. I wasn’t particularly looking at those calls until I saw this thread.
My analysis has 37 seconds elapsing between Martin passing Zimmerman’s truck and Zimmerman saying “He’s running”
He says that at 7:11:41
The girl’s description – despite the incredible investigator – seems to have Martin walking away from the guy when the call reconnects.
That reconnection could happen at 7:11:30 and still leave time for the information that appears to have been passed.
It’s not as if there is an uncertainty of minutes here. it’s a matter of seconds.
For the basis of my numbers , see http://zimmermanscall.blogspot.com/p/page-2.html
JOC56 said:
First I would like to commend you on assembling a time and distance line. I had attempted doing one of my own and yours is much better. Having said that I have an issue with at least 2 things.
The first issue is with the timing of the start of the fight. You only allow 11 seconds for the fight to start from the the 911 call beginning at 7:16:11. I think the ‘fight’ (by fight I am including the meeting which led up to actual punches being thrown) began much earlier than that. When the call connects you can already hear screaming in the background. I don’t think there is any possible way for the fight to have started only 11 seconds before we hear screaming. According to multiple witnesses including the woman who placed the 911 call which connected at 9:16:11 there was yelling and a ‘scuffle’ before the screams for help. Reading the witness statements I would suggest that at least 30 to 45 seconds transpired between the original ‘meeting’ and the screams on the 911 call.
As an aside before I take up issue #2, I agree with you that after exiting his truck Zimmerman most likely continued down the walkway east to Retreat View Circle when he ended his call to dispatch. I think he waited there for the police because he wanted to show them where the last spot TM was seen. I don’t think he wanted to walk back to his truck and then have to walk with the police back to where he last saw TM. I also think he was frustrated with trying to give dispatch directions and thought that talking directly to the police would be easier. I think he may well have lingered there for a minute before deciding ‘screw it’ and heading back to his truck. It will be interesting to see what he says he did when his statements are released.
Issue #2 involves the body being 50′ feet down the walkway from the ‘T’. I don’t have an issue with the body being there but rather your implication that the fight must have started there. GZ’s key chain was found only a few feet to the southeast of the ‘T’. This seems like the logical place where the fight started. The shell casing was found 39′ from the key chain. 13 yards is not a lot of distance to move during a fight. Envision a punch knocking you to the ground and then someone jumping on top of you. The ground is wet and you are squirming trying to get out from under your attacker for at least 45 seconds. I can easily see 13 yards being traversed in this scenario.
In no way is this meant to disparage the fine work you have done assembling the time line. You have definitely helped put things into focus and if GZ’s explanation doesn’t fit then I am prepared to change my opinion on what I think happened that night.
SlingTrebuchet said:
Thanks JOC
At this stage, with the release of the statements imminent, it’s probably better to wait and see (for the first time directly) how Zimmerman explained events.
Continuing right now would be like unnecessary cruel treatment of a horse that is sleeping soundly rather than dead.
That 11-second thing was a shortest possible sort of guess given that the woman’s interview indicated that she would have a hair-trigger on alerting 911.
Having the initial confrontation 30 to 45 seconds before the 911 would extend the fight duration to between 1.5 and 2 minutes. This would be massively out of step with the simple immediate decking and pinning that has been the given wisdom on Zimmerman’s story since day.1
We’ll see the statements shortly.
Don’t worry about ‘disparagement’. I’m very much open to information.
I had a concept of ‘circling’ for example and Everlastingphelps came in with useful information that makes sense to me.
I’m just wondering about the truth of what happened. I hope that my graphics and timelines can bring some sense of rational order to some of the wilder speculation that I’ve seen on this incident. I’ve seen the pair being warp-transported to all corners of the gated community.
The only pony that I have in this race is a belief that Zimmerman’s behaviour was extremely reckless in all the circumstances.
I await the statements with interest.
They won’t be the whole story, but they should be illuminating.
SlingTrebuchet said:
Mike!
Tell JOC to stop.
He’s MAKING me do stuff. Honest. it’s not my fault :)
——
Did Zimmerman’s clothes like he had travelled on his back over soaking wet concrete and grass for a distance of nearly 50 feet?
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear SlingTrebuchet:
His clothing did not look that way, but I have not suggested that happened. The fact is, we still don’t know precisely where the “scuffle” began and how it manifested in a second by second manner. This again illustrates the danger of trying to assert that we know with any real degree of certainty precisely what did or didn’t happen at this point in this matter.
everlastingphelps said:
Yes, the dampness and grass damage was noted in the police report.
SlingTrebuchet said:
Maybe check the photographs….
Extent of?
Consistent with being decked.
Not consistent with a 50 foot long journey on his back with Martin riding him.
SlingTrebuchet said:
Mike,
Responding to your post:
It’s good that the statements are about to be released.
In all of this time, we’ve never seen anything directly from Zimmerman. We’ve had leaks and whatever family and friends have said.
From Day.1, the story of the fight has been Martin saying something short, Zimmerman saying No, Martin saying something followed by an immediate decking and straddling. Where on earth did that come from?
I should expect that the actual statements will contain an account of a considerably longer fight that moved on foot and only became a decking perhaps at the pavement immediately beside where the body ended up.
The clothing is consistent with a decking and no more.
The smart-phone photo of Zimmerman’s head apparently taken immediately after the shooting also shows no sign that it would basically have been the front end of a plough that took part of the combined weight of two men over any distance of rain-soaked concrete and/or grass.
juggler523 said:
I have read your “analysis” of the call, the distances, etc. I do not care to critique every fallible point, as it would take far too much space here.
Let me generalize my disagreement with your conclusions, not for the conclusions themselves, but for the myopic approach you use in arriving at them. I will use this example, quoting from your own words:
“Martin Approaches truck Feet/second 4.3 Seconds 35 Feet 150.5
Martin Depart until “he’s running” Feet/second 5.9 Seconds 37 Feet 218.3
Zimmerman reacts, gets out of truck Seconds 9
Zimmerman walk Feet/second 4.3 Seconds 4 Feet 17.2
Zimmerman fast to “OK” Feet/second 8.8 Seconds 8 Feet 70.4
Zimmerman fast to Stop Feet/second 8.8 Seconds 12 Feet 105.6″
You go on to say:
“We can take these distance segments and lay them out scaled on the map. They are estimates, but not ones dreamed up out of nowhere.
Zimmerman’s estimated speed seems about right to me from the sound pattern and breathing”
And:
“What about trying the distances? We can read them off a map, but here’s an easy way – Google Earth. This has a ruler tool that allows us to click on a point then move the mouse towards another point, while the ruler readout shows the distance in whatever units we select. That gives a really easy way to check the calculated distances at different start points on the map.”
MY critique of your “analysis”.
a. You have no IDEA how quickly either Zimmerman OR Martin walked, whether their pace was consistent, or for exactly how long, OR whether the distance covered at any point was linear. So, if you are off by even 2 seconds and even .5ft per second, your description of Martin’s approach to the truck could be 25ft lesser or greater than your conclusion. OH, and you have no idea if that pace remained constant and linear, so his actual distance covered is mere supposition. This also means you cannot be certain where the start point is for Martin’s NEXT maneuver, or the pace, OR the linear dimension of his exact route.
b. You have implied (perhaps inadvertently) that you can be relatively certain of Zimmerman’s estimated speed from the sound pattern and breathing. Impossible! You neither know Zimmerman’s cardiovascular condition the evening of February 26, nor do you know what the wind conditions were at exactly the time he was pursuing Martin. The wind may have already been kicked up and could have effected the sound in his phone even if he was walking slowly. Or it could have made sounds if he was stationary. His breathing could have been heavily labored merely walking – he may have been excited and already breathing heavily merely at the prospect of leaving the safety of his vehicle, or he may have not been affected in any measurable way at all. You cannot even venture a guess as to the correctness of your conclusion, as there are probably a half dozen alternate and equally valid (or invalid, as yours may be) conclusions to choose from.
c. Your use of Google Earth to calculate distances. As stated above, this pre-supposes straight linear distances from a point A to a Point B, with no delay in between and no deviation from what you believe to be a specific and accurate route. Again, you have attempted to make the impossible seem calculable.
Let me conclude by saying this. In the military, land navigation is a fairly exact science. It involves angles, azimuths, and calculated distances. If one’s azimuth is even just a couple degrees off in either direction along a route of any appreciable distance, one will end up out of sight even of the intended destination. You have achieved exactly that in your faulty science. You have also made behavioral suppositions that have no basis, other than your own personal guesswork. It has all lent itself to suspect conclusions.
You would be well-advised to glean for the expertise and analytical skills and experience of the author of THIS blog to improve your own analysis and conclusions.
SlingTrebuchet said:
Juggler
My “analysis” of your analysis of my analysis point by point would probably take too long as well. I’ll deal with the points in a general overview.
You seemed to have missed out on
1. the methodology
2. the fact that the times are not estimated – which reduces the scope for error in the distances when the speeds are estimated. I did make a point of talking about the speed estimates and the possibilities for variations.
It’s not blind guesswork.
I started with the recording of the call. I noted the seconds at which events are described by Zimmerman and the times of background noises.
None of those timing are estimates. Those timings are set in concrete.
e.g. 3 seconds from “He’s running” to the door chime. 9 seconds total from “He’s running” to the door slam and mechanical/bump noises – at the end of which he is free to be moving.
Seconds between Zimmerman saying things as Martin came closer to the truck, with a note of his voice tone.
There is a guess at the second at which – going by the panicked note in Zimmerman’s voice disappearing – Martin was obviously departing. If there is a margin of error in that, it’s no more than a second bearing in mind the situation.
The only real estimates involved are the speeds at which they moved. I had thought that I had made that clear in the analysis. Martin’s approach speed would be the most open to significant deviation.
I ended up with a table of time-lined distances.
The next step was to see how those distances would work out.
Think of the situation like a hamburger. The top bun is Martin’s approach. The meat is the truck. The bottom bun is Martin departing up to “He’s running”.
It is clear from Zimmerman’s directions that the events are taking place in Twin Trees to the east of the clubhouse.
The overall maximum depth of our hamburger is the distance from (near) the clubhouse to the top townhouses backing onto the central path.
I had a ‘sort-of’ approach distance for Martin. His speed away from the truck for 37 seconds was clearly less than a run, as Zimmerman only remarks on a run after that time passes.
Although I had not heard the girls description of Martin reporting “Guy looked crazy” at the time of the estimates. I was bearing in mind that Zimmerman’s voice tone indicated that his face would look distorted/strange as he looked out at Martin close by. That led me to estimate that Martin would not be departing slowly. A fast walk seemed appropriate – particularly as it was a build up to a state of “run”.
Zimmerman’s speed is a guess – but not a totally wild one. He’s not running. The voice control does not allow for it. He’s not at normal walking pace. His breathing indicates otherwise. It’s fast-walk to jog. Did you see the video of him walking up the stairs in the police station a few days later? He’s not very unfit. He’s not a ‘lard-ass’.
The big question was the position of the truck. Even though I had guessed at other locations, I tried the one indicated by Taaffe who said that Zimmerman had given him that. There was also a photograph taken on the night of police near a truck at what seems to be that approximate position – although by no means certain that this was the actual truck.
Even though that position and the direction faced seemed a bit crazy for the circumstances as I understood them, I noticed the unique sightlines that it afforded.
When I tried the table of distances against that location, it was like two parts of a machine coming together.
It was’ just’ close enough to the clubhouse so that Martin would not have to move fast on the approach. I think that if he has moved fast towards the truck, Zimmerman would have noted it. As it happened, his voice is quite calm as he describes the approach. it is only in the final seconds of the approach that his voice shows concern. If you move the truck further away from the clubhouse and closer to the path, Martin is going to have a hard time in getting to the party on time.
When I ran the distances for Zimmerman, it turned out that for the time he appears to slow – his breathing turns to normal and he begins a detailed conversation with the Dispatcher – the distance from the truck position has him just rounding the back corner of the townhouse and being able to view the central path area. It is just the precise location at which one would naturally slow.
That was an uncanny moment. I thought “No. This is too neat. There’s got to be a catch”.
I did consider a case of Martin going South down Twin Trees, but there was a problem of sightline from the truck preventing sight of him by the time of “He’s running”.
In any case, Taffe is saying that both Martin and Zimmerman went along the footpath.
What you say about taking distances off maps would be quite true as a general rule. I am well aware of the situation with maps and terrain. I do orienteering events. That involves map reading to a skill level at the very least equal to any military mind.
The general case does not apply in this particular case.
The road and paths are basically level. There is only a slight incline on the path between the road and the T-junction. The only bend is a slight dog-leg in the path. The difference between following the curve of the bend and dog leg compared to a straight line if 5 feet maximum.
It’s all level paved surface surrounded by manicured grass.
The overall distances are not large enough to cause significant differences for small adjustments to speed.
If you think that Zimmerman was moving slower than ‘my’ jog, you raise an issue for many Zimmerman-supportive people. I started out on metrics due to frustration with someone who asserted – without any basis – that “We don’t need you to do that” happened near the T-junction and that Zimmerman promptly returned to his truck then. I showed that even if the truck were right at the bend, Zimmerman was still in the Twin Trees part of the path at “OK”.
If you want Zimmerman slower than a jog from the truck, he’ll be pulled way back towards the clubhouse for all events in his call from then on.
You also give him significantly more time to contemplate the meaning of “We don’t need you to do that.” before he gets into the dark area.
This one is good to note
The one section where I very particularly did not do any estimating of speed was the examination of the ‘circling the truck’ proposal.
I made it as strong as possible. ‘Go out and do it yourself. Time it with a stopwatch/app. Then listen to the recording and make particular note of Zimmerman’s words and his voice’.
There is no way that Martin circled the truck even once. That’s without even considering what it would do to the time-window for his approach from the clubhouse.
juggler523 said:
Thank you so much for confirming her my illustrations of your fallacies, rather than merely directing people to your equally fallacious blog conclusions.
juggler523 said:
To Sling –
One thing you ARE correct about is that in short order, when Zimmerman’s statements are released, we will all get to see the inconsistencies in what he told police who questioned him for several hours. We will ALL get to see how a human being, who only just shot and killed a young man, can be incapable of repeating every detail flawlessly – how dare he! We will ALL see how he was so inconsistent when he waived his rights to a lawyer and to remain silent that he was arrested on the spot. Oh WAIT…he WASN’T…Cha Ching! Next.
SlingTrebuchet said:
Juggler,
You prompt “Next”?
Have you not been keeping up with the story?
It seems that there was a bit of a fuss.
The case was reopened. A new investigation found reason to have him arrested and charged with murder.
One of the factors in this was stated to be inconsistencies in statements and conflicts with physical evidence.
Within 15 days, we will be able to view statements.
Zimmerman had recently been awarded an associates degree in Criminal Justice studies.
This might have been part of the reason that he foolishly waived the right to an attorney. The qualification is also a potential problem for him should he wish to argue later that he was not fully aware of his rights and of procedures.
While it might be understandable that he might not have recalled every single detail at the time. It would be difficult to say that about the major incidents of the evening.
The ‘circling’ for example. That’s not a picky detail.
If Sanford PD told Martin’s father that there was a circling during which certain words were exchanged, that not picky either.
The location of the confrontation, the words exchanged and rough duration of some argument load enough and long enough to get the attention of people in nearby houses are similarly not minor.
The explanation of the 2+ minutes after his call ended will also be of interest.
It is possible that Zimmerman fired at least two shots that night.
– The first into Martin
– The remainder into his foot
Thresherman said:
I think that you are giving us insight into how the prosecution is going to handle this case. Dwelling on small matters that have not relevence to the major issue at hand will be offered up to simply cloud the issue, but none of it adds up to support a murder 2 conviction. In otherwords, they will attempt to try this case as if Zimmerman is charged with manslaughter in order to make Zimmerman look bad, to throw some red meat to the Trayvon supporters who don’t know the difference between murder 2 and manslaughter and to allow them to place the blame on the judge and jury when this house of cards falls down on them.
That is why Zimmerman’s wife was charged with felony perjury, thery are using the publicity to make the them appear to the public as guilty as they can. They are doing this because they believe that if they can convict the Zimmerman’s in the minds of the public, then it doesn’t matter if they lose on the merits in court.
They do not care about justice or ethical behavior, they want to destroy these people because the narrative demands it.
SlingTrebuchet said:
“I think that you are giving us insight into how the prosecution is going to handle this case. “
If we were to judge the prosecution case by the standard of the interview that is the subject of this page, I don’t think I’m giving you any insight at all.
(I would insert a link to a rimshot vid here, but that would mean a second strike from Mike!)
==========================================
I have to say that my impression of the circumstances from the start was that manslaughter was a definite.
Zimmerman was reckless to go in there without knowing where Martin was.
He ignored NW guidelines that we know he was aware of. The local program coordinator says she met him at meeting in which she specifically covered the topic.
The “We don’t need you to do that” was a clear reminder to him of that.
One of his excuses for assaulting the ATF officers was apparently that the were in plain clothes and had not identified themselves.
Even by his own account, after his reckless action had him face to face with Martin, he did not make any attempt to state his business. In both his own and in the girl’s account, his response to challenge can only have served to inflame the situation.
All that, just on its own is clear manslaughter.
However, if there are indications that he has lied about what happened, this starts to up the game.
I find his story of what he did after the call ended to be spectacularly unconvincing. There is absolutely no logic to it.
That does not necessarily mean that he didn’t actually go there very slowly in order to explain the time expended and arrive back at the T-junction at the appropriate time. If he did do it, then it just means that he is spectacularly stupid.
———————————————————————-
I have no idea what physical evidence they have that clashes with whatever statements they have. We only have leaks about statements.
We don’t know if they are trying for an easy plea bargain or if they actually have something more.
I should have thought that it was a case of any old suspect punk being noticed by Zimmerman, and not a black person being targeted for being black.
Maybe there are other indications.
==========================================
There does seem to be a camp that refuses to see any of the points that I make above re recklessness and stupidity – resulting in a death.
This camp sees absolutely nothing apart from Zimmerman being in fear of injury or death – and so end of story – no case to answer.
That’s got to be broken thinking on a breathtaking level.
juggler523 said:
You wrote (My responses clearly marked)
You prompt “Next”?
Have you not been keeping up with the story?
Response: Yes, I have.
It seems that there was a bit of a fuss.
The case was reopened. A new investigation found reason to have him arrested and charged with murder.
Response: Found reason??? You mean you hve READ the probable cause affidavit and have totally missed the fact that the elements of a crime were not even STATED? I guess you missed the boat on that. You foolishly believe this was not a political move by Angela Corey (as Professor Dershowitz – whose analysis of this case would trump yours every day of the week and twice on Sundays.
One of the factors in this was stated to be inconsistencies in statements and conflicts with physical evidence.
Within 15 days, we will be able to view statements.
Response: And you have exact quotes of these “inconsistencies”? Yeah, didn’t think you did. You remind me of the people who claimed Zimmerman wasn’t injured – then the police photos came out…and they still expected to have credibility in what they wrote. HA. In 15 days, you’re right…we WILL see.
Zimmerman had recently been awarded an associates degree in Criminal Justice studies.
Response: You CLEARLY don’t realize how relatively insignificant an Associate Degree is. The guy is 28 years old, and has completed the equivalent of two years of college in the past 10 years!
This might have been part of the reason that he foolishly waived the right to an attorney.
Response: Might? There you go – aside from clearly not understanding the relative INsignificance of an Associate Degree, yet another hypothetical from you.
The qualification is also a potential problem for him should he wish to argue later that he was not fully aware of his rights and of procedures.
Response: QUALIFICATION? HAHAHAHA
While it might be understandable that he might not have recalled every single detail at the time. It would be difficult to say that about the major incidents of the evening.
The ‘circling’ for example. That’s not a picky detail.
If Sanford PD told Martin’s father that there was a circling during which certain words were exchanged, that not picky either.
Response: So, the “circling” comment came from police to Martin’s father? And have you yet found Zimmerman’s definition of “circling”? CBS’s Wide World of Sports use to claim that the “spanned” the globe. Did they really “span” the globe? What does that mean, anyway. And what does “circling” mean in this context? You have NO way of knowing, no matter WHO said it.
The location of the confrontation, the words exchanged and rough duration of some argument load enough and long enough to get the attention of people in nearby houses are similarly not minor.
Response: Of COURSE not! But how long did it last? And I have absolutely no confusion as to why or whether a loud exchange would be precipitated from a sucker punch to the face. But did these witnesses SEE anything? No? Yeah, thought not.
The explanation of the 2+ minutes after his call ended will also be of interest.
Response: Of COURSE! And we know that at least half of that, Zimmerman was spending crying out for help. It’s not hard at all to explain a single minute in what Zimmerman said happened on his return route to his vehicle. DUH!
It is possible that Zimmerman fired at least two shots that night.
– The first into Martin
– The remainder into his foot
Response: Apparently, you saved a feeble attempt at humor for the last. Ineffective, and ill-advised.
SlingTrebuchet said:
I think it’s best to leave the question of what is in his statements (including any description of circling) to when we see those statements – 14 days max now? Patience!
One thing:
“The explanation of the 2+ minutes after his call ended will also be of interest.”
Response: Of COURSE! And we know that at least half of that, Zimmerman was spending crying out for help. It’s not hard at all to explain a single minute in what Zimmerman said happened on his return route to his vehicle. DUH!
19:13:41 – Call ends
19:16:00 – Possible start of struggle noticed by first 911 caller
19:16:11 – First 911 call connects
19:16:56 – Shot is heard
Your minute of struggle and calls for help starts from 19:16:00
There are 2 minutes and 19 seconds from the end of Zimmerman’s call to the start of the struggle.
As you say: “DUH!”
If he walked at a stand walkfrom the T-Junction to a house number on Retreat View Circle, he would arrive back at the T-Junction at most 1 minute later.
He has still 1 minute and 19 seconds to explain.
He also might have to explain what use the house number actually was, given that he was leaving it and heading back to his truck.
His story for the time does not make any sense. – and it still would leave over a minute to account for.
SlingTrebuchet said:
Just to make it clear for the gentle readers, the following, taken from above, should have been in blockquotes
juggler523 said:
Good GOD – to the second…you assume Zimmerman didn’t pause for a moment. You assume he didn’t take some time to look for the house number his father says he was looking for….didn’t stop to perhaps tie his shoe. Went from Point A to Point B at a pre-determined rate of speed along a specific (YOUR) route.
everlastingphelps said:
As far as circling goes, there are multiple definitions. I don’t know how many people here grew up in the hood or actually interacted with actual criminals without a badge, but there are characteristic behaviors. This is one of them.
Circling almost certainly doesn’t mean walking circles around the truck. That’s idiotic. Martin doesn’t gain anything from that as an attacker. It isn’t intimidating, it’s just weird.
What criminals will often do before they attack is make wide arcs around the target, facing them the entire time, like fighters do. If Martin walked up, and as he got to within a certain distance (maybe 10-15 feet) and then started making an arc around the truck, facing it the entire time, and then walking away backwards (in my hood it was called hard-eyeing someone) then that was absolutelyreason to suspect he was planning an attack. The next step after that, if you don’t leave the turf, is for him to come back, maybe with 3-10 “friends”.
If that is what he did, it was gang behavior, pure and simple. The more I think about Martin in terms of gang behavior, the more makes sense, especially the “WTF” graffiti. (Westside ??? Florida, perhaps?) As a “what the f—” tag it makes no sense. As a gang tag, it makes perfect sense, and it’s one that would fly under the radar of most school administrators. For example, the territory of the “Westside Boys” listed here:
Click to access White-Paper-The-Gangs-of-Miami.pdf
Is about about three miles from the high school Martin attended, and is about a mile from it’s attendance area.
SlingTrebuchet said:
Thanks Everlasting
If I’m ever somewhere dodgy and someone does that to me, I’ll know what it means.
Although – I think I would I have suspected imminent bad news anyway.
I think I could fit that sort of circling in.
How does it work? Do they shuffle sideways or walk while looking sideways?
How fast would they generally be moving when doing the circling?
Do you have a feeling for how fast he might have walked towards the truck – and how fast backwards away?
If you listen to the Zimmerman’s voice in the recording, could you guess at when such a circling might have started?
The ending of it seems indicated by him quickly getting over his crisis.
The build up of concern in his voice is of very short duration before the crisis point.
Would Zimmerman have been aware that this was gang behaviour and very specifically threatening I wonder?
everlastingphelps said:
They shuffle sideways and then walk backwards. They normally slow down. The point is to leave no doubt that they are checking you out. There’s either constant eye contact (a provocation) or they keep their face completely hooded. (This would explain why Zimmerman says he thinks he’s black — he could have seen the bottom of his face through the hood but not gotten a good look at him.)
They want to see what your reaction is and to size you up. It doesn’t take that long — less than 10 seconds. The point is to try to scare you off, and to size you up if you don’t run off.
That Zimmerman was on the phone could have been a mixed signal. Most criminals would assume that he’s calling the cops, but on the other hand, if he didn’t react the way they expected, it could also be a sign of weakness and that they are an easy target.
I honestly don’t know whether or not Zimmerman had spent any time around gangs, but I know that Florida is filthy with gangs (worst on the east coast.)
Seriously, though, for your own safety — if you are in a dodgy area, and someone takes close interest in you and then walks away, that’s a warning that they are coming back when it is tactically advantageous to them to attack you.
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear Everlastingphelps:
Hello, and thanks, as always, for your informative–and accurate–comments. I’ll take this opportunity to reiterate a reply I’ve made to SlingTrebuchet in the recent past. I’ve avoided–and will continue to avoid–trying to parse this case to the second. Not only don’t we have all of the information necessary to even try to do that, when cell phone records are accurate only to a minute–seconds aren’t involved–it’s rather like chasing one’s tail.
Even when we have Zimmerman’s statements, we’ll still lack a great deal of necessary information, as the prosecution doesn’t want the public to see they have no case. They’re trying this in the court of public opinion, first and foremost. The arrest of Shellie Zimmerman being a case in point (I’ll deal with that soon. Suffice it to say the prosecution once again failed to meet its burden of proof in the affidavit and has no case). The analyses I’ve proposed work within the known time frames, but are based on minutes, not seconds, which I doubt we’ll ever be able to sort out with any real degree of accuracy, and in the final analysis, all of that won’t matter.
As has been noted in these comments, the prosecution would love people to focus on minutia and trivialities, but the primary issues remains Zimmerman’s self-defense claim. If its valid, Florida law makes clear no prosecution can occur. Even knowing what we now know, there is sufficient information available to conclude that his claim is valid. From what we’re hearing about Zimmerman’s forthcoming statements, they are highly unlikely to change that, but we’ll see.
Until then, and likely even then, I recommend we don’t get too far into second by second analysis. Not only are we likely to be wrong, we’re missing the real issues in this case.
SlingTrebuchet said:
I’d say that it works.
The timings on the call are:
——————————————————————–
0:55 Dispatcher: “He’s near the clubhouse?” Zimmerman:”Yeah. Now he’s coming towards me”.
As Martin nears him, Zimmerman is able to add detail to the initial description. Now he can see that he’s a black male (as opposed to “looks” black), a button on his shirt, late teens” This has to be the first time that Zimmerman is seeing him up close – or at least up close with sufficient time to note the detail.
1:21 Martin is still approaching. “Yeah. He’s coming to check me out”.
During all that, we can hear a regular intermittent background noise – which could be the windscreen wipers. It was a rainy night.
1:24 Zimmerman: He’s got something in his hands, I don’t know what his deal is.
– Martin is still approaching. Probably getting very close. By the “his deal is”, Zimmerman’s voice has changed from a relatively dispassionate recounting to a slightly concerned note.
1:30 Zimmerman sounds very concerned, and cuts across the Dispatcher’s words to ask about “getting an officer over here”. Can we assume that Martin is just at his nearest to the truck at that moment? This is the high point in Zimmerman’s concern as evidenced by his voice.
1:36 Zimmerman now seems to be calmer. “OK” We hear rustling sounds. This would logically be him turning in his seat to observe Martin’s progress away from him. No matter which way the truck was facing, he has to turn in his seat to observe Martin departing.
1:37 Zimmerman: These assholes, they always get away.
He certainly seems to have the lost any tone of sounding intimidated. Martin is certainly past him now and moving on, with no indication of remaining. Zimmerman no longer feels threatened. Rather he feels back in command. “These (expletive) they always get away. Yep. When you come to the clubhouse …..”
————————————————————————
It’s only when he gets to “deal is” that Zimmerman’s voice starts to show real signs.
At 1:30 whatever is happening it’s at the worst for him.
At 1:36 it’s definitely passed
Around the 10 seconds would fit into the timeline.
It gives greater weight to my view that the crisis point in the passing triggered a significant Flight-Fight moment for Zimmerman.
Given that he appeared to be doing the right sort of thing up to then, something flipped him to lose all sense and follow blind into the central pathway area. That was an insane thing to do.
If he had any sense that aggression was intended, he was doubly insane to leave the truck.
Thanks Everlasting, I’ll put an update in my blog about that option.
SlingTrebuchet said:
Mike,
I’m actually in agreement with you regarding the real issues – although with a different idea of what the real issues are.
I found myself dragged into the second-by-second thing only because I found myself sharing the same virtual space with people who had strange ideas about where Zimmerman said “OK” to “We don’t need you to do that” and whether or not he returned to his truck.
Then a simple calculation of distance of distance over a 20 second section of a phone call grew into the first blog I ever tried to create.
It took a trip to your blog here to poison my brain with vagaries of T-mobile billing that I had steadfastly avoided until then.
Then your blog exposed me to “that interview”. There is a place reserved in Hell for you my man. :)
I think where we differ is on whether the circumstances that led up to the struggle have a bearing on whether the eventual shooting could fairly be termed self-defence.
From a completely technical view within a bubble that contains solely the two struggling on the ground, it could be termed self-defence.
Once you step back from the bubble, you are immediately into matters like
– my little multiple choice Quiz
– what was Zimmerman even thinking of in the first place when he followed to where he might have seen Martin disappear
– why did he not go back to the truck and mailboxes as agreed once he realised that he couldn’t see anything there
– this even more so as he clearly realised that Martin could be near enough to overhear him
– these issues are amplified if he had the slightest notion that Martin could be a threat to him
It is these issues that make it at least manslaughter.
The other real issue is whether Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law is really intended to be a vigilante’s charter – as would be its application in this case.
James F said:
You are the one with strange ideas, SlingTrebouche. You have polluted this comment section with numerous long boring posts and I will ignore you from now on.
Aussie said:
I second the comment made by James F…. totally boring and off the point with a lot of subjective nonsense to boot.
juggler523 said:
Wide arcs…WOW…sounds like what I said.
Pingback: George Zimmerman's Wife Arrested On Perjury Charge - Page 16 - Christian Forums
Sandy said:
Mike- I am going to borrow one of your comments in you post-
“Please God make her stop.”
This article was about the DeeDee interview, with a beautiful set-up explaining interviewing techniques etc. This comment section has devolved into a second by second analysis of who said what at every particular second. It has completely and totally devolved into a case of distracting from the purpose of the post. As you said, there are some that must distract from the main topic in order to take the focus away from the more important points in the case.
The point was to analyze DeeDee’s interview, the witness leading by the prosecutor, who should not have engaged in the interview to begin with. I truly see Sling’s many many wasted pixels as a distraction. Please God make her stop!
Sandy said:
Sling has her own website, linked to here numerous times. If Sling hasn’t gotten anyone to play in her sandbox, she sure isn’t gaining any supporters here. Shoot Mike, you have had to post some long analyzes here to make the point while still remaining as “politically correct” as possible. It seems that Sling is trying to outdo you with her approach that seems to be, just let me overload as much as possible, so that the focus is taken off the topic. That is my opinion.
SlingTrebuchet said:
Mike
I’m happy to stay on strict topic.
You will notice that I came in here strictly on the interview and the indications of how much or little of the girl’s testimony could be linked to reality.
You might notice that my digressions are responses to the posts of others.
I’m easily led :)
I had not the slightest interest in T-Mobile times until the topic came up – for example.
You might also notice that I have not been spamming my URL all over postings.
It’s been mentioned a few times in context.
The URL is not a blog as such. It’s designed more like a website.
It contains a collection of my thoughts on the topic.
I’d actually prefer no comments there unless they offer a different interpretation of the call recording. Thats the reason I opted to leave comments open.
I’m not a blogger. No competition. That URl is strictly a one-trick-pony.
Don’t worry . Be happy
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear Sling Trebuchet:
I do appreciate your efforts, but as you can see, we’re a community here and the community has spoken on this matter. I tend to allow folks to write as the spirit moves them, but it’s always appreciated–not only by me but by others–when everyone stays as close to the current topic as possible. There will be other times for other topics as I suspect we’ll be writing about this case for months to come.
SlingTrebuchet said:
Mike,
Fair enough.
I’ll keep any future comments strictly to whatever topic it is that opens the page.
I’ll avoid responding to the off-topic comments of others – even if they come from one of from the 4 people who have spoken out against off-topic comments.
Is it OK for me to respond to any off-topic comments that you post? Like the drugs?
Note that I have just responded to your comment on the state of Zimmerman’s clothing.
I don’t do sock-puppet. Beware of imposters. All I have ever posted on the matter has been as me, mostly on Prof Turley’s Legal Opinion blog, and now here.
All these postings are using a verified login via Gravatar to WordPress..
I have seen postings by a “Sling” in other places. That’s not me.
Cynthia said:
ONE SIDED MUCH??????
Tom said:
This was an excellent analysis. I think this blog is establishing itself as a member of the big three that are defending Zimmerman (Conservative TreeHouse, TalkLeft and now Stately McDaniel Manor)
Why do so many care about the GZ case so much. I could write much more, but I love this line by Treehouse “when you see that men get power over individual liberty by graft and by scheme, and your representatives don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you” Well said.
First a question. Do we know the order of Trayvon’s suspensions for sure? If we do, and the third suspension is the suspension that is still unknown, it would be a very good bet indeed that the third 10 day suspension was exactly what his friend tweeted him about “swinging at a bus driver”). I believe the timeline matches well too. I’d say the odds are over 50/50. If true, that would be extremely damaging to Trayvon’s character.
Some constructive criticism. I believe the fight video Trayvon refereed is probably authentic….although overall pretty meaningless. I don’t think the 2nd video of two black teenagers with boxing gloves had anything to do with Trayvon Martin. Even if it did, I also don’t think particularly meaningful. Regardless, there is enough established evidence very damaging to Trayvon’s character as the exact type of teenager that would attack someone for “dissing” him. There is no need to embellish the record.
Secondly, I am not convinced at all the three stooges at 7-11 sold Trayvon a blunt, and even less convinced Trayvon smoked a blunt on the way home….or wait…was it he hid the blunt after seeing GZ. Two contradictory stories. Sure, anyone of those scenarios MIGHT have happened, but the evidence I have seen is anything but conclusive. If you were trying to convince someone that the above did happen…how would you do so? Thanks.
juggler523 said:
Tom – I like your comment. I think that Trayvon Martin’s suspension record is relevant, although not some smoking gun. In her testimony, Dee Dee indicated that Trayvon Martin was not “would never fight”. Impeaching such a statement with evidence of him taking a swing at a bus driver would not only characterize him as someone who could have potentially attacked Zimmerman (as Zimmerman claims), but also call into question Dee Dee’s reliability/credibility as a witness.
After all, if Dee Dee said he would never fight, and there is ample evidence to the contrary, she would not (and SHOULD not) be given much credibility.
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear Tom:
Only one of the top three? (:)) Thanks for your kind comment. May I respond to your excellent questions?
Why do I care? Because I believe there is an injustice being done. As the famous paraphrase goes, all that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing. What more do we need?
I’ve no doubt that the prosecutor knows Martin’s school disciplinary record and is going to keep it under wraps as long as possible. As a teacher, I know that a ten day suspension from school is usually reserved for either the most serious offenses, or for the last of a long line of lesser offenses. A suspension of that length is commonly the last suspension before expulsion. Trying to assault or assaulting a member of school staff would surely be worthy of a suspension of that length. Do we know this with certainty? No, but as you say, the evidence is indeed suggestive.
Why does this and Martin’s drug use and thuggish acting out matter? Because the left–those pushing the narrative–have made it matter. By constructing the tale that Martin was a cherubic, candy eating, tea drinking, innocent child who was a football player and scholar, as Dee Dee said, one who loved his family and would never fight, and by so brutally attacking Zimmerman’s character, they have made Martin’s character fair game. We must remember that those pushing the narrative are doing so primarily in the court of public opinion–and this includes the special prosecutor–where this kind of thing is often considered more important than the facts and evidence of the case.
Do we know beyond any doubt that the three “gentlemen” at the 7-Eleven procured a blunt for Martin? No, but the evidence is suggestive indeed. Namely: (1) Martin walks out with a few dollar bills in his hand. (2) Moments later, the three gentlemen enter and lo and behold, one is holding several dollar bills in his hand! (3) The earlier exchange between Martin and the clerk where Martin tries to buy something behind the counter (that’s where the tobacco was) and was obviously turned down due to his age suddenly makes sense. (4) After buying the blunts, the gentleman with them leaves, and seconds later, we see Martin leaving from the front doors of the store. He had been waiting for them all along. Perhaps he just wanted to congratulate them on their purchase, but more likely, they bought at least one blunt for him, and that’s why he was waiting for them. There are a number of interesting coincidences in this case–such as Martin’s having two of the three ingredients for Lean–all relating to Martin. Absolute proof? No, but it’s walking, looking and sounding much like a duck…
juggler523 said:
SlingTrebuchet wrote:
“From a completely technical view within a bubble that contains solely the two struggling on the ground, it could be termed self-defence.
Once you step back from the bubble, you are immediately into matters like
– my little multiple choice Quiz
– what was Zimmerman even thinking of in the first place when he followed to where he might have seen Martin disappear
– why did he not go back to the truck and mailboxes as agreed once he realised that he couldn’t see anything there
– this even more so as he clearly realised that Martin could be near enough to overhear him
– these issues are amplified if he had the slightest notion that Martin could be a threat to him
It is these issues that make it at least manslaughter.
The other real issue is whether Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law is really intended to be a vigilante’s charter – as would be its application in this case.”
First – Too easy. People forget what they read and hear. On at LEAST two occasions, the dispatcher said, “OK, Just let me know if he does anything, ok?”, and “…just let me know if this guy does anything else.” The dispatcher wanted to know what Martin was doing. Also, we know Zimmerman said, “. These (expletive) they always get away.” It is TOO easy to conclude that Zimmerman did not want to lose sight of Martin if possible, so he could tell the police where Martin went. And when the dispatcher found out he was following Martin, and counseled Zimmerman to stop, he did, thereby halting any further intel of where Martin went. Zimmerman wanted to be able to tell police where Martin went!
Second – There is no evidence to suggest that Zimmerman wasn’t going back to his truck when he was confronted by Martin. Inspector Gilbreath admitted as much in the first bond hearing.
Third – You cannot conclude with ANY certainty whatsoever what Zimmerman was doing or where he was geographically when he commented that he no longer knew where martin was…he could very well have been looking for a street address, with the intent of moving back to his vehicle, which , again, Investigator Gilbreath said couldn’t be contradicted.
Fourth – I think a reasonable person would conclude that Zimmerman believed Martin was out of the picture…gone…end of story, and therefore NOT a physical threat to him, when the phone call with the dispatcher ended. Yes, he thought it was a possibility that Martin could be within earshot, but a physical threat? No.
Fifth – Your “at least manslaughter” comment. According to Florida law, manslaughter is the “the killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another “, without lawful justification [justifiable deadly force].
NOTHING you have written above justifies a charge of manslaughter. Your position seems merely to be a matter of appeasement – to provide a lesser charge (manslaughter) when the original charge (murder in the second degree) is just a bit too over the top. Manslaughter is not intended to be a compromise. It has its own unique elements, and stands on its own pursuant to the law and the circumstances surrounding a particular homicide.
everlastingphelps said:
Also remember that as far as:
Murder 2 lives entirely within that “view within a bubble.” Unless he had actual malice within that little bubble, it’s not murder. The end. He hasn’t been charged with manslaughter. As far as negligence or recklessness goes, I really don’t think that going out on the common area of property in which you are a resident can ever be considered negligence. A Reasonable Person would assume that they are not inviting gross bodily harm on someone else simply by being in a common area, regardless of who else might be there.
By this logic, if you think that a criminal might be in your backyard, you can’t legally leave your house. That sure as hell isn’t in line with Florida law.
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear Juggler 523:
Quite. Let’s also remember that Det. Serino wanted to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter. It was that charge the local prosecutor wisely felt could not be sustained, not the current, wildly inapplicable and unsupportable charge of murder 2.
everlastingphelps said:
I’ve seen differing reports on that; it was reported (I wish I could remember where) that Serino didn’t actually recommend that he be charged, but simply put that offense on the report because FBI crime reporting statistics require an offense listed for every investigation.
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear Everlastingphelps:
You’re absolutely correct; FBI UCR (Uniform Crime Report) standards require a specific crime be listed. However, I’ve also seen what appears to have been an affidavit apparently written by Serino for manslaughter. I’ve also seen a statement by him saying that he did not want to file such a charge. I’m still trying to run down what’s fact and fiction on this point.
Allyn said:
Sling, I disagree with your conclusion of a slam dunk for manslaughter.
GZ had the same right to be on that sidewalk as did TM. All evidence indicates that TM actually confronted GZ, not the opposite. Do you agree with these two points?
To suggest that GZ acted recklessly for trying to keep an eye on TM and he is therefore somehow responsible for the physical confrontation is like saying a woman with a short skirt and a low-cut top is somehow responsible for her own rape. Gotta call bs on that. Unless GZ actually threatened physical harm, TM had no right to throw the first punch. Once that punch was thrown, everything before that point is not relevant, once again, assuming GZ did not give TM legitimate reason to fear for his safety. If TM did fear for his life, he had the right to stand his ground. If he did, but was wrong, he is simply dead. But he didn’t. He went back from his fathers home and assaulted GZ. Self defense, not manslaughter.
RuleofOrder said:
“once again, assuming GZ did not give TM legitimate reason to fear for his safety.” — dude follows me for any length of time, via vehicle and/or on foot, my hackles are raised. I have no reason to think the strange man following me is wanting to know what I am listening to on my Ipod. Assuming TM realized he was being followed (and from it seems, he did), he was operating under the assumpt of hostile intent from GZ. Assuming I am hidden, and he is still looking for me, I have no desire to lead the dude back to my house. I also have no desire to camp out in one place in the rain and wait for him to find me, assuming his disposition of still looking. GZ’s last words to the operator, to me, were not indicitative of returning to his vehicle. Asking some one to call ME means I am going to be wandering around a bit.
Allyn said:
Haven’t you ever felt you were being followed when you were not? I have and I don’t tend toward paranoia. If TM sensed danger from someone who might be following him (an Hispanic dude), he made the same decisions GZ made, get out there and find out what’s going on with this guy. Poor judgment on each of their parts, arguably, but they both had the legal right to do so, right up to the time when TM attacked GZ. As I said, if TM was really afraid, and “stood his ground”, throwing the first punch, he was wrong and is now dead for being wrong (and violent). So, whatever was in TM’s mind is irrelevant with respect to how GZ responded, just as what was in GZ’s mind was irrelevant for TM to attack him. I have never heard ANYONE speculate that GZ was out to hurt TM. If correct, TM made a fatal, self-eliminating decision. That’s the shame.
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear RuleofOrder:
Thanks for your comment! Let’s consider that Zimerman’s comment to the dispatcher merely indicated that he knew he was some distance from his vehicle and from the entrance to the neighborhood where he expected the officers to enter, and knowing that they could arrive at any second–before he was able to return to that area on foot–asked the Dispatcher to have the officers call him to eliminate any possible confusion. I suspect this is the more likely explanation considering Zimmerman had been working with the SPD for several years as the neighborhood watch captain.
everlastingphelps said:
No, it doesn’t. The times that I’ve called 911 here in Dallas, I’ve almost always been connected directly to the responding officer. If Zimmerman had been through that process also, he would likely let the dispatcher go (to answer other calls) while waiting for that. Also, it may be that Sanford didn’t have the ability to make that connection like Dallas, and the officer calling directly was the normal routine.
SlingTrebuchet said:
Mike,
Since you are commenting on this, I’ll assume that I’m not being off-topic here.
Zimmerman is on the East West pathway.
The story seems to be that he never went South of that path. His father’s report of observing the video re-enactment is that Zimmerman followed that path East to Retreat View Circle where he got an address and then headed back.
From anywhere along that path, he can actually see his truck.
He has already given understandable directions to it.
The truck is 200 feet from the T-junction.
It would take 45 seconds to walk to the truck.
It would take 23 seconds to jog to it.
The truck is 300 feet from Retreat View Circle
It would take 1 minute 10 seconds to walk to the truck.
It would take 34 seconds to jog to it.
If the walk/jog has tired him, he can drive the 180 feet to the mailboxes. He can flash his lights at the patrol if he wants to stay where he is.
Your theory is that he started walking back to the truck when he finished the call.
He finished the call at 19:13:41.
The first 911 call connected at 19:16:11
—– 2 minutes and 30 seconds later
If his plan was as you say, he’s back at his truck well before any confrontation.
His plan can only have been to go somewhere else.
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear SlingTrebuchet:
You’ve well illustrated the problem of trying to claim to the second certainty regarding uncertain matters. I don’t know precisely what Zimmerman was doing or precisely where he was when he ended his call to the dispatcher–no one does. I suspect even his statements–which will be released in 14 or so days–won’t have that level of detail. Was he already on his way west when he ended the call? Possible. Did he simply stand still for some span of seconds, looking to the south between the condos? Possible. The point is we simply don’t know such things and may never know them unless Zimmerman takes the witness stand–which likely will never happen–and is asked very, very specific questions.
We also don’t know that Zimmerman could have seen his truck from anywhere along the east/west sidewalk. I’ve seen account suggesting the vehicle was parked at the north and south curbs. If it was parked at the south curb, Zimmerman would not have been able to see his truck until he was relatively close to it. Again, we’re not sure.
I’m not sure if Zimmerman went south of the east/west sidewalk or not. It’s possible he did and equally possible he didn’t, and I’ve mentioned both possibilities. Again, we just don’t know.
I believe that at some point around the time the phone call to the dispatcher ended, Zimmerman was walking west, but again, beyond that I can’t say with certainty how fast he was walking, whether he paused at any point and for what reason or how long, etc. I just don’t know; no one does.
As I’ve often said, it’s not productive to try to nail down time frames too closely or to draw hard conclusions based on that sort of calculation when we have only about 50% of the facts. I didn’t do that as an investigator, and I don’t now. Experience teaches that such hubris always comes around to bite us hard on the posterior.
SlingTrebuchet said:
Mike,
You are quite correct of course that we don’t know all the precise details.
We do know the times of events.
For example, we know that 2 minutes and 30 seconds elapsed between Zimmerman ending his call and the first 911 call connecting.
I think we could accept the father’s description of where Zimmerman went during the video re-enactment.
“Along the path to Retreat View Circle, where he got an address, then back in the direction of the truck in Twin Trees.”
I had always pictured the truck as being on the South side of Twin Trees, perhaps near the bend and the path.
Taaffe claims that Zimmerman indicated that position on the North – which position is an intelligent choice for safe surveillance of an extensive area of footpaths.
If the truck was not parked exactly there, it wasn’t parked far enough away to make any significant different to the times and distances I mentioned above.
When I say “could see” I really indicate that it is close by. Which it was no matter where on that stretch of Twin Trees.
We do have a map of the area.
Even though we don’t know for sure, there are limits to how far people can travel in a given time.
Either that video re-enactment observed by his father was not a re-enactment, or that was the actual path described by Zimmerman in his statements. He never described going South.
RuleofOrder said:
“No, it doesn’t. The times that I’ve called 911 here in Dallas, I’ve almost always been connected directly to the responding officer” — this wasn’t 911. Its the non em line. You wouldn’t be directed to an officer as its a non em.
“..right up to the time when TM attacked GZ..” — Assuming that happened. The first reports I read were that GZ stated he started to reach for a concealed item before TM hit him. After this series of events, that being flight and follow, a verbal altercation, previous missed (or ignorned) attempts at motive and identification, is it unreasonable for TM to think GZ is going for a weapon? If you conceed that its not out of the question, then you must also conceed that from there, TM was acting in self defense as well.
“Dispatcher to have the officers call him to eliminate any possible confusion” — why not stay on the line? How many times to online operators acting on behalf of law enforcement hang up the phone BEFORE emergency services or law enforcment are there in person?
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear RuleofOrder:
How often do dispatchers hang up on non-emergency calls before the police arrive. On virtually all of them.
RuleofOrder said:
Its the non em line. You wouldn’t be directed to an officer as its a non em.
How many times to online operators acting on behalf of law enforcement hang up the phone BEFORE emergency services or law enforcment are there in person?
How often do dispatchers hang up on non-emergency calls before the police arrive. On virtually all of them.
Ha! Touche, well met.
RuleofOrder said:
A bit late, sorry.
““
Asking some one to call ME means I am going to be wandering around a bit.”
No, it doesn’t”
Yes, actually, it does. Emphasis ME. What I would do. What I plan to do. Me, I, would be wandering around a bit. “No, it doesn’t” — don’t correct me on what I state I would do, mmmkay?
SlingTrebuchet said:
Allyn,
“for trying to keep an eye on TM ”
It’s actually – trying to *regain* an eye.
Zimmerman was in his truck when Martin disappeared.
Zimmerman is out of the truck 9 seconds later.
He can’t see Martin.
When he’s just starting on the path and “Are you following him? – yeah – We don’t need you to do that. – OK”, it’s been 20 seconds since he said “He’s running”.
For all his movement along Twin Trees, along the path and approaching the back corner of the townhouse, he can’t see Martin.
This is where ‘reckless’ starts.
Even if Martin has not made any threatening moves when he passed the truck, Zimmerman does not know whether or not Martin could be waiting just around that corner.
If Martin did make threatening moves, then it would be a pretty sure bet that he’s waiting just around the corner.
If Zimmerman notices that Martin had a phone or headset, it’s possible that he has called up friends and a whole gang is waiting around the corner, with the hanging around followed by a quick run just bait to tempt Zimmerman to follow.
It’s just plain reckless.
He’s going in blind to a potential confrontation
This is the sort of thing that the local NW coordinator made clear over and over at meeting such as the one at which she met Zimmerman.
“Observe from a safe distance”
He was not observing – as he hadn’t been able to see where Martin was since he ran.
Since he could not see Martin, he had no possible way of maintaining a safe distance.
By the time he seems to slow down and stop – logically when he gets up close to the T-Junction and can try to look South down the path, it’s been 33 seconds since he said “He’s running”
He’s aware then that Martin could be so close in the darkness that he could overhear him giving his name, number and address to the Dispatcher.
“Oh crap I don’t want to give it all out, I don’t know where this kid is.”
That’s reckless.
everlastingphelps said:
Being an unskilled NW person does not make a person reckless. The standard for recklessness is something that a Reasonable Person (that’s a legal term of art) would know or should know would cause someone to experience serious bodily harm.
Walking around on the common areas of your own residence cannot, by any reasonable standard, be considered reckless.
SlingTrebuchet said:
Walking around on the dark common areas of an area into which you have observed a threatening suspicious individual go would be reckless by the standards of any reasonable person.
Zimmerman didn’t just take it into his head to go for a stroll.
He went there specifically to search for a view of what he considered to be a suspicious person who had “his hand in his waistband – something in his hand” – and who possibly had just circled his truck in a signature gang ritual indicating imminent violence.
That’s not just ordinary reckless. That’s madness.
No reasonable person would do that.
A reasonable person would not to know that such a thing as Neighbourhood Watch in order to judge it as extremely reckless.
It’s plain common sense.
By the way Everlasting, I gave you a mention on my site re the circling option and the fact that the movement could fit into the time-line. Thanks again.
everlastingphelps said:
If your standard of recklessness really was what we as a society had decided, then it would be reckless to go into your own backyard if you think someone is trying to climb your fence.
It would be reckless to walk to your own car in a dark parking lot.
It would reckless to walk downstairs in your own house because you heard someone kicking in your front door.
In fact, what you are saying is, if a woman gets raped, it was because she was reckless for wearing sexy clothes.
Society has rejected your notion of recklessness. Deal with it.
SlingTrebuchet said:
Your parallels are in no way comparable to what I wrote.
You are creating a ridiculous extreme example of what is known as “straw man argument”. Look it up if you don’t know what that is.
I wrote:
You might reject the idea that this is not reckless, but I feel that society would reject your ideas on this.
Allyn said:
Sling,
So you believe GZ acted recklessly. I disagree, but let’s see where that takes us. If GZ acted recklessly, I assume you believe TM acted recklessly for almost exactly the same reasons you give for GZ. Thus, based on you logic, they were both acting reckless. Who was at fault? Does GZ’s reckless behavior somehow prevent him from claiming self defense? Does TM’s reckless behaviour somehow mitigate GZ’s behavior? Any way you slice it, GZ was entitled to defend himself. I understand that if GZ were acting recklessly, that might prevent him from claiming SYG, but we do not know if he will claim that, but he should certainly start there, for the civil protections it provides.
I would be interested in seeing your analysis.
everlastingphelps said:
I know exactly what it is. This isn’t it. This is reductio ad absurdum, which is a necessary part of a legal analysis. The law isn’t made on a case-by-case basis, it’s based on rules that apply to all situations, no matter how far fetched.
SlingTrebuchet said:
What you did was not “reductio ad absurdum” – which can be defined as “a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd consequence”.
I wrote
He went there specifically to search for a view of what he considered to be a suspicious person who had “his hand in his waistband – something in his hand” – and who possibly had just circled his truck in a signature gang ritual indicating imminent violence
Your propositions to be defined as “reductio ad absurdum” would need to be
It would be reckless to walk to your own car in a dark parking lot if you had just seen going in there someone that you considered to be a suspicious person who had “his hand in his waistband – something in his hand” – and who had just circled you in a signature gang ritual indicating imminent violence”
It would reckless to walk downstairs in your own house because you heard someone kicking in your front door and had looked out the window to recognise someone that you considered to be a suspicious person who had “his hand in his waistband – something in his hand” – and who had shortly beforehand circled you in a signature gang ritual indicating imminent violence.
It would be reckless for a woman to go into a dark area into which she had just seen someone that she considered to be a suspicious person who had “his hand in his waistband – something in his hand” – and who had shortly beforehand circled her in a signature gang ritual indicating imminent violence.This would be no no matter what she was wearing.
These propositions are what a “reductio ad absurdum” argument against my proposition would be.
They don’t disprove my proposition.
What you were at was a straw man argument. You invented a set of riduculous and faulty propositions. You falsely represented those propositions as being equivalent to my proposition.
Society would reject your propositions just as soon as they stopped laughing at you for making such a transparently lame attempt at debate.
.
SlingTrebuchet said:
Allyn.
In order to be able to define Martin’s behaviour as reckless, I would have to know what that behaviour actually was.
In the case of Zimmerman, my opinion of recklessness is from the undisputed knowledege that he left the safety of his truck and went into a dark area into …… (the bit that I was obliged to repeat for everlasting to demonstrate the fallacy of his Mistaken “reductio ad absurdem” attempt.
My opinion of recklessness for Zimmerman is not in any way due to any unknown thing that he might or might not have done in that area.
I know that he was at the 7-11.
I know that his destination was the Greene house.
I know from a recording of Zimmermans call that Martin was near the Clubhouse and passed Zimmerman’s truck , which was parked on his route home.
There are indications that he thought Zimmerman was following him from the truck. These indications come from the girl’s description of her conversation with him. Can we take it that selected parts of her story are to be believed, while others are not – depending?
It seems that he headed for the footpath area.
After that, I have absolutely no knowledge of his actions apart from the fact that he was involved in a struggle that resulted in him being shot dead. I don’t know how the struggle started or where.
I would say that if he considered Zimmerman in the truck to be a clear threat, he could have used the footpath from the clubhouse and South of the houses on the South side of Twin Trees. He could have crossed the North-South section of Twin Trees and into the central pathway area running down to his destination. That would have minimised his exposure to someone in a truck.
An alternative route would be to move South on the path behind the houses on the West of Twin Trees and cross to his destination down near the back gate. That route would not have been very advisable as someone in a truck could follow him practically to the doorstep if they had driven South on the road
In the event he chose to pass the truck.
When I analyse the times and distances, even allowing for a range of positions for the truck, it seems clear to me that when he disappeared down the central path, Zimmerman was still sitting in the truck.
Had he known that Zimmerman had got out of the truck, then he would have been wise to move away fast, but would have been particularly wise not to be obviously traceable to the house, as the only person there was a young boy. If this wierdo was a danger, he would be putting both of them in danger.
This next is pure speculation.
I suspect, but do not know that he may have assumed that the guy in the truck was going to stay in the truck. He may have decided to pause as soon as he was off the road and concentrate on talking with the girl. It might be that he didn’t was Chuck listening in.
If that is what he did, then about 30 seconds after he entered the footpath area, he would have noticed Zimmerman arriving. He might have seen that flashlight flickering or heard the slapping noises that we hear in the recording of Zimmerman’s call. He may have heard Zimmerman’s voice – who was in conversation with someone.
If that happened, he would have been wise to sink very slowly towards the best nearby cover that he could determine. He would have been wise to keep very still. He would have been unwise to make any move or sound that might be overheard.
From what I know of his actions, i think he might have been unwise to pass Zimmerman’s truck – if he believed that Zimmerman was a threat – rather than maybe just a bit weird. I do not know if Zimmerman exhibited any form of threat other than watching.
I’m not sure that this would amount to recklessness. The level of recklessness would be related to the level of the threat he considered that Zimmerman presented. It is not clear what that level was.
If it was reckless, it was certainly not on the extreme level of Zimmerman.
I have a good picture of what Zimmerman’s behaviour was.
Allyn said:
Wow, it is surprising how two people can see the same facts, and draw such different conclusions. TM was concerned enough that he ran from GZ. Or, was he running to hide his drug paraphanalia? At any rate, he had gotten to his fathers house and had lost him. To not go in was reckless, according to your definition. He ran. He lost him. He went back and confronted the man he ran from. What other reason can you suggest for his running? There is absolutely no evidence that GZ struck TM. By the way, GZ thought he looked suspicious, was acting weird, like he was on drugs. I never heard that he thought TM looked dangerous. The previous crimes in the neighborhood were non-violent, I believe.
I think that you are confusing the assumption of risk with reckless behavior. One can expose themselves to risk, without being reckless. People die while engaged in a risky activity, that an ordinary person would not consider reckless: a parachuting accident; a motorcycle accident; helping someone in trouble, such as a person drowning. It was reasonable for GZ to assume some level of risk to try to determine TM’s location, with no expectation of coming in close contact with him. What if GZ had seen TM reach into his pocket, pull out a key and enter the apartment? Or if he had knocked on the door, was greeted and allowed in? Perhaps GZ would have told the police where TM was or perhaps he would have called the police off, realizing TM was a guest or unknown resident.
SlingTrebuchet said:
Allyn.
The problem there is that you are presenting pure assumptions as if they were fact.
We have Martin described as running. That’s it.
From then on, we just have Zimmerman saying he was attacked, decked and pinned.
We have the girl saying she overheard words and noises.
That’s it.
“At any rate, he had gotten to his fathers house and had lost him”
“He went back and confronted the man he ran from”
Where did that come from? It’s pure supposition.
We have nothing to show doubling back. This is because we have nothing to show a continuation of the running observed just before Martin disappeared.
I am not saying that it could not or did not happen. I am saying that it would be pure assumption to assert it. It is not predicated on anything but a desire for things to be that way.
.
There is a reason for Martin’s perception of a threat from Zimmerman to be increased after he passed the truck.
Remember that part of the girl’s interview “He look crazy”? We hear it in the recording of Zimmerman’s call.
We hear Zimmerman suddenly developing a note of concern. Then he sort of freaks, interrupting the Dispatcher to ask about getting an officer over there.
We do not know if Zimmerman is simply freaking because the punk, against all expectations, has walked right up near to him and past him.
We do not know if Martin is doing the move that Everlastingphelps suggests as a ‘circling’ apparently mentioned in Zimmerman’s statements. That is also possible within the timeline.
Whether Martin is simply walking past, and certainly looking at the truck – or whether Martin is consciously doing a gang signature thing – it is fair to assume that to an observer, Zimmerman, staring out at Martin, would probably “look crazy” going by his voice.
If Martin starts to run (about 37 seconds after leaving the truck) it might be due to
– A level of fear had built up by then
and/or
– The call from the girl reconnecting and she urging him to run
or
– Some sort of maneuver to tempt Zimmerman to follow him, so that he can attack him
If it is the case that he does not lie in wait for Zimmerman, then it remains that:
Zimmerman was still in the truck. He didn’t apparently make any move against Martin as he passed the truck.
I can’t make out any driving sounds in the recording – which would have indicated Zimmerman kerb-crawling behind Martin – and therefore presenting a more tangible threat than simply watching.
Again, when I look at the location and the timings of Martin proceeding away from the truck for 37 seconds before “He’s running”, then Martin does not see Zimmerman getting out of the truck.
In that case, he may feel safe and stop.
— that is until he sees Zimmerman arriving up the path.
At this stage the wise thing would be to stay very, very still.
All I can say from what I know, is that
-Martin might have been wise to skirt around behind the houses rather than pass along Twin Trees past the truck.
– if he perceived a clear danger (other than simply watching) from Zimmerman, then he would have been reckless to pass the truck.
The rest is pure conjecture.
.
As an aside: If I was in his place and if I wanted to take some revenge, and I saw that the guy in the truck had followed me, I would have waited to see if he moved further. Then I’d have nipped back to the truck and let the air out of the tyres. That would have been a great way to mess with the follower.
Kids these days have no imagination.
If I were the violent type ( and we are the deadlier of the species) I think I would have lain in wait to watch and then jumped Zimmerman immediately he rounded the corner. He would have been preoccupied with the phone call and my eyes would be better adjusted to the darker environment. Overall, that would be the time of my greatest advantage.
Trying to creep up on someone who might be moving unpredictably and concentrating on detecting me would not be particularly easy.
Allyn said:
Sling,
You are ignoring some other things we have been told.
“Dee Dee: He say he ain’t goin’ run, cause he say he right by his father house.”
We know that he did not die by his father’s house and we know that he ran. So, what part of “He went back and confronted the man he ran from” is pure supposition?
And what is the revenge nonsense you suggest? You take revenge, or assume a young black man would take revenge, on someone who did nothing to you except watch you? Crazy.
With regard to risk, necessary risk and unnecessary risk, give me a break. One man’s risk is another man’s reckless behavior. Riding a motorcycle for transportation is a needless risk; ride in a car. Riding a motorcycle in a race would then be a necessary risk, i guess. Neither is reckless behavior, necessarily. You seem to be saying GZ should have assumed that this black man was out to get him and taken precautions accordingly, and anything less is reckless. Sounds pretty racist to me. I repeat: GZ did not have reason to believe TM dangerous, nor did he have reason to believe he would lay in hiding. But, GZ did take a step, as you suggest. He minimized his own risk of serious injury. He was carrying a firearm. TM, on the other hand, brought on his own death, by taking the needless risk of attacking a man who might be armed.
SlingTrebuchet said:
Allyn,
On “I think that you are confusing the assumption of risk with reckless behavior”
Risk implies a level of control.
I can jump out of a plane with a parachute. There’s always a risk of something untoward happening. I would have assured myself that the parachute was packed correctly. I would have trained for landing in various conditions. I would avoid landing on difficult ground or foliage – or water. I would be aware of action to take if the main chute did not open.
I would be doing something potentially dangerous, but minimising risk.
The activity could be described as “Needful risk”
On the other hand, I could jump out without a parachute. A companion could follow me holding my parachute and pass it to me on the way down.
I t would be ‘safer’ for the companion to jump first. That way I would be assured that there was a parachute below me.
I think many people would describe that jump as reckless, whereas the normal jump is only mildly risky.
This activity might be described as “Needless risk” as a mild description of “recklessness”
“It was reasonable for GZ to assume some level of risk to try to determine TM’s location, with no expectation of coming in close contact with him.”
Zimmerman had no way of knowing where Martin was in relation to the corner that he was approaching.
“Observe from a distance” necessarily involves knowing where the target is, or there is no assurance of “distance”.
He was doing what, for very sound reasons, NW tell people over and over not to do.
He was also ignoring “We don’t need you to do that”.
If a description of what he was doing *has* to involve the word ‘risk’, then it would be “Needless risk”
He wasn’t saving someone from drowning.
SlingTrebuchet said:
Allyn,
““Dee Dee: He say he ain’t goin’ run, cause he say he right by his father house.”
If we understand Dee Dee than we understand all she says.
“right by” could equally mean ‘up at the T-junction’
I worked out “ran from the back” only because it seemed the very indefinite T-Mobile timestamps could be pulled around to make her saying that for the first time coincide with “He’s running”.
“Ran from the back” apparently means “Ran *to* the back” “from” is “to”.
If you want to selectively pick bits of Dee Dee and interpret them as literal in a way that is convenient to your views, I think you might be on shaky ground.
It’s like examining the entrails of a sacrificed animal on an alter and using them to prophesy.
.
“I repeat: GZ did not have reason to believe TM dangerous,”
There’s a real suspicious guy.
This guy looks like he’s up to no good, or he’s on drugs or something.
He’s got his hand in his waistband
Something’s wrong with him. Yup, he’s coming to check me out, he’s got something in his hands, I don’t know what his deal is.
Throw in Everlastinphelps’ ritual gang thing (‘Circling’) if you wish.
.
“He minimized his own risk of serious injury. He was carrying a firearm.”
You do realise how dangerous that sort of assertion would be for Zimmerman’s defence?
There are good sensible reasons for Neighbourhood Watch to say “NO GUNS”.
High amongst those would be exactly what you are saying there.
1) It could induce people to get themselves into very dangerous situations in the belief that they could handle any problems by opening fire.
2) You get people with guns but no training in how to handle situations of conflict.
3) It’s vigilantism
If Zimmerman stood up in court and said what you just posted, it would be very damaging for him.
What it speaks of is the “depraved mind” that does not consider the lives of others.
It puts the question beyond plain manslaughter because it signifies an intent to use the gun as a matter of course.
.
TM, on the other hand, brought on his own death, by taking the needless risk of attacking a man who might be armed.
There are indications via Zimmerman’s parents that the fight started when Zimmerman reached for his phone and Martin saw the gun. A neighbour of theirs reports that this is what the parents told the neighbours.
Zimmerman’s brother says on Piers Morgan that the fight started when Zimmerman reached for his phone. He also says that the two were struggling for the gun at the end.
.
and….
“Why are you following me?” – I’m the local Neighbourhood Watch
“Got a problem homie?” – I’m the local Neighbourhood watch.
10.04am: Bernie de La Rionda, the prosecutor, is asking Gladys Zimmerman about her son’s 2005 arrest on charges of assaulting ATF officers.
He asks why George didn’t follow the officers’ orders.
Gladys says “George said the officers never identified themselves as such”.
froggielegs said:
Excellent analysis Mike but I just want to point out one part where Dee Dee is talking about the bumping. If you listen carefully @11:26 she actually says…
Dee Dee: Yeah..and I hear, I hear something like bump. You could hear that Trayvon bump (She pauses then says) somebody bumped Trayvon cause I could hear the grass
BDLR: OK, so you could hear that there was something going on
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: Like something hitting something?
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: OK.
Dee Dee: You could hear Tray (again she pauses and then says) I could hear the grass thing.
Both times she messed up initially saying she heard Trayvon hitting/bumping George. Listen to that section again and see if you hear the same thing.
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear Froggielegs:
Bless your heart, you’re absolutely correct! I’ve updated the article appropriately. This rather changes things, doesn’t it? What I suspect happened is that she was actually saying that Martin “bumped” Zimmmerman, but realizing she wasn’t supposed to say that, immediately switched 180°. It would have been fascinating to see BDLR’s reactions to that initial, subtle gaffe (“gaffe” being defined in the classic Washington DC sense of accidentally telling the truth).
Thanks again!
froggielegs said:
You’re very welcome. My apologies for being so critical but you missed another one too. Her voice gets low when she says “Tray”.
Dee Dee: You could hear Tray… (again she pauses and then says) I could hear the grass thing.
Again she wanted to say she heard Trayvon hitting George but either caught herself or BDLR shook his head no letting her know not to say that and she switched it to “the grass thing”.
It does change things. It shows she was either coached before the interview, during it or both. I suspect both.
Brian said:
At the 21:51 mark the voice (her attorney or someone like that I assume) tells her she does not have to answer that when asked why she feels guilty.
Tom said:
Yeah, wouldn’t want anything said that might challenge the multi-million dollar narrative they are hoping to force feed the American public.
James F said:
Dee Dee: Yeah, and he told me he ready to go home and watch…finish watching the game.
BDLR: The game?
Dee Dee: Yeah, he left his little brother, so he trying to rush and…
Finish watching the game? The game had not yet started. One of the earlier narratives did state he left during the game but was later disproved by the fact that Trayvon was dead before the game even started.
Rush? It took him 40 minutes to complete a fifteen minute walk.
James F said:
It seems this myth was especially pervasive in the black community. Since the Martin’s fabricated this lie after the fact, it is impossible for DeeDee to have heard it from Trayvon as she claims. She was obviously coached or influenced by the media and her entire testimony is therefore suspect. The Martin’s blatant attempt to deceive the public also puts their whole story in serious doubt.
“During halftime of the NBA All-Star Game, Martin’s family said he walked to a nearby convenience store to get some candy for his younger brother.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/08/family-of-trayvon-martin-_n_1332756.html
Trayvon left his father’s house, during half-time of a Miami Heat’s basketball game. Yet, he never made it back. He was simply there to watch a game, on his father’s TV.
http://julene.womenforaction.org/2012/03/justice-fortrayvon-martin-rally-in.html
James F said:
I just found out about an interview with Chad Green’s father. He repeats his son’s obvious lie about Trayvon leaving during half time. He refers to Brandy as Tracy’s girlfriend, not fiance. And more importantly he does not refer to Trayvon as Chad’s brother or stepbrother or even future stepbrother, only as friend.
Chad was coached to lie. I always suspected as much but now have solid proof.
http://www.wftv.com/videos/news/dad-of-slain-teens-friend-talks/vGfYt/
Rum said:
Sling
I think it is likely that TM knew what a NW guy was and that they are not supposed to be armed. Thus a perfect target to receive a beat down.
All of the prosecution theories only make sense if GZ shot before getting a prolonged beat down. If he had any kind of depraved mind, he would not have taken any of it, much less a minutes worth.. Most especially if his gun was drawn from the start.
Besides, what would have been different if GZ was a real life Cop who was off duty would lived in that neighborhood? He would have been armed(in most places), he would have called in TMs presence and behavior and the recent crime wave. He would -probably- have gotten out of his vehicle to keep a line of sight with an ostensibly fleeingTM he had just called about and had expected near instant uniformed back-up and would have used his weapon if his head was being bounced off concrete.
RuleofOrder said:
The concrete that causes grass stains.– GZ was bloodied, but I think the more probable explanation for that would be him landing on something after being knocked down rather than a further assault. The instances I have had regarding my head and concrete (and there have been more than I like to admit to) have yet to involve cuts like those that are on GZ’s noggin. I would have thought to have seen more “road rash” or abrasion to verify the banging into concrete part. Granted, I am not a medical professional, but I have seen my OWN dome enough to know what kind of injury prompted the bleeding.
I am of the feeling that if GZ was off duty officer, then he probably would have asked questions from the get go, rather than trying to bait a Non-em operator into thinking a guy with a gun is approaching his car.
“I think it is likely that TM knew what a NW guy was and that they are not supposed to be armed.’ — I wouldn’t make that logical leap if you paid me to. If he knew he was NW, he would also know that running from him would mean there wouldn’t be a persuit.
SlingTrebuchet said:
GZ isn’t a cop.
NW don’t need guns because they are told not to get themselves into the situation that Zimmerman got himself into.
“Observe from a safe distance” involves keeping a safe distance from someone that you can see at all times.
Whatever happened in the struggle, it can not be as simple as the given wisdom.
Going by the 911 call, the whole disturbance up to the shot lasted for at least a minute.
Wherever it started, it ended 50 feet South of the T-junction – beside the back porch of the second house. “John”‘s house apparently.
If it started elsewhere, like up at the T-junction, the pair did not get there while Zimmerman was straddled by Martin. Zimmerman’s head, jacket, jeans and shoes would exhibit extreme traces of the saturated grass and earth that the weight of two men would pick up as they scraped over the ground.
Earwitnesses report a loud extended argument prior to the stream of cries.
It’s not as simple as “Problem homie? – No – Now you do – Decking and straddling.
Zimmerman’s family are the source of questions about when exactly the gun was noticed by Martin.
I think that at this stage when we theorise about what might have happened in that struggle we are whipping at a horse that is not dead, but completely unresponsive in a narcotically-induced sleep.
We have less than two weeks now before the deadline on release of the statements expires. I wonder if this will be delayed until the last moment given that both prosecution and defence did not want them released at all.
When the horse gets revived for a while then, there may be some light shone on the matter by the statements – or not. :(
GWCarver said:
MIke,
Are you sure prosecutors don’t at least meet with witnesses to go over their sworn statements prior to trial? I’m getting some heat about this at another site.
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear GWCarver:
In my experience, it’s something they very much avoid for the reasons I’ve suggested. I’ve often sat in on meetings with prosecutors, local, state and federal, as they met witnesses for the first time on the day they would testify (these witnesses were people I interviewed). In every case, if they discussed their testimony at all, it might be to ask them a very general question such as whether their testimony would in any way differ from what they told the police. Most don’t go that far. The merely introduce themselves, ask if the witness has any questions about the process, tell them they’ll be asking them about what they’ve said in their statements, and tell them at about what time they expect to need them to testify.
I cannot say that it never happens, but again, for the reasons I’ve listed, it’s a very bad idea and quite unprofessional.
Great question, and I hope this is helpful.
Phelps said:
In my experience it is routine in civil cases, but it is not in criminal cases.
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear Phelps:
This has been my experience as well. Thanks!
juggler523 said:
Sling –
You REALLY need to be more realistic with your walking speeds. In rates of speed you mention above, your speeds appear to range from 4.28 to 4.44 feet per second in two places. Are you clocking MIDGETS?
I am 6’1″. My hallway at work is exactly 100ft long. I have walked it quite casually and timed myself several times. A slow walk is about 5ft per second. Normal walking speed is closer to 6ft per second. And I wasn’t nervous, agitated, scared, or anything – and no one was following me.
As I have critiqued earlier, your fallacy in using absolutes is that you presume an uninterrupted pace, a direct route between two points (i.e., straight-line distance), a speed of unknown rate (and you don’t even STICK with the same rates), exact geographical positions from which to measure, exact time hacks at which events began, specific definitions of terms that were not defined (like “circling”), etc. – all of which you have arbitrarily nailed down with Swiss clockwork precision according to your own very likely off-base defined parameters.
Mike continues to caution you against what you continue to do…but it seems like it has hit you like an addictive drug, and you are unable to stop.
SlingTrebuchet said:
Juggler,
I think that you misunderstand the approach that I took.
I started with a a record of event times within the call recording. There were Zimmerman’s observations and background noises.
I made it quite clear that the speeds were simply guesstimates – based as far as possible on what might be inferred from Zimmerman’s words and sounds.
That resulted in a table of estimates of the distances covered in just five, and only five journeys:
1) Martin from near the clubhouse to the truck
2) Martin away from the truck until “He’s running”
3) Zimmerman near the truck until the running/wind noises start
4) Zimmerman moving faster that a normal walk up to “OK”
5) Zimmerman moving with the exact same running/wind noises up to those running/wind noises ceasing.
That’s it.
The time spans for those segments are fixed. Listen to the recording.
The speeds were guesstimates.
Walking/running speeds outside of those five segments are not really material.
I then tried those guesstimated distances against a map to see if they put the end-points of those segments anywhere that seemed sensible.
The Martin-to-truck segment I clearly state to be a loose reasonability check for the closeness of the truck to the clubhouse. There are too many variables there.
The whole thing has to be anchored around the truck position – which though seemingly strange, could be explained by unique sightlines from there.
I tried Taaffe’s indicated position, and by some uncanny freak, it left Martin “He’s running” up near the T-junction.
It also left Zimmerman apparently slowing down just at the point where it would have been natural and logical to slow down. Just coming up past the first townhouse and getting his first sightline down the central area.
Some feet more or less due to variations in speed, don’t have a significant effect on the overall.
I’m perfectly happy to run your walking speed against the fixed timespans.
The guesstimates that I tried first are not an article of faith with me.
If Zimmerman actually moved faster, it just takes him further along the path, and he’s still at the top of the central area when he slows. I will avoid causing a virtual riot by doing the maths here.
It is also apparent from his words that Zimmerman is in a location where he believes that Martin could be hidden and within earshot. The most reasonable location for him to be saying that would be the dark (unlit apart from one porch light and whatever leaks from windows) central area with its rows of back porch partitions on both sides.
If Martin walked faster, it just leaves him easily up at the top of the area without any element of running.
It’s no big deal because we have absolutely no idea how either of them moved once they got up there – other than Zimmerman saying we walked to Retreat View Circle to get an address.
The further Zimmerman get up that path and nearer to Retreat View Circle during call, the less distance he has to walk to find an address – and the more time is left unexplained.
All we know is that two minutes+ after Zimmerman ended the call, the encountered each other somewhere in the upper part of the central area.
The Zimmerman-supportive view needs him to walk as slowly as possible
You want him walking even faster than I had guesstimated.
You are putting more pressure on Zimmerman to explain rationally what he was doing in the two minutes.
A faster-walking/jogging Zimmerman has less excuse for not returning immediately to the truck than does a slower version.
Your faster speeds are potentially damaging to him.
==================================
This is an excellent time to make an observation on one of the types of debate that is going on here.
I have noted a pattern of people coming in on a particular point to make a ‘killer’ observation.
The problem is that they are concentrating on the point in isolation, and don’t appear to see the implications in the big picture.
.
Instance:
Everlastingphelps explained that the ‘circling’ I asserted as impossible, was indeed possible if the ‘circling’ was a certain gang-signature arc rather than a complete circle as indicated by Taaffe.
That leaves the possibility that such happened, even though Zimmerman did not mention such an obviously threatening move at the time it happened, and the Dispatcher was looking for reports on anything that the suspect did.
This is good for Zimmerman, as it does seem that ‘circling’ features in some way in his statements and is not disprovable.
This is very bad for Zimmerman, as it logically would make him explicitly aware of a threatening/dangerous intent on the part of Martin. Going in blind on the heels of Martin after that would point to a significantly greater level of recklessness than would apply had Martin simply walked past him.
Instance:
In a discussion about risk v reckless, Allyn says
“He minimized his own risk of serious injury. He was carrying a firearm.”
That’s 20 to life in the slammer. It would mean that the use of the gun in the particular circumstances was premeditated. It implies that Zimmerman would deliberately go further than reasonable caution would indicate – because he would use the gun if things went badly for him
That would give poor NW coordinator Wendy Dorvial a total fit of the vapours. Right no she’s probably creating a new slide for her presentations – based on Zimmermans’s actions – “Here is a prime example of what you SHOULD NOT do” – sort of thing.
.
…more like that.
.
If you assert that real walking speeds are faster, I’m happy to accept your expertise. It’s not problem for me.
It is a problem for Zimmerman.
If he’s walking faster, it leaves more time unexplained by his minutes in the gap of mystery.
juggler523 said:
GOOD GOD, Sling….you’re incorrigible with your “guesstimates”. You say the times are even less advantageous if you go by MY “calculations”. That is ONE variable! You forget all those other variables you have “guesstimated” about…..like geographical locations, direct point to point movements, blah blah blah….I didn’t even READ all your blather above…..you’re little more than a self-promoting windbag with a strong denial of common sense and the evidence. If you’re a hairdresser or perhaps stock clerk by day, I understand your ignorance. Because an objective analyst you are NOT.
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear SlingTrebuchet:
Let us keep in mind–and I speak here as one with actual experience in this–that any law enforcement agency is going to do all they can to avoid bad publicity in their relationship with any neighborhood watch group. All police administrators are bad PR averse and go to incredible lengths to avoid it and resultant law suits. While this is not unreasonable, it will cause officers to encourage citizens to essentially wrap themselves in protective bubbles, and even to avoid doing things that make sense, such as keeping criminals in sight for responding police officers. I’ve seen this sort of thing over and over.
The bottom line is simple: we are all responsible for our own person safety and that of our neighborhoods. The police not only cannot protect everyone, they have no legal obligation to do so, as I pointed out in this December, 2011 PJ Media article. When we surrender our duty to take care of ourselves to the government, we surrender our very lives.
The fact remains: considering what we currently know, Zimmerman did nothing illegal and nothing wrong.
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear SlingTrebuchet:
Indeed. And I add this primarily for the benefit of others commenting here: It is highly unlikely that Martin had any idea that Zimmerman was part of a neighborhood watch, or that he was even aware that one existed in that neighborhood. In fact, he may not have even been aware that such a thing existed at all. Adults who do not deal with teenagers on a daily basis as I do tend to forget that they simply don’t think and reason as adults do. Not only that, they’re intelligent, but have seriously limited information about not only the world around them, but about human nature. They also tend to be pretty narcissistic. That’s all part of being a teenager. I am constantly surprised by what even the most informed and intelligent among them don’t know, common things most adults take for granted. Their motivations tend to be far more personal and impulsive and far less well-considered. This is nowhere more true then for kids involved in drugs and thuggish posturing.
Also, if you’ll review the photos I’ve provided in Update 9, you’ll notice that what we’re presuming to be the place where the scuffle ended is not, in fact, 50′ south of the intersection of the sidewalk “T” but in the area of 12-16 feet. As I noted in that update, less than the width of many common living rooms. I make this estimate based on the size of the individual sidewalk squares, which appear to be from 3′ to 4′ in size.
As you say, we may or may not know much–if anything else–after the release of Zimmerman’s statements.
SlingTrebuchet said:
Hi Mike
Yes I saw your map with photo, red X and yellow dot.
I think that the perspective of the camera shot with the red X superimposed works to get the position of the body wrong.
If you look at the night-time photo with the yellow blanket, you might notice that it lies beyond the white divider between the two houses.
This is in accordance with the first 911 caller – who lives in the first house – saying that they ended up outside her neighbour’s porch.
This is also in accordance with that neighbour describing two people wrestling in his back yard.
Ditto for the pieces of evidence retrieved nearer to the body location.
If you measure that on a map, you’ll find that it is 50 feet South of the East-West path – and perhaps a bit more.
Your initial yellow circle was on the mark. The centre point of that was at the 50 foot distance.
The satellite images in Google Maps/Earth show these white dividers clearly and evenly down the length of that area.
On the map, 12 – 16 feet does not even get to the near corner of the first house.
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear SlingTrebuchet:
The “X” I placed on the sidewalk in those photos is an approximation of where I believe the “scuffle” as the SP has termed it, mostly took place. Again, none of us know the exact location with any degree of accuracy, but considering what appears to be the position of Martin’s body, it’s a reasonable guesstimate. I suggest using the tree to the immediate right in the photos as a point of reference as it is clearly visible in overhead imagery and therefore helpful in establishing scale.
We still do not know the dynamics of the scuffle. However, experience teaches that once the first punch has been thrown, it is not at all unusual for a scuffle to end a significant distance from the initial punching point. We don’t know, for instance, if after being shot, Martin simply keeled over where we was, staggered some distance, or any other of a number of common possibilities. Even a person shot in the heart can have as much as three minutes of useful consciousness before falling blood pressure induces unconsciousness.
Again, I’m not stating that position as absolutely, to the millimeter accurate and definitive, but as a good estimate based on what we currently know. If you count the sidewalk squares, you get the distance I suggested. This is not unreasonable.
Tom said:
“Adults who do not deal with teenagers on a daily basis as I do tend to forget that they simply don’t think and reason as adults do. Not only that, they’re intelligent, but have seriously limited information about not only the world around them, but about human nature. They also tend to be pretty narcissistic. That’s all part of being a teenager. I am constantly surprised by what even the most informed and intelligent among them don’t know, common things most adults take for granted. Their motivations tend to be far more personal and impulsive and far less well-considered. This is nowhere more true then for kids involved in drugs and thuggish posturing.”
Beautifully written….and completely true. I remember being a 17 year old kids, and the type of behavior of my peers.. It is simply bizarre beyond belief that those wanting to give every benefit of the doubt to the thuggin and druggin 17 year old suspended for school for 10 days.
There is no doubt in my mind, race is the ONLY reason GZ was charged. If this was a white 17 year old punk going nowhere in life and constantly suspended from school…and a black 28 year old loan officer. And you have the same eye witnesses, same facts on the ground. There is no way he is charged.
Tom said:
Sling, you do seem like a semi reasonable person…especially considering the racial grievance lynch mob who are your main allies.
– what was Zimmerman even thinking of in the first place when he followed to where he might have seen Martin disappear
I see nothing illogical about a neighborhood watchmen attempting to get a visual of a suspicious person who just turned EXTREMELY suspicious by running away. Seeing a suspicious person run away would make many men want to see where they are running especially when you are on the phone with police who are due to arrive within minutes…if not seconds.
– why did he not go back to the truck and mailboxes as agreed once he realised that he couldn’t see anything there
I don’t know for sure, but from his perspective the police are probably going to arrive any second now. Possibly he wanted the police to call him for safety reasons. At this point he doesnt have the visual of the suspicious character he was hoping to have and is actually showing fear to the dispatcher….”I don’t want to give my address because this kid might still be around”. Maybe he didn’t want to run 4-5 hundred feet to the mailboxes, when the suspect could have doubled back. There could be many reasons. But if you think the above two points are your evidence to prove BEYOND a reasonable doubt manslaughter. I am afraid there is not too much hope for you. You would be the type of jury member that would be every prosecutor’s dream.
So I am assuming you think GZ did not want to meet with the police, who are due to arrive any second, somewhere 500 feet away…because of nefarious reasons?
And these nefarious reasons are that he wants to confront and apprehend the suspicious character he saw disappear around this location 3 minutes prior?
And what we know that GZ thought the suspicious character may have a weapon, but he doesn’t know for sure. And you think GZ wants to apprehend this character physically, while he himself is concealing a weapon. You do realize the last thing a sane person with a concealed weapon would want to do is engage in hand to hand combat with someone else. The gun could misfire, the gun could fall out, your opponent could secure the gun and KILL you. Nothing that you are suggesting is making any sense at all.
SlingTrebuchet said:
Hi Tom
“Sling, you do seem like a semi reasonable person…especially considering the racial grievance lynch mob who are your main allies.”
Hey! Who you callin’ “semi”?
As for the racial thing, I really don’t think that this was all about Martin being black. He just happened to be black. He could equally been white, hispanic, oriental or whatever.
Any measure of racism that might be influencing behaviour of police, media and onlookers after the event is entirely separate from the event itself.
It seems some people are digging into indicators of racism on the part of Zimmerman as enthusiastically as others are digging into indicators of criminality on the part of Martin. I’m not going anywhere near that stuff.
You are mistaken in the term “allies”. It implies some organised campaign of like-minded persons. I think I am very different in my outlook from many people who might be classed as ‘not seeing Zimmerman as the victim’.
.
“I see nothing illogical about a neighborhood watchmen attempting to get a visual of a suspicious person who just turned EXTREMELY suspicious by running away. Seeing a suspicious person run away would make many men want to see where ..
There would be a logic behind going to try and see.
But that’s not the point.
The point is that, for example, NW presentations (such as facilitated by and attended by Zimmerman) make a special point of trying to get people to resist the urge at times when ‘would make many men want to’ situations might arise.
.
If you can’t see the target, you are not observing.
If you go towards where you think the target might be, you don’t have any assurance of a safe distance. You might just run into the target.
But if you think the above two points are your evidence to prove BEYOND a reasonable doubt manslaughter.
Let me clear about why I think it is at least manslaughter
1) Going in there blind was reckless
2) When the two encountered each other, even by his own account, he made no effort to defuse a potentially explosive situation. Instead he inflamed it – and that’s going by the best story he chose to tell. That part is totally ironic when you consider that part of his justification for an assault on ATF officers was “George said the officers never identified themselves as such”
3) Having gone in there, and then inflamed the situation, he’s got what earwitness evidence describe as a loud argument going on for some time before there is a series of cries for help. His assertion is believed to be one of being attacked on the East-West path – then immediately decked and straddled. Yet the body ends up 50 feet South where “John” describes two guys wrestling outside his window before the shot. Look at a map.
“No reasonable means to extricate himself” does not mean ‘last thing to do before I pass out’. The thing to be extricated from is the entire situation in that dark pathway area. His actions from the moment he left the truck and had no sight of Martin – were unreasonable.
.
You do realize the last thing a sane person with ….
Yes indeed I do.
I just think Zimmerman is an idiot. A reckless idiot.
I don’t see him as some evil killer racist. He’s just an idiot who made some massively bad judgement calls that resulted in a death.
He’s not necessarily ‘evil’. He’s just a danger to himself and others..
.
“So I am assuming you think GZ did not want to meet with the police, who are due to arrive any second, somewhere 500 feet away…because of nefarious reasons?”
You would be wrong in that assumption.
Zimmerman definitely wanted to meet the police. He wasn’t out to do anything that he thought should be hidden from the police.
Whatever he intends to do, it is clear from the call that he formed the intention do do it in the last moments of the call. Instead of meeting at the mailboxes as first agreed, he will be ‘somewhere’.
Whatever he did do, it will be over two minutes before the confrontation.
Indications from leaks and from his father’s observation of the video reconstruction are that he spent those two minutes getting an address in Retreat View Circle and then leaving that address to walk back to his truck (from an address that he had to find so that he could tell the police where to meet him)
.
Nothing that you are suggesting is making any sense at all.
Well, look on the bright side.
At least I’m making more sense than Zimmerman.
Allyn said:
Sling,
You say about GZ “He’s just an idiot who made some massively bad judgement calls that resulted in a death.” Can not the same be said about TM?
“Seeing a suspicious person run away would make many men want to see where ..”
“There would be a logic behind going to try and see.
But that’s not the point.”
Not only is that the point, you just acknowledged the reasonable man defense. NW may teach, emphasize staying a safe distance, but that is a judgment call and I don’t see any requirement in the affirmative defense of self defense, that one must not violate NW recommendations in order to use that defense. As someone else pointed out, his error in judgement was not following after the fleeing suspicious person, but rather in his assessment that he was extremely dangerous.
And enough of the ATF story. Are you saying GW was okay to scuffle with the agents because they did not identify themselves AND it was okay for TM to punch GZ because he didn’t identify himself? Or are you saying that they were both wrong? And you forget to include that GZ thought he was coming to the defense of a friend who was being accosted by the unidentified ATF agents.
SlingTrebuchet said:
Allyn,
The reason I mention the ATF thing is because of the massive irony.
Zimmerman says that the ATF officers did not identify themselves as such.
This made his behaviour reasonable in his own view.
Going by that, Zimmerman believes that there is an onus on a person acting in an authoritative capacity to make that capacity clear to people.
It would seem that he saw himself to be acting in a capacity of that type.
Even by his own account of a very short exchange, he had an opportunity to state his business.
Earwitness report an exchange that was much longer/complex than Zimmerman apparently described and that was also much louder than would be indicated by Zimmerman’s version.
Zimmerman’s responses, both in his own account and that of the girl, can only serve to inflame a situation.
They are the diametric opposite of explaining why he is there.
Some might argue that the question is moot, as they are convinced without any evidence, that Martin simply made a vicious and unprovoked attack. Therefore any explanation by Zimmerman would have no effect.
Others might not see it that way.
It could be the case that Martin had been sitting in a back porch when Zimmerman appeared at at the top of the path, and subsequently the two came face to face. Martin was faced with a stranger who had “looked at him crazy” from the truck ( he would have seen Zimmerman freaking to the dispatcher). Now the weird stranger had followed him. Zimmerman would quite understandably be seen as a threat.
By both accounts, Martin asked Zimmerman a form of “WTF?”
Zimmerman believes that there is an onus on a person acting in an authoritative capacity to make that capacity known. If the person does not make their position known, then it is in order to assault them if they are presenting some form of threat.
That is what his account of past actions with the ATF officers makes clear.
Call it “The Zimmerman Rule”.
It might be that Martin died because he followed the Zimmerman Rule.
Zimmerman’s family say that the fight started when Zimmerman reached for his phone. (rather than stating his position in response to a question).
When exactly Martin became aware of the gun is unknown. A neighbour of Zimmerman’s parents reports them as stating that Martin saw it immediately when Zimmerman went for his phone.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/19/new-account-zimmerman-told-cops-trayvon-s-last-words-were-okay-you-got-it.html
Allyn said:
“Zimmerman’s family say that the fight started when Zimmerman reached for his phone. (rather than stating his position in response to a question). When exactly Martin became aware of the gun is unknown. A neighbour of Zimmerman’s parents reports them as stating that Martin saw it immediately when Zimmerman went for his phone.”
This 3rd hand account is no more reliable, and makes less sense, than our conjecture. If the struggle did not ensue until TM saw the gun and he struggled for it, how did GZ get punched in the nose? I believe, based on everything I have read, that TM asked a rhetorical question, to which GZ responded by asking TM what he was doing there. It was rhetorical as TM didn’t care what he would answer, he was using it as a delay to get closer to GZ so he could sucker punch him. Any detection of, and ensuing struggle for, the gun did not occur until TM was on top of GZ. I also do not believe GZ felt he was in an authoritative position and NEVER expected to come face to face with the charming lad.
With respect to the ATF incident, my understanding is GZ came to the aid of his friend who was in a struggle with unknown men, who, it turns out, we’re acting authoritatively. See the difference, or do you prefer to ignore the difference as it doesn’t support your narrative? GZ was arguably acting courageously coming to the aid of his friend. Turned out to be a bad idea, but their is no reason to suggest he would have done so if he knew they were ATF. On the other hand, there is no reason to suggest that TM would not have acted exactly as he did had GZ identified himself as NW. What would you point to to dispute?
SlingTrebuchet said:
Allyn,
This 3rd hand account is no more reliable, and makes less sense, than our conjecture.
How about a second hand account? From Zimmerman’s brother on the Piers Morgan show.
( Transcript for the video at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1203/29/pmt.01.html )
.
If the struggle did not ensue until TM saw the gun and he struggled for it, how did GZ get punched in the nose?
It’s really dark there. Zimmerman goes for his phone.
In the circumstances, if you were facing someone in the dark, someone who had been following you – and they made a move with their hand – might you not think that a weapon of some sort was in question? Why should you assume that they were reaching for a phone?
I believe, based on everything I have read, that TM asked a rhetorical question, to which GZ responded by asking TM what he was doing there. It was rhetorical as TM didn’t care what he would answer, he was using it as a delay to get closer to GZ so he could sucker punch him. Any detection of, and ensuing struggle for, the gun did not occur until TM was on top of GZ.
Yes you do believe it. Your belief is a fundamentalist one. It is an article of faith. It is not based on any information. It is based on your need to believe it.
I also do not believe GZ felt he was in an authoritative position and NEVER expected to come face to face with the charming lad.
Think about it.
He had no idea where Martin was. He hadn’t seen him since “He running”, when he was sitting in his truck.
He went in blind. He’s walking up in that dark area. His “Oh crap. I don’t want to give that all out. I don’t know where this kid is.” demonstrates that he is aware that the punk could be right by him.
How on earth could he possibly not expect that he might come face to face with him?
When he does come face to face, what does he do?
He goes for his phone – an action which might fairly be misinterpreted as as going for a weapon in the dark.
Did he expect the punk to just stand there while he made a call?
If it is the case that the punk made all the approach, rather that Zimmerman walking into his space, why would Zimmerman expect him to run away just because he makes a phone call?
If we accept Everlastingphelp’s explanation of ‘circling’, the punk had just moments before made a very threatening gang-signature move around the truck, hard eye-balling him. The move promises imminent violence. What is he thinking?
How did he get punched if Martin thought that the weird stranger who won’t explain himself is reaching for a weapon?
The question would be: How could he not get punched?
Zimmerman made all the wrong moves from the moment he stepped out of the truck. Up until then he was fine.
Tom said:
In a situation like this without a reliable eye witness…
Oh wait, scratch that, we already have a reliable eye witness who backs up most of GZ’s story.
But let’s just say we didn’t have one and we had an even starting point. I would long and hard at character. The author of this blog nailed it with a post a few weeks ago. GZ wins hand down at the current moment in time. By the time Trayvon was 28, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if he turned his life around and was a better guy than GZ at 28. But when Trayvon was 17, he was bad news. It would be difficult to find a more likely suspect of someone that would be likely to start a physical altercation. Unfortunately, most teenagers on the “bad” spectrum are definite suspects of starting physical altercations…because it’s the kind of things bad teenagers do….all the time.
SlingTrebuchet said:
“In a situation like this without a reliable eye witness…
Oh wait, scratch that, we already have a reliable eye witness who backs up most of GZ’s story.”
Are you speaking of Witness #6, from the second house on the right down the path, who’s lurid description of straddling and MMA-stle rain of punches on the night has now dramatically changed in the light of the pitch blackness that he now admits? (pun intended)
He now says that :
He couldn’t really see anything because it was so dark.
All he can say is that the guy on top had a darker top that the guy underneath.
He doesn’t know who was shouting. He just assumed that it was the one underneath because that seemed logical to him.
At first he thought it was one person. Then he saw it was two. They were both lying horizontally on the ground
He doesn’t know if the guy on top was punching or just holding the other guy’s arms down.
He says that for all the time that he saw them, they were wrestling like that.
He says that when he said MMA, he just meant that the guy on top seemed to have control. He didn’t actually see punching. He didn’t hear anything that sounded like a blow or a slap. He didn’t hear anything like a head being bumped on concrete.
He couldn’t see their hands.
He only saw them for about 10 seconds.
When he first saw them, they were on the grass outside his porch. This is about 50 feet South of the T-junction. As he closed and locked his door, he saw them wrestling, still both horizontal, wrestling over to the path.
He doesn’t back up GZ’s story.
He contradicts some very key points of it.
SlingTrebuchet said:
“we already have a reliable eye witness”
If he’s reliable, he’s only marginally more reliable than Dee Dee.
( Mike! I’m back on topic! )
He just seems to have better English than Dee Dee, although he apes her “from=to” with his own “vertical=horizontal/perpendicular” in the MArch 20 one. That really confuses the interviewer
Listen to him at :
http://trayvon.axiomamnesia.com/people/witnesses/witness-6-files-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-case/
God almighty!
Witnesses – can’t live without them – can’t live with them.
Rum said:
Rule
I am a Medical Professional who has worked ERs. The head damage that matters is all on the inside and that correlates hardly at all with cuts on the outside. On average, about 2 people are killed every day in the US from simple fist to head injuries.
Sling
Again, if GZ had shot before taking an extended beat down, your points would be a lot more relevant to the merits of a self defense claim. But he did not. TM had proved by the continued beating that he WAS an immediate threat to GZs life and/or severe injury. Anyone in GZs position would use any weapon available at that point. Including you. If you could pull it off, you would have put your car keys thru TMs eye-sockets if you were taking what GZ was taking. Yes, you would. The beginning of wisdom in regard to self defense issues is to realize that if you do not do whatever it takes to not die, no other argument will mean anything.
RuleofOrder said:
” Anyone in GZs position would use any weapon available at that point.” — “at that point” being the important descriptor.
“If you could pull it off, you would have put your car keys thru TMs eye-sockets if you were taking what GZ was taking. Yes, you would” — yes, probably.
What I would have “pulled off” if you don’t mind me stating, is to stay where I am at. If I am so concerned, before a call gets made, or maybe while I am on the phone, I have asked this person from my car “Hey, you look a little ill, are you okay”, or some other such intent judging question to start a conversation. I have no desire to chase some one from a mail kiosk. That seems… well, stupid, for lack of a better.
Phelps said:
Stupid is not reckless. Just because you wouldn’t make the same decision — even if MOST people wouldn’t make the same decision — doesn’t mean that it rises to recklessness. It really is a high standard.
Theres one more element. Who is the victim of the recklessness? It can’t be Zimmerman. You cant be reckless against yourself. So who is the victim? Martin? He lost the benefit of that with his own violence. For it to be manslaughter you have to determine that Zimmerman was reckless TO MARTIN. That somehow, by following Martin, he was reckless TO THE DANGER HE WAS PUTTING MARTIN IN. Frankly, had Martin not hit him, Martin was in ZERO danger.
RuleofOrder said:
No, stupid is very much reckless. Its been my expirience the two run in the same circles. Degrees of recklessness and stupidity, from my understanding, are really just a matter of collateral damage. The less collateral damage, the more stupid it was, the more collateral damage, the more reckless AND stupid it was.
You can’t be reckless against yourself? There is no such thing as self defeating, self destructive, or endangering oneself in your world? How endearing.
Now, if you want to argue manslaughter, or any degree of the various murders we have in our justice system, that is fine. You have me. Congratulations, though I hope you realize its a hollow victory. At best we have discovered that being reckless or stupid, and that resulting in some one’s death or injury is not a crime. This is not as endearing as the inability to be reckless towards oneself.
“Frankly, had Martin not hit him, Martin was in ZERO danger” — you hope. Speculation, pure and simple. You don’t know the lengths that Zimmerman would have gone through to ensure this “a-hole” didn’t “get away”. Based solely on the testimony of the dude who shot another dude, you assume the best intentions. Again, how endearing.
In following Trayvon, who was George ACTUALLY acting pn in defense of, be it life or property? Now, througout all this, whom was Trayvon ACTUALLY acting pn in defense of, be it life or property?
With the above questions asked, how unreasonable of actions were taken on each party, that being of a minor, and that being of a CWP holder, and NW captain?
everlastingphelps said:
We’re talking about criminal charges, and in criminal charges, recklessness is a term of art. It has a very narrow, specific meaning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recklessness_(law)
You can’t have recklessly caused the death of another (manslaughter) by being reckless against your own safety. You have to have been reckless of the danger to the person who was killed. Taking a risk that is reckless only to yourself cannot be an element of manslaughter.
RuleofOrder said:
“You can’t have recklessly caused the death of another (manslaughter) by being reckless against your own safety” — ??? Drunk driving?
Though, again, congratulations, Zimmerman is gonna walk free on the charges. No question, specially with Dee Dee’s um… “unique” testimony. However, as I mentioned, all we are doing is setting this up for some more vigilante slayings that will be masqueraded under similar circumstances to this. The very worst of this case will be repeated, to sinister ends.
Phelps said:
Drunk driving is reckless because you are piloting a multi-thousand pound missile along the public streets with impaired faculties. Drunk sitting, on the other hand, isn’t inherently reckless, because no one else is going to get hurt if you fall off your barstool. (the recklessness starts when you get off the barstool.)
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear Rum:
Welcome and thanks for your insightful and accurate comments. As I noted early in this series, the human body is at once amazingly resilient and terribly fragile. Single blows to the head can and do cause debilitating, permanent injuries, even death. If Zimmerman’s account is accurate–the evidence we have thus far supports it and the prosecution has admitted they have no evidence to prove otherwise–there can be no doubt Zimmerman was legitimately in fear of serious bodily injury or death and was therefore justified in using deadly force.
SlingTrebuchet said:
I think that any attempt to form a rule/guideline relating extent of injury after the event to a perception of a level of fear on the part of the injured is silly.
As you say, the human body is complex. An inch or so difference in the point of impact could mean the difference between life, death or long-term damage.
Even if we all had smart-phone apps linked to sensors on our bodies to give a pretty display of vital signs, the very first blow in a fight could flat-line the display.
If someone came at me in the street, I would be in fear of my life/injury/coma from the get go. I can think of a number of cases in my area where someone was left a vegetable after a street fight. Even a simple stumble can kill if the head hits something in a certain way.
I think that a suggestion that Zimmerman was not in fear of his life simply because he was walking around right as rain a short while later is silly.
If I get attacked, I’m not going to allow someone to beat me for a while just so I can prove that I’m in fear.
The initial story was that Zimmerman drew and fired in fear of his life. That seems to be the assumption in this particular discussion.
I suspect that Zimmerman’s parents and brother have relayed what Zimmerman told them – that the pair were struggling for the gun when the shot was fired.
In that case, both would have been in fear of their lives.
In that case, Martin shooting Zimmerman would be as justifiable as Zimmerman shooting Martin – if one insists on judging the matter solely on the shooter being in fear of their life at the instant that the shot was fired.
Rum said:
Rule
There is abundant evidence that GZ is stupid, or at least way too trusting
1. He had taken some college level courses on criminal justice and still talked to LE for hours without council when his whole future was at stake. That alone shows a lack of basic judgment despite being given information.
2. He assumed that because TM ran away while he was in his vehicle because TM was mainly interested in escaping because he was guilty of something or had a guilty intention. So it would be safe to get out. IOWs, he had “profiled” TM, but in way too favorable a manner. He did not take into consideration that TM might actually want to fight him as soon as it became clear he was short, clumsy, and obviously not a real Cop
3. Saying anything on a jail house phone beyond really basic stuff.
But he is not being accused of being stupid and too optimistic regarding the human condition.
RuleofOrder said:
Given his number of calls to various law enforcement agencies, and his description of TM, I “optimistic” is the word I would use. But yeah, lack of common sense and basic judgement. Do you think he would lie if the thought he could get away with it?
RuleofOrder said:
* I don’t think “Optimistic”, apologies for the correction.
Rum said:
Of course he would lie if he thought he could get away with it. (My opinion, anyway) But I do not see that as the point. I mean, whatever treasures mortal humans might possess will always be kept in earthen vessels. Even the most morally steadfast among us, in the right circumstances, might fall short. Heck, I am virtually a Saint myself… but I can remember the time when I was about 4 years old that I gave a newborn baby cousin of mine a double edged razor blade to “play” with. It seemed right at the time.
We are all stupid, sometimes; we are all vulnerable to temptation, often. And GZ was and is in many ways a loser. But… 2nd degree murder, 25 years to life, because he got ambushed by the kind of feral, drug-fueled weirdness that none of us in internet-land ever have to deal with- and then he did what he had to do to see another rise? The Greeks would have labelled all this a tragedy, not a crime.
RuleofOrder said:
“But… 2nd degree murder, 25 years to life, because he got ambushed by the kind of feral,” True, 2nd is very much an over charge. But… ambushed is also a strong word, considering the circumstances and setting, and ear witnesses before the start. Thus far “trace” amounts of THC are all I can find in regarding a toxicology report. If you have different info, please share.
I don’t like the fact the dude got charged with murder, but then I am not at all enjoying the fact that his word is taken as gospel for his timeline. TM might not have been an angel, but that doesn’t means his actions warranted a death sentence, and I am still not convinced Martin was doing anything warranting further investigation until such time as Zimmerman took a pointed interest in him. For the many actions that Zimmerman states he took, some one is apt to say there is no evidence to the contrary. Well, minus whatever yarn Zimmerman wants to say, there is no corroborating evidence either. Zimmerman’s words are probably some of the best window dressing I have seen.
juggler523 said:
stupid analogy. If it was George Zimmerman in the car, the scenario would have read that he stopped said car, backed up, attempted to turn around and one of those people in the middle of the road ran directly IN his path. Now THAT’S more accurate in comparison.
Tom said:
“TM might not have been an angel, but that doesn’t means his actions warranted a death sentence”
Anyone who doesn’t agree with this is a fool. The most likely scenario if GZ didn’t shoot TM would that TM would have left him no more beat up than GZ was. I actually wonder if the opportunity arrived for GZ to grab his gun, because TM was letting up as GZ had had enough. If caught, TM probably would have gotten a slap on the wrist considering he was 17.
Roughing somebody up as a 17 year old….is what 17 year olds do….well the bad ones anyway. No 17 year old deserves the death penalty for getting in a fight.
The problem is this. Hundreds of people die in bar fights every year, sometimes fistfights can become life threatening. The older you are the more dangerous hand to hand combat becomes. Trayvon almost certainly did not understand this.
SlingTrebuchet said:
“The Greeks would have labelled all this a tragedy, not a crime.”
It’s classic Greek tragedy of errors all right.
But.. it’s “not a crime” in the same way that reckless behaviour on the road resulting in death is ‘not a crime’.
Say I were driving along the road – car in perfect order, licensed, insured, not under the influence, not speeding.
There are a number of people just standing on the road up ahead. I have plenty of time to slow or stop if I wish. Instead, I continue driving legally at the same under-the-limit speed, attempting to weave between the people.
I kill one of them.
Cops arrive.
I explain that I’m legal. They check my papers and maybe nearby speed cameras.
They say “Ok. On your way. Shame about the dead person, but hey! Shit happens”
That’s what happens? No?
Rum said:
to see another sun rise
dam that dyslexia, a.d.d., autism, alcohol poisoning, bad eye-sight
SteveDinMD said:
Can anyone confirm whether or not the can of Arizona Watermelon Juice Cocktail found in TM’s possession after the shooting was, in fact, unopened? Various accounts I’ve read have implied as much, but I haven’t been able to specifically confirm this, and I have a particular reason for wanting to know. Commenters on other boards have been quick to point out that just because Skittles and Watermelon Juice Cocktail represent two of the three specific ingredients in one particular recipe for Purple Drank, it doesn’t necessarily follow that TM intended to use them to get high. He might well have had innocent intentions for what, after all, are perfectly legal and harmless snack items. Though I have to admit that there are legitimate markets for these products where many consumers innocently enjoy them for their own sake, the totality of the circumstances make THIS purchase seem far from ordinary.
Thinking about TM’s 7-11 shopping trip got me to reflecting on my own history of such purchases. I’m not far from 50 years old, and I can’t recall a single instance in my entire life where I purchased one single-serving bottle/can of any beverage ANYWHERE and did not immediately begin to consume it. It’s in the nature of that kind of purchase for the consumer to buy one can or bottle because he’s thirsty at the moment and wants to quench his thirst right then. Yet TM buys one can of Arizona Watermelon Juice Cocktail and carries it over a mile from the point of purchase without opening it. Why?
If the can was for himself, why didn’t TM drink it on the way back from 7-11, or why didn’t he buy TWO cans — one for trip back and one for later? The logical inference is that TM had a purpose in carrying that drink all the way back to Brandi’s house. Was he bringing it back for Chad? It seems unlikely. It would have been a much more reasonable supposition if he had purchased one can for himself and one for the other boy. Then, again, why not just pick up a six-pack or a 2-litre bottle after walking all the way to 7-11 in the RAIN? Anyway, from all indications, Chad wasn’t even home, so we can scratch that theory. Nor could TM’s minimal purchase be attributed to insufficient funds — investigators found more than $40 on TM’s body after the shooting. Consider also that the All-Star game was going to be on TV that night. Did TM go to 7-11 to pick up supplies to enjoy while watching the game? If so, he had a peculiar shopping list. If there weren’t any drinks back at Brandi’s place, why didn’t he buy more? If there were already drinks there, why even purchase this ONE? Even if it was a personal favorite, one can certainly wouldn’t be enough to last the whole game. Also, why didn’t TM buy any chips or other snack items commonly consumed while watching a ball game? Was Brandi’s house ONLY lacking for Skittles, but otherwise well stocked? I doubt it.
Given TM’s history and the circumstances, it appears most likely that TM was reverting to form. TM’s father and Brandi were nowhere to be found, presumably off enjoying a romantic interlude the whole night. Chad, too, seems to have been elsewhere, otherwise he would have noticed the shooting and hours-long investigation with all its commotion. With TM home alone, I don’t think it’s a stretch to imagine that he rifled Brandi’s medicine cabinet, found cough syrup (and/or codeine, percecet, etc.) and came up with a plan for how to spend an unsupervised evening in a strange city and without access to his marijuana connections. Yes, TM had “plans” for that drink, and the evidence allows us to surmise what that plan probably was.
juggler523 said:
To SlingTrebuchet –
You wrote:
“I suspect that Zimmerman’s parents and brother have relayed what Zimmerman told them – that the pair were struggling for the gun when the shot was fired.
In that case, both would have been in fear of their lives.
In that case, Martin shooting Zimmerman would be as justifiable as Zimmerman shooting Martin – if one insists on judging the matter solely on the shooter being in fear of their life at the instant that the shot was fired.”
Wrong. Here’s a clear real-world example for you. In the early 1990s, my brother, a state police officer, pulled over a motorist for driving erratically. Initially, the motorist was cooperative. After running his ID, it became obvious that outstanding warrants required the motorist’s arrest. Now, keep in mind that police officers in the US carry a firearm continuously, and normal citizens have no fear for their lives.
Upon attempting to arrest the man, he became violent. He actually got my brother’s holster open and got partial possession of the weapon. The two struggled. The motorist/assailant had not been in fear of ANYthing but arrest – the wepon carried by my brother was not a threat at all to him. There was NO fear for his life. However, statistically speaking, anyone who has their weapon wrestled from them in an assault on their person has that weapon used against them 87% of the time. With that in mind and fearing he was losing possession of the weapon, my brother fired and killed the motorist/assailant. It was 100% justified…100%.
There is NO evidence that Zimmerman ever intended to use his weapon. In fact, the reality is that the struggle with Martin lasted no less than 45 seconds. Had Zimmerman intended to use the weapon, he would have done so long before he got his head bashed against the sidewalk. He wouldn’t have been crying for help as he was…he just would have shot. It is highly unlikely that upon encountering Zimmerman, Martin was in ANY fear of injury or death – having already had ample time while out of Zimmerman’s view to get home.
Your conclusion is ridiculous.
RuleofOrder said:
“US carry a firearm continuously, and normal citizens have no fear for their lives.”… ::snerk:: Um, no. If the weapon is not in my possesion, and its not one of MY close group while being used, I don’t trust the person handling it. I can cite multiple examples to the contrary if you would like me to.
“In fact, the reality is that the struggle with Martin lasted no less than 45 seconds. Had Zimmerman intended to use the weapon, he would have done so long before he got his head bashed against the sidewalk. He wouldn’t have been crying for help as he was…he just would have shot.” The sidewalk that causes grass stains, the hands required for banging a head into the sidewalk that makes the grass stains, the hand over the mouth, and the reaching for the gun in under 45 seconds, all of course while stating the magic words in the sunshine state “You’re gonna die tonight”. Your honor, Trayvon Martin is a four armed Ninja. My client had no chance.
Dedicated_Dad said:
Oh dear G*d – are you REALLY this stupid or just deliberately obtuse?
Let’s take this one item at a time. I’ll type slow and use small words so HOPEFULLY you can keep up…
“…The sidewalk that causes grass stains…”
It’s possible for someone to fall in such a way that their body is on the grass but their head is on – or worse at the EDGE of – a sidewalk.
“…the hands required for banging a head into the sidewalk that makes the grass stains…”
When one is on their back being mounted, instinct and struggle causes one to raise their head. Every punch thereafter would drive the victim’s head down, bouncing it off the concrete – in this case the EDGE of the concrete as is evident from the gashes in JZ’s head. This is much more dangerous as it focuses the impact into a smaller area instead of spreading it out over the whole back of JZs head.
“…the hand over the mouth…”
At no time did JZ allege TM had his hand over his mouth the whole time – only that he tried to cover his mouth to stop him from screaming. Given a struggling victim already bleeding from a broken nose it would be easy for JZ to flop his head enough to make silencing him in this way impossible – so TM went back to his original “MMA-style” “ground & pound” beating.
“…and the reaching for the gun in under 45 seconds…”
Hmmm… So you don’t know the difference between “no less than” and “under” – maybe you ARE that stupid!
The screaming is heard on the 911 tapes for at least 45 seconds – hence the “no less than 45 seconds” statement.
Given that JZ was not (and *could* not be) screaming non-stop, but had to breathe between screams and was obviously struggling as well, the caller would have to have – at a minimum:
heard JZ screaming,
muted the TV and listened some more before hearing it again,
made the decision to investigate,
gotten up and went to his window to look out,
been unable to see what was going on,
then decided to go outside,
had to remove the bar blocking his patio-door,
opened said door,
gone outside,
located the fighters,
told TM to stop,
saw that he wasn’t stopping,
told him “I’m calling 911”,
went back inside,
located his phone, (which from his description may have been upstairs)
dialed the number,
waited for it to connect, ring and be answered –
…all before the recording could possibly be able to start — it’s likely that the beating REALLY went on for somewhere around two full minutes!
Still, in an obvious attempt to stick to only the INARGUABLE facts, “RuleofOrder” said “NO LESS THAN 45 seconds because that’s what’s recorded on the tape(s).
“…all of course while stating the magic words in the sunshine state ‘You’re gonna die tonight’…”
I can believe that perhaps you’d struggle with speaking a complete sentence while performing some physical activity, but this is not a limitation to which most of us are subject.
You’re not dealing with the Kos-kids here – this is clearly a site filled with well-informed individuals – so if you want to have an actual debate you’re going to need to step it up quite a few notches.
If your post was sarcasm, please accept my apology – though I’d recommend that in the future you make that more clear.
If it was intended to be serious, then I’d have to say that you clearly lack the intelligence to debate at this level and would be much better served to close your “mouth”, open your eyes and ears and try to learn something rather than continue to prove the old adage that “it’s better to be silent and thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.“
RuleofOrder said:
I’ll grant you I misread the 45 second part. I was hoping the sarcasm/satire meter would have pegged out at Trayvon the Four Armed Ninja. ;) From other locations (not Zimmerman’s defense) I have heard implications that Trayvon might have been holding a hand over Zimmerman’s mouth, so as to render voice his calls for help, and voice analysis to be skewed.
My statements on the above are trying to demonstrate that nothing is so simple as dictated.
SlingTrebuchet said:
Juggler,
“However, statistically speaking, anyone who has their weapon wrestled from them in an assault on their person has that weapon used against them 87% of the time.”
Two people in conflict.
A gun comes into play and they both struggle for possession.
Once that struggle starts, both would have in mind that the gun could well be used against them if the other party gained control.
I think that is a hopeful sign for humanity that in the cases you mention, as many as 13% of the winners of the struggle for the gun found an alternative means of extricating themselves from the situation without shooting the other person.
Why are you following me?
Choose one of:
– I’m the local Neighbourhood Watch
– I’m the Tooth Fairy
– What are you doing around here?
juggler523 said:
To Slingtrebuchet:
Once again, you lend far too much credence to what you have gleaned from Dee Dee’s testimony:
“Why are you following me? and What are you doing around here?”
Remember, this is the girl who was supposedly talking to Trayvon Martin when the struggle that took his life began, but she told absolutely NO one and would have faded into permanent obscurity had the Crump chumps not contacted her. She felt the conversation THAT important!
As far as your comments:
“Two people in conflict.
A gun comes into play and they both struggle for possession.
Once that struggle starts, both would have in mind that the gun could well be used against them if the other party gained control.”
A gun comes into play? How about a thug, in the middle of a felonious assault he has initiated, attempts to take a HOLSTERED weapon away from its rightful owner? A thug who, up until that time, had no reason to fear for his safety or life….so HE tries to take the weapon because HE fears for his life? And prior to that he was so “afraid” that he decided to hang around for 5 minutes after he started to run, instead of going on to the condo where he was staying. Poppycock. If it (Zimmerman’s weapon) had been out already, maybe…
Martin initiated the assault…he attempted to take away someone’s weapon, and he refused to stop the assault. NO WAY you are in your right mind if you think Trayvon Martin was justified.
GWCarver said:
Mike, thank you very much for your response. My theory is Corey had de la Rionda interview DeeDee, with Sanford PD there acting as agents only, because Crump objected to Sanford PD interviewing her directly due to his stated lack of trust in their entire organization. On the other hand, he could have done just because Corey told him to do it.
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear GWCarver:
You’re quite welcome. What the Special Prosecutor should have done was send the investigators on her staff to the this and every other interview. That’s the way professionals do it.
Rum said:
I was not there, but I really doubt there was a loud and extended “argument” before there were blows. I think the screaming from GZ began when he realized the blows were not going to stop and he would maybe die if they did not. One punch or two that stops, there is nothing to scream about.. Street kids like TM who are planning to attack will normally use some verbal/body language ploy to get closer than a complete stranger could and then sucker punch. In other words, asking “why are you following me?” was not to obtain information, it was to lower GZs level of vigilance. Therefore, if GZ answered, “I am the neighborhood Tooth Fairy and or NW guy” it would not have helped his situation.
If I were in Zimmermans shoes when he first saw TM in the vicinity of the T, I would mainly be thinking of creating as much distance as I could from him without provoking him – or even if it did in some way provoke him. GZ might have been trying to do that by trying to run down the path away from the T and where his truck was.
The concept of concealed weapon carrying by civilians that I train by is that
1.Always keep situational awareness and actively avoid bad guys.
2.Sometimes that will make you look like prey.
3.If the bad guy(s) are in predatory mode, and you come across as vulnerable prey you are going to need deadly force to survive.
RuleofOrder said:
“I was not there, but I really doubt there was a loud and extended “argument” before there were blows” — this is against ear witnesses to the contrary. Man, I love being able to say that. :)
“Street kids like TM who are planning to attack will normally use some verbal/body language ploy to get closer than a complete stranger could and then sucker punch”— first, this relies upon speculation as Trayvon as a “street kid” whatever that is. What you consider “street kid” behavior, I consider frickin common sense if you want to hit some one. My method however, wouldn’t envolve approaching them from plain sight. Tsun Zu, etc.
“1.Always keep situational awareness and actively avoid bad guys” — so, following them would be……?
GWCarver said:
Here is something no anti-Zimmerman poster will answer, although I will keep trying:
Assume, for a moment, that Zimmerman is telling the truth. Let’s say you had just screamed 14 times and no one would help. You have the exact same injuries as Zimmerman and were in the exact same position. TM was threatening your life and trying to get your gun. What would you have done?
SteveDinMD said:
They won’t answer that because they insist that GZ invited TM’s attack by:
1) Noticing TM,
2) Looking at TM,
3) Leaving his car,
4) Monitoring TM’s activities,
5) Calling the non-emergency police dispatch,
6) Proceeding down the same public sidewalk in the same direction as TM,
7) Failing to give a “satisfactory” reply when TM confronted him,
8) Exercising his Constitutional right to keep and bear arms,
9) Possessing a valid permit to carry a concealed weapon,
10) Being unwilling to take his beating from TM like a man,
11) Taking prescription medication under a physician’s care,
12) Studying criminal justice,
13) Living in a “gated” community, and
14) Participating in a police sanctioned neighborhood watch program.
In short, the forces aligned against Zimmerman object to his very existence as a free, independent citizen of a republic of limited government under rule of law. In their warped world view, doped-up, misogynistic ignoramuses and budding delinquents are king. In keeping with this view, the rest of us must silently clear a wide path and avert our eyes as they pass, lest we offend the sensibilities of our royal masters and invite a well-deserved beat-down to put us in our place and provide for their general amusement.
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear SteveDinMD:
Well said. There is no question that for some, the mere idea of individuals acting as sovereign citizens is disturbing. But as I earlier noted, not only can the police not protect any individual–there are very few of them and a huge number of citizens–they have no legal duty to do so. Again, those doubting this might find my PJ Media article on the subject informative.
Remember that Zimmerman was on the phone with the police and had already summoned them. They were on the way. But the old maxim: “when seconds count, the police are minutes away,” is quite true. The primary issue in this case, when all of the sociopolitical claptrap is stripped away, is whether Zimmerman–or any reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances–would have believed they were in imminent danger of serious bodily harm or death and therefore justified in using deadly force. As I’ve repeatedly written, this is an unremarkable case. Absent the sociopolitical circus, it would have ended when the local police and prosecutor decided it was not chargeable.
Thanks again for your concise and accurate comment.
RuleofOrder said:
“…the mere idea of individuals acting as sovereign citizens is disturbing. ..” Oh, Mike, Mike, Mike. I nearly did a spit take when I read this. This is confirmation that up until the event of the altercation, that no matter whom’s instigation it was, Zimmerman can do no wrong. Martin did NOTHING that evening to breach what you would call “sovereignty”. Zimmerman, however, did call that into question with his initial point of contact, and CONTINUED to breach said sovereignty. Again, can you name a crime (without falling back to some hoodie reference, c’mon, that is beneath us both), that Martin was doing? Criminal activity, threat to property and well being of a person would be a threat to some one elses “sovereign” self, but that never occured. Zimmerman just saw a dude. Saw a dude conducting no crime, and no breach to anyone elses, as you like to call it, “sovereign” self. If by the defintion of the word you put forth, Zimmerman literally declared war.
SteveDinMD said:
RuleofOrder:
Your reply is CLASSIC and actually proves my point. No one has ever asserted that GZ (or anyone else) “could do no wrong.” Rather, many of us have noticed that no wrongdoing on GZ’s part has so far been even remotely established given the publicly available evidence. On the contrary, it is implicit to YOUR theory that TM can do no wrong. According to you, GZ’s mere act of noticing what he considered to be TM’s suspicious behaviour was so intrinsically objectionable that he deserved his spontaneous beat-down by King Trayvon I. This is the Trayvonistas’ parallel universe in which GZ is guilty. Horrifically, Angela Corey is now bringing this illogic to the “land of the free.”
Let me make this perfectly clear for you and for all others of your ilk. No one knows exactly what TM was doing that night. Maybe he had evil intent, maybe not. Frankly, it doesn’t matter. The sovereign, law-abiding citizen has the right to be mistaken in his interpretation of others’ intentions. It’s unavoidable; people are imperfect beings. Given humans’ propensity for misinterpretation, the citizen has the duty to be reasonable in his response to his fellow citizens. All of GZ’s subsequent actions pass this test:
1) Calling the non-emergency police dispatch — REASONABLE
2) Monitoring TM’s activities for the dispatcher — REASONABLE
3) Maneuvering to continue surveillance of TM — REASONABLE
4) Making his way back to his vehicle to meet the police — REASONABLE
By the same logic, TM’s actions up to the point that he encountered GZ returning to his vehicle could likewise be interpreted as REASONABLE under the circumstances, but that’s where it ends. TM’s subsequent act of attacking GZ and pressing home his attack was witout doubt UNREASONABLE and sets the stage for GZ’s final action:
5) Using deadly force to end TM’s attack — REASONABLE
TM made a grave error in attacking a fellow citizen and paid for it with his life. Up until the instant TM attacked, the whole incident could be characterized as an innocent misunderstanding and could easily have been resolved on the basis of mutual reasonableness. TM, however, violated protocol and attacked. At that point, an innocent misunderstanding was instantly transformed into a fight to the death, a fight that TM ultimately lost.
Had GZ not shot TM, we have no idea what might have happened. Perhaps TM would have immediatey gotten off GZ and run to Brandi’s house, inflicting no further injury. Perhaps he would have continued to beat GZ into an unconscious pulp, leaving him broken and bleeding on the walkway. Perhaps TM would have punched GZ just one more time … inadvertently killing him. Perhaps, just perhaps, TM would have taken GZ’s pistol and shot him in the head. We have no way of knowing — and neither did GZ — but it doesn’t matter. A citizen has no duty to entrust his life and limb to the whim and caprice of violent attackers, and he need not attribute to his attackers the best of possible motives. A citizen’s life is his own to live and to protect by any and all reasonable measures — up to and including deadly force. According to this long held rationale, TM’s death was the logical, lawful outcome of both men’s actions that night.
SlingTrebuchet said:
SteveDinMD ,
“According to (Rule) , GZ’s mere act of noticing what he considered to be TM’s suspicious behaviour was so intrinsically objectionable that he deserved his spontaneous beat-down by King Trayvon I. This is the Trayvonistas’ parallel universe in which GZ is guilty. Horrifically, Angela Corey is now bringing this illogic to the “land of the free.””
I think you will find that the objection is to Zimmerman actually following Martin into that area, and when they encountered, rather than extricating himself with an explanation of what he was about, went for his something under his jacket or on his hip
This would be after responding to a question about what was going on with either “No (he didn’t have a problem)” or “What are you doing here?”
.
“Let me make this perfectly clear for you and for all others of your ilk. No one knows exactly what TM was doing that night. Maybe he had evil intent, maybe not. Frankly, it doesn’t matter. The sovereign, law-abiding citizen has the right to be mistaken in his interpretation of others’ intentions. It’s unavoidable; people are imperfect beings. Given humans’ propensity for misinterpretation, the citizen has the duty to be reasonable in his response to his fellow citizens. All of GZ’s subsequent actions pass this test:”
Let us be clear. The sovereign, law-abiding citizen has the right to fuck up. Zimmerman exercised that right royally and someone died as a result. When the sovereign law-abiding citizen fucks up royally and someone dies as a result, there are consequences.
.
“1) Calling the non-emergency police dispatch — REASONABLE”
Yup!
“2) Monitoring TM’s activities for the dispatcher — REASONABLE”
Yup! – but only while he could actually “Observe from a safe distance”
“3) Maneuvering to continue surveillance of TM — REASONABLE”
UNREASONABLE. Very specifically banned in Neighbourhood Watch training. He had lost sight of Martin at least by the time that he was out of the truck. The moment he lost sight, he was blundering into a potentially dangerous situation.
“4) Making his way back to his vehicle to meet the police — REASONABLE”
Given that he had already fucked up by following blind into a potentially dangerous area, going directly back to his truck as quickly as possible was a reasonable recovery.
“5) Using deadly force to end TM’s attack — REASONABLE”
By the same logic, Martin using force to prevent what might have appeared to him as a deadly threat from this weird following stranger apparently going for a weapon rather than answering a query about what he was playing at. – REASONABLE
By the same logic, had Martin used deadly force to end Zimmerman’s capability to shoot him – REASONABLE
“TM made a grave error in attacking a fellow citizen and paid for it with his life. Up until the instant TM attacked, the whole incident could be characterized as an innocent misunderstanding and could easily have been resolved on the basis of mutual reasonableness. “
GZ made a grave error in (1) following TM into that dark area and (2) not attempting to resolve the situation in any sort of reasonable way.
If he wanted to resolve any potential misunderstanding, he could have done so when Martin passed him at the truck. He was safe inside. Had Martin at that stage made any threatening move, Zimmerman could drive away.
After Zimmerman upped the ante by following into a dark area, and they encountered each other, the the whole incident, even though provoked by Zimmerman’s following, could be still just about be characterized as an innocent misunderstanding and could possibly have been resolved on the basis of mutual reasonableness.
Zimmerman however, violated protocol by not responding to Martin’s question regarding an explanation of being followed.
An unreasonable situation based on an innocent misunderstanding but inflamed by Zimmerman’s following , refusal to explain and reaching for ‘something’, was instantly transformed into a fight to the death, a fight that TM ultimately lost.
Had Zimmerman not shot Martin (at 19:16:56), the police arrived at 19:17
Had Martin shot Zimmerman, the police arrived at 19:17
Zimmerman’s injuries (if not shot by Martin) would have been satisfactorily treated by a bit of wiping.
.
“A citizen has no duty to entrust his life and limb to the whim and caprice of violent attackers, and he need not attribute to his attackers the best of possible motives. A citizen’s life is his own to live and to protect by any and all reasonable measures — up to and including deadly force. According to this long held rationale, TM’s death was the logical, lawful outcome of both men’s actions that night.”
By the same logic, Zimmeman’s death at the hands of Martin would have been “the logical, lawful outcome of both men’s actions that night.”
SteveDinMD said:
“I think you will find that the objection is to Zimmerman actually following Martin into that area, and when they encountered, rather than extricating himself with an explanation of what he was about, went for his something under his jacket or on his hip
This would be after responding to a question about what was going on with either “No (he didn’t have a problem)” or “What are you doing here?””
Sling:
In light of your comment, I will offer this slight modification to my earlier theory. In YOUR particular parallel universe the act of proceeding down a public walkway in the same direction as King Trayvon I and, having done so, failing to respond to His Majesty’s question in as timely a fashion as His Majesty thinks fit and in whatever manner suit’s His Majesty’s fancy are in and of themselves necessary and sufficient conditions to warrant the Royal Beat-Down — or WORSE. How DARE the serf Zimmerman presume to challenge the Royal prerogatives! Off with his head!!
RuleofOrder said:
“…the act of proceeding down a public walkway in the same direction as King Trayvon… — but ZimmerBatman didn’t do that, did he? ZimmerBatman got some Spidey-sense at the mailboxes a few minutes earlier. ZimmerBatman took it upon himself to follow up on a non-crime. ZimmerBatman sprung into action with near catnap like reflexes to give chase to Martin, after Martin ultimately signaled a withdraw. That would be “he ran away” in the common vernacular. But, that is not good enough for ZimmerBatman. He must get his man! After all, these Assholes always get away. Not on ZimmermBatman’s watch! So, since ultimately the two were destined for an epic showdown (ZimmerBatman would have no less), and The Four Armed Ninja King Trayvon standing toe to toe with ZimmerBatman….
okay, I am done being satirical. THIS is the part that I am talking about that Zimmerman can do no wrong. All this stuff that you post as “reasonable”, is decidedly UN-reasonable. As a matter of fact, I dare say, its childish. If some one is giving me the stink eye, I am gonna run. That isn’t unreasonable, right? If the dude is still following me, at some point in time, I am gonna ask what his deal is. Still sounds reasonable, right? If I am standing toe to toe with this dude that has just chased me a block and a half, and he starts to reach for ANYTHING around his person, what reason to I have to let him produce it? Apply this course of questioning to TM’s actions, and it starts becoming pretty obvious that the both were interested in the other’s activities, but it was Zimmerman that drew an attack. Martin had no logical reason to allow Zimmerman to produce ANYTHING that was concealed.
Why do I think Martin could do no wrong in this scene? Because even the person that was following could’t name a crime. This entire situation could have EASILY been diffused before Martin even fled (let me say that again, Martin RAN AWAY), a simple question (from the friendly NWC) goes a LONG way. But, ultimately, that is not the tack Zimmerman wanted to take. Can you honestly state this event was not started, aggravated, and escalated by Zimmerman?
juggler523 said:
You wrote: “Can you honestly state this event was not started, aggravated, and escalated by Zimmerman?”
If by “event” you mean the combination of “sub-events” that consists of the two of them meeting at a particular geographical space in time, the confrontation, the scuffle, and the shooting, my answer is YES!!!
Trayvon Martin took off running about two minutes before Zimmerman hung up the phone with the dispatcher. For the last 90 seconds, Zimmerman didn’t even bother with anything related to Martin. In that time frame Trayvon Martin could have been INSIDE Brandy Green’s condo, plopped down on the couch ready for the tip-off of the All-Star Game, as Zimmerman aimlessly waited for the police (who would have found NOTHING).
But, more than 5 minutes after taking off running, Trayvon Martin WASN’T inside Brandy Green’s condo. Instead he was about 300ft north of it, in a life or death struggle with George Zimmerman, who didn’t even know where Martin was anymore when the phone call with the dispatcher was at an end.
Did Zimmerman initially pursue Martin? Sure! Did Zimmerman quickly lose sight of Martin? Yes. Did Zimmerman spend the last 90 seconds of his phone call merely exchanging contact information with the dispatcher? Yes! And after weeks of investigation, the special prosecutor could not produce evidence to contradict Zimmerman’s claim that he was en route back to his vehicle when the confrontation occurred. Nor could they conclude that Zimmerman started the confrontation.
So, YES, YES, YES…I can easily say that Zimmerman did not at least aggravate OR escalate the situation. At MOST, he may have initially started it, but he very early on disengaged. If anything, a perturbed Trayvon Martin simply took exception to someone following him and wouldn’t just let it go. That is what the evidence suggests.
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear Juggler523:
Quite.
Phelps said:
Yes, I can. Your argument falls apart first when Martin gets away, and decides to wait around instead of going home, and again when he confronts Zimmerman of his own volition.
RuleofOrder said:
“Did Zimmerman initially pursue Martin? Sure!”. And yet some how this is not aggravation. Trayvon announced his intention. Flee. From there, having left the locale, his obivous intent was withdraw. Having seemingly lost the strange guy in the car, he is now free to do what he sees fit. Be it drink his punch, eat the skittles, text a few friends, etc. He is under no obligation to run home, of course. Apparently, his intent before Zimmerman injected himself was to take a leisure stroll. Since he ducked around the building, he doesn’t have to worry about the stink eye from Zman any more, and to him, the situation is resolved…. but, along came a spider.
“but he very early on disengaged.” — AFTER a running foot pursuit. Yours and mine definition of “disengaged” is drastically different, I think. Genie is out of the bottle by the time his yarn regarding heading to his vehicle is spun. Trayvon already fled once. By now, its not unreasonable to start asking questions. Obviously, running is not a satisfactory solution for this person.
“Did Zimmerman spend the last 90 seconds of his phone call merely exchanging contact information with the dispatcher? Yes!” — I would like to point out that during this exchange, Zimmerman is wary of Martin’s position. Again, he states as such. That being the case, are we confident his direction was back to his vehicle, or… perhaps… lingering?
“..a perturbed Trayvon Martin simply took exception to someone following him and wouldn’t just let it go…” — a vigilante Zimmerman took exception to some one running from him, and just wouldn’t let him go. After all, they -always- get away. ;) I can play that game too.
SlingTrebuchet said:
Hi GW
I’ve only been discussing this matter on Prof Turley’s Legal Opinion blog and latterly on some threads in this one so I have not had the opportunity to see you posing the question.
I sense that you have been touring various blogs with the question, but have not received answers.
I suspect that part of the reason is that your question really means – “What would you have done if you were George Zimmerman?”
That’s not so much a question as a big ask.
However, as you seem to be in need of a response, I’ll give it a shot. (no pun intended)
I work on Floor 7½ of the Mertin Flemmer Building in New York City.
One day I discover a small door behind a filing cabinet. I open the door and go inside.
Whoooooosh!!!
Wha? It’s dark in here!!
What the coon?
I’m on my back and there’s someone on top of me. We seem to be fighting.
Wet! Cold! Dark! What the coon is going on?
Waaaa! He’s just banged my head. Stop! Get off me you cooning moron!
Yaaaaah! He just kneed me in the ..
In the..??? Sweet Holy Coon! I’m a guy! I’m a cooning GUY?? What the Coon???
Coon! My cooning nose. It hurts! Blood!
Help! Help! Make it stop! What the coon is going on? Help!
Waaa! My head. Help!!
Now what? He’s reaching for my gun..
My gun? My gun? I got a cooning gun? What the coon? Why the coon do I have a cooning gun?
No way! No cooning way is he getting that cooning gun.
I fight for the gun. This is cooning mental. He’s going to cooning kill me!
I get a grip on the gun. Using both my hands, I manage to turn it towards him, my finger searching for the trigger.
Inner Voice: “Are you sure that you really want to do that? Who are you? What are you doing here? Are you the good guy or the bad guy? Who started this? Does he have a wife and kids? Don’t you know that every time a gun is fired, a small puppy whines?”
I think “Lookit Inner Voice, this guy is going to cooning kill me. I don’t give a flying coon for that crap.”
I manage to pull the trigger. POW!!
Whoa! Silence for a while.
The guy is stretched on the ground. I get to my feet. He’s not moving.
Then all hell breaks loose. Cops!
They are asking what happened.
THEY.. are asking ME.. what happened.???
How the holy coon should I know? I only just cooning got here. Who the coon are you people? Where is this?
The cops cuff me and put me in a car. All sort of shit happening. Questions, questions, questions.
Listen! You think you got questions? I got cooning questions!
Then it all goes sort of black.
I feel a bump.
I look around. They’ve all gone. The cuffs are gone. I hear heavy traffic.
Where am I?
The New Jersey cooning Turnpike?? What the coon?
I stumble homewards.
My head reeling, but already I am thinkingg about who I hate enough to sent them through that door.
I shot someone. Absolutely. The way I saw it, it was him or me. Thank coon that I didn’t have to stay in that guys head and get faced with all the whys and wherefores.
————————————————————————————————
The way I got there was by going in through a small door behind a filing cabinet on Floor 7½ of the Mertin Flemmer Building in New York City.
The way Zimmerman got there was by going out the door of his truck.
Joel C said:
Ha ha ha! That was cute, I’ll give ya that, Sling. (Though that whole “coon” business was kinda weird and grossly overdone. You do know that coon is an old timey euphemism for a black person? If so- real interesting an’a bit odd that you chose it to stand in for the cuss-words.) Now I suspect that when GW poses his question, the most common results are no answer at all or an evasive argument that they’d never let that situation develop in the first place. (Maybe he’ll confirm that?)
And that’s kinda what you just did.
“The way I got there was by going in through a small door behind a filing cabinet on Floor 7½ of the Mertin Flemmer Building in New York City. The way Zimmerman got there was by going out the door of his truck.”
Yep, I think that’s “kinda” exactly what you just did!
A couple points:
First, you wrote- “I suspect that part of the reason is that your question really means – “What would you have done if you were George Zimmerman?””
No. If that is what GW means, then he would likely phrase it just so. When he writes, “What would you have done?” He means YOU, not you in some fantastic “Being John Malkovich” parody, but you on the bottom of a nasty beat down. GW, chime in if I’m wrong about this!
Second. In the midst of your through the closet door fantasy you asked your Georgeish self, “Why the coon do I have a cooning gun?”
Well, most of us who carry a gun do so cause we have realized that, no matter how we act, no matter how un-reckless we contrive to be, no matter what we say, and no matter where we say it, circumstances beyond our control may still throw us, unwilling and horrified, into the desperate situation GW details and which GZ claims to have been in.
The notion you imply, that it could only happen to you if you crawled through a small door behind a filing cabinet on Floor 7½ of the Mertin Flemmer Building in New York City, or perhaps by some other equally fantastic and unreal circumstance, is remarkably myopic. While I certainly hope that you may one day overcome this naivete, I deeply and sincerely hope that you are never disabused of it forcibly. Statistically, the odds may favor you. Good luck, even so.
Joel C said:
Um, Mike, ifImayask…
Where I wrote- “most of us who carry a gun do so cause we have realized that, no matter how we act…”
Would a ; thingy (eh, semi-colin?) have been appropriate between the “that” and the “no” ? If so, then would it be more important than the comma?
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear Joel:
Good question. Heck, in this thread we’ve gotten so far away from Dee Dee’s interview we might as well play “ask the English teacher!”
You wrote: “Well, most of us who carry a gun do so cause we have realized that, no matter how we act…”
You could most easily render it: “Most of us who carry a gun do so because we have realized no matter how we act…”
You, like me, apparently suffer from excess “that” and excess comma disease. When I proofread, I end up removing large numbers of “thats” and commas. A semicolon is primarily used to separate two independent clauses. Instead of writing: “Bob went to the park.” and “There were dogs there.” One would simply write: “Bob went to the park; there were dogs there.” An independent clause, as I’m sure you remember from high school English, is a group of words within a sentence that can stand on its own as a complete sentence. A group of words within a sentence that can’t is a phrase.
I hope this helps and perhaps this will send us off in another odd direction. Whew!
Joel C said:
Frk! “more important”. I meant more appropriate! @%#*!
SlingTrebuchet said:
Grin at Joel,
“And that’s kinda what you just did. “
Only vaguely kinda.
I might have been inside Zimmerman’s head for a few minutes on the ground, but it was me who said
“I shot someone. Absolutely. The way I saw it, it was him or me. ”
Note that I highlighted that in bold font in the story.
I think that if GW hasn’t had people respond to his question straight out, it is most probably because the question is not significant in the context of the Zimmerman/Martin charges.
The question is seen as ridiculous. My post reflected that aspect of the question. However, I did answer the question and I highlighted the answer.
I think that is is fair to assume GW’s follow up to an answer that would be obvious in a general sense would be along the lines of:
‘You say that you would have done what Zimmerman did. So what’s you problem then? Do you think that you should be facing murder.2 for that?’
Then all the cheerleaders would wave their pop-poms and chorus – “Free, free. Let George go free. He did the same as you or me.”
( Note: I want royalty payments if people use that at rallies.)
( Mike: Should that be “You or I”? That would mess up the chant though.)
The reason for Zimmerman to be facing any charge at all is not his shooting of Martin because he thought he might be injured, badly injured or die.
The reason is the entirety of the circumstances.
.
“…circumstances beyond our control may still throw us, unwilling and horrified, into the desperate situation GW details and which GZ claims to have been in.
GZ got out of the truck unwilling and horrified. It was beyond his control.
He could not see where Martin was, but he headed off into the dark. It was beyond his control.
He said “OK” in response to “We don’t need you to do that”. He continued on into a dark place without knowing where Martin was. He was a helpless victim, impelled along by forces that were beyond his control.
He gave his name, number and address to the Dispatcher. Unwilling and horrified by the thought that some punk could be so close in that darkness as to overhear this, he said “Oh crap I don’t want to give it all out, I don’t know where this kid is.”
He knew that he was in a dangerous place.
He agreed to do the most sensible thing in all of the circumstances. Having been dragged unwilling and horrified by strange forces into the dark dangerous place, he would go back and meet the patrol near the mailboxes.
But he was in the grip of forces beyond his control. Unwilling and horrified, he heard himself tell the Dispatcher that the patrol should ring him to organise a meet.
Unwilling and horrified, he walked off into the darkness. It was beyond his control.
GWCarver said:
Sling, the responses to my question comes in various formats, all of which dodge the question. I’ve also asked if Miley Cyrus was on the bottom and Brock Lesnar was on the top, and she had incurred injuries exactly like Zimmerman’s, whether it would be OK for her to shoot the man-monster. No takers. Poor Miley, doomed to suffer a horrible beating or die in forum after forum, because if was OK for her to shoot, it would have been OK for Zimmerman to shoot, too.
SlingTrebuchet said:
Hi GW
You’ve seen my answer above in bold
I shot someone. Absolutely. The way I saw it, it was him or me.
Even though it was inside a movie about being inside George Zimmerman, it was a genuine answer.
If I was attacked I would use ‘whatever’ to stop that attack – and argue the toss later.
Absolutely. No questions. No hesitations.
I would be inclined to try limit the force I used to what seemed enough to me – but I don’t actually know what level that is. I would probably start with something calculated to hurt a lot and see how that went.
If the other person had a weapon, all bets are are off.
If the person seemed considerably more powerful, I’d give it the max straight up, on the basis that any delay could result in my being unable to defend myself.
However, this has absolutely nothing to do with the wider question of Zimmerman’s actions on that night.
Your question applies only to two people in a bubble. Within that bubble, it’s basic survival. Once outside the bubble, the circumstances that led to the people going into the bubble come into question.
If I was in a struggle with someone over a gun, I would definitely shoot.
I would argue the toss about the circumstances later.
That’s what Zimmerman has to do.
He has to convince the world (as represented by the legal system) that the circumstances that led into the bubble were actually reasonable.
The very natural survival instinct within the bubble is no guide to this.
Joel C said:
“GZ got out of the truck unwilling and horrified. It was beyond his control.
He could not see where Martin was, but he headed off into the dark. It was beyond his control.
He said “OK” in response to “We don’t need you to do that”. He continued on into a dark place without knowing where Martin was. He was a helpless victim, impelled along by forces that were beyond his control.”
Sigh. That isn’t what I wrote, nor even what I implied, Sling, and I believe you are intelligent enough to discern that for yourself. Shame on you.
SlingTrebuchet said:
Ok Joel,
It was somewhat OTT and intemperate.
I did take a phrase of yours and sort of chant it
I apologise.
You had a bit of purple prose …. “circumstances beyond our control may still throw us, unwilling and horrified, into the desperate situation GW details and which GZ claims to have been in.”
I chose a long way of saying:
The circumstances on the night were not beyond Zimmerman’s control.
He had more than one opportunity to extricate himself.
Each step he took took him further and further towards a situation in which -finally – he had no control.
He made a series of appallingly bad judgement calls.
The result was a completely unnecessary death.
:
Allyn said:
I think that is one thing we can all agree on, an unnecessary death. If only TM had just gone on back to his father’s apartment; if only TM had not come out of hiding; if only TM had not struck GZ; if only one of the residents had come out and pulled TM off of GZ before GZ felt he had no alternative but to shoot. What TM did might have all been legal but what GZ did was also legal. Thus the shame.
Joel C said:
Hey, thanks Mike! “Play ask the English teacher,” ha! That is almost exactly what I thought. Thanks also for the constructive criticism. I’ll remember it. Given that I sometimes catch myself scribing that and that twice in a row, in a way that seems technically sound but aesthetically displeasing… and that since high school I have enjoyed a penchant for writing the longest sentences I could get away with without creating a proper “run-on”, I have no doubt your arrow strikes true. I’ll work on that. Starting. Now. ;)
Sling, I did not expect an apology from you. How about that. With the thousands of words you’ve dumped here that is the first time you surprised me.
Purple prose! Ha ha! Well, since I was a boy I have been a fan of the old reprinted “pulp fiction” magazine stories from before my time, especially Doc Savage. If I am guilty of “purple prose”, (and I see room to disagree with you there, but no matter,) then I hope y’all may forgive me; it’s most likely worked it’s way into my blood.
Oh, but I see you ain’t here any more. Well, that may be for the best.
Have a nice day.
Tom said:
Allyn said “I believe, based on everything I have read, that TM asked a rhetorical question, to which GZ responded by asking TM what he was doing there.”
I believe this to an extent. I do think if GZ said “Whoa whoa…I’m just a neighborhood watchmen wondering what you are doing here young man, because we’ve had a string of burglaries in the development over the previous months….”. it might have diffused TM from assaulting him. We don’t know for sure, nor do we know if he would have even been able to finish that sentence.
It’s besides the point. GZ was clearly startled by TM’s reappearance and immediately went to his phone to call police again. I can’t blame the guy for not saying the perfect thing that may or may not have diffused the situation.
Joel C said:
Nice one, Tom. Neither can I, and neither should anyone else.
bettykath said:
Tom, You say that GZ was clearly startled by TM’s reappearance and immediately went to his phone to call police again.
According to Dee Dee’s statement we know that TM was startled by finding the weird guy following him again after losing him when he went down the path. Now, if GZ was also startled and immediately reached for his phone (from a TM POV was he reaching for his phone or his gun?) it seems to tie in with my thought that TM didn’t do anything to GZ until the gun was in play. And that’s when things got physical. It wasn’t that TM suddenly jumped GZ, it was only after GZ made a move for his phone/gun when TM really felt threatened by the weird guy who had been following him and now challenging him by not saying why he was following him or otherwise identifying himself.
Tom said:
bettykath, there are certainly many scenarios that might have played out when GZ and TM met that. We probably will know more when there is more evidence presented.
But from where I am standing, the account GZ made to police within seconds of the account, voluntarily repeated at the police stations without a lawyer, voluntarily took and passed a lie detector test, and voluntarily reenacted the scene the next day. His account of what happened makes logical sense. There is nothing irrational about his story or any of his actions that night. There were definitely mistakes on his end, but nothing that strikes me as not adding up.
Long story short, GZ’s account, by far, seems the most likely version of events. But it is definitely possible it occurred a different way. And one of those ways would be TM thinking GZ was threatening his life with a gun being the reason he jumped GZ.
Personally, I think if TM knew GZ had a gun, he would not have attacked him.
SlingTrebuchet said:
Tom: Personally, I think if TM knew GZ had a gun, he would not have attacked him.
I think that if Martin considered that the guy from the truck,
– who had followed him into this dark space, and
– who does not explain on being asked WTF(-ish)
– who makes a move under their jacket or to their hip
…… was a threat and was going for a weapon.
I think that I would have attacked him if I thought that I had a chance of overpowering him.
I would have used my left hand to grab at whatever hand I suspected was going for a weapon, and used my right hand to inflict damage. (I’m right-handed)
What would you have done?
Would you have waited to see if this weird follower was simply choosing that particular time to make a phone call?
Allyn said:
I guess he could have run again. So, Sling, what is your point? If TM saw the gun and he died struggling for it, shame on him. Since it is not illegal to place a call while carrying a gun (with permit) GZ walks, unless there is NEW proof that GZ was committing a crime at the time. If TM suspected GZ might have a gun, why the hell did he show himself? It appears as a huge majority of the people commenting do not believe George was acting recklessly, the prudent man is safe. But what if he was acting recklessly? So what? Unless GZ drew his gun recklessly, or if the gun was discharged accidentally due to his reckless behavior, reckless does not enter into the charge nor bear on his culpability. Neither the State nor you can argue successfully, that GZ’s actions up to the point of bringing him up to the “backyards” area, makes him culpable of the charge. If TM “thought” GZ was out to get him, it would only matter if GZ had been killed. In this case it is immaterial what TM thought. And with respect to witnesses changing their testimony, once again, so what? Now he can’t say for sure who was on top. Someone was and the physical evidence indicates TM was on top. One light in a fairly enclosed area, like the fairly narrow backyard areas, would provide necessary light to see 50 feet, depending on how bright the area was from where viewed. And don’t think for a moment that witnesses haven’t been intimidated (overtly or otherwise), or outright threatened.
bettykath said:
Why is asking this weird guy “Why you following me?” rhetorical? I would think it a perfect opportunity for the weird guy to give him a good reason, like, “I’m neighborhood watch and we’ve been having a lot of break-ins lately. Why are you here?” Instead good ole boy Zimmerman decides to use the cop-like intimation tactic of demanding to know why he’s there without answering the very important question of his who he is, which escalates the situation.
Tom said:
Is “Good ole boy” an attempt at a racial insult against whites?
GZ did not know who TM was, and when TM reappeared and confronte him, GZ was most likely very nervous, and probably convinced he was dealing with a criminal.
If you see a burglar in your house. Do you say to him. Excuse me Mr, but I am the owner of this home, I would like to ask you to please leave if at any way possible at your soonest convienence”.
John McLachlan said:
BDLR: OK, what could you hear?
Dee Dee: Like a little ‘get off’ some stuff…
BDLR: You heard ‘get off’?
Dee Dee: Like a little ‘Get off’ [unintelligible—sounds like “now college”]…
BDLR: Could you tell who was saying that?
Dee Dee: I couldn’ know Trayvon.
BDLR: I’m sorry.
Dee Dee: I couldn’t hear Trayvon…Trayvon.
BDLR: OK, let me make sure I understand…you could hear Trayvon saying that?
Dee Dee: Yeah. That’s why I was calling his name.
BDLR: And he was saying what now?
Dee Dee: Like “get off.”
It seems to me that BDLR is inducing Dee Dee to change her testimony:
BDLR: Could you tell who was saying that?
Dee Dee: I couldn’ know Trayvon.
This seems to indicate that Dee Dee is uncertain of who was saying “get off”.
Dee Dee: I couldn’t hear Trayvon…Trayvon.
BDLR: OK, let me make sure I understand…you could hear Trayvon saying that?
If Dee Dee states that she couldn’t hear Trayvon, why does BDLR claim to understand that she could hear Trayvon saying “that”?
Is this normal practice for interviewers?
Does interfering with the testimony of witnesses constitute prosecutorial misconduct?
RuleofOrder said:
Hinges are word parsing.
“I couldn’t hear Trayvon”
“I couldn’t hear, Trayvon.”
“I couldn’t hear… Trayvon.”
This of course isn’t inclusive of any manners of non transcripted body language.
“Sir, which of the persons mugged you?”
“I can’t remember that one.”
“I can’t remember. That one.”
There are plenty of “well, she could have just as easily meant…” regarding ‘Dee Dee’ ‘s testimony, but Mike is indeed correct. The interviewer doesn’t ask specific enough questions to judge intent of an answer regarding a recorded and transcribed testimony. And those questions that are answered are easily assumed to be coached or led. It was botched, through and through. The best Dee Dee is able to relate is that Trayvon was on the phone at some point near the time of the incident. Beyond that… ick. I would prefer not to delve into.
Rum said:
BettyKath
Keep in mind that GZ took about a minutes worth of head injuries before he used his weapon. Keep in mind that there were no marks on TMs body except the GSW. Keep in mind that it is impossible to struggle with someone while you have a pistol in your right hand unless you use it like club with which to beat them. That would leave some marks for sure. One armed fighting does not work very well.
So, you are saying that GZ was the type of man who instigated the kind of fight (where he only used his left arm) that would inevitably get him hurt, maybe killed/ Are you claiming he was some kind of masochist?
If GZ was in a fight with a pistol in his hand he would have smacked TM with it. If that is not obvious to you, you must be about 11 years old.
SlingTrebuchet said:
Rum “Keep in mind that it is impossible to struggle with someone while you have a pistol in your right hand unless you use it like club with which to beat them. ”
If the other person had their hand around your wrist/arm/gun, this makes it difficult for you to hit them with the pistol.
If your right arm is pinned, you only have your left arm ….eh…left.
If both arms are pinned, then you are pinned under someone who is having to use both of their arms to pin your arms if they are lying on top of you. In this case you could be described a witness as wrestling, with one lying on top of the other. Oh look! Witness #6
In this configuration, you and the person pinning you might, in the darkness, be described as one person on their back. Oh look! Witness #14.
If you are trying to get out from under, you are raising your shoulders and head and maybe being pushed down again. If that squirming gets you from the grass and onto concrete (#6), then if small stones in the grass have not cut the back of your head, the you should certainly get some damage from the concrete.
If this is not obvious to you, an 11-year-old may be able to assist you with some insight.
Rum said:
I do not think the ear-witnesses had much to say about when blows were first struck. They heard the sounds of yelling and tussling followed by the sounds of screaming. Along with 14 seperate pleas for help.
The point being that the screaming occurred because the head blows were still coming.
SlingTrebuchet said:
Rum,
It might be that you are basing your assumptions about the nature of the fight and the reason for the screaming on
1. A early statement by a witness (#11) who has now retracted nearly all the detail – on the basis that he could not actually see anything other than two people both horizontal and wrestling on the grass outside his back porch about 50 feet south of the T-junction, and then moving to the concrete path while in that wrestling position shortly before the shot. He didn’t see the moment of the shot. Like many people in the neighbourhood, he was the closest thing to hiding under the bed screaming for the cops.
The calls for help had been going on before he looked out and saw them on the grass. They continued in the same way whether grass or concrete was in question. The only solid information we have on the fight are the shouts for help on the background of 911 calls, and #11 saying that there was wrestling going on outside of his back porch.
We also have some minor cuts, bruising and a closed fracture of a nose – all of which could be explained by some non-major
The boy (#14) who went out to walk his dog thought it was just one person lying on the ground yelling Help because he had slipped and broken his leg or something. But then he had to concentrate on his dog, that had slipped the leash.
Nobody saw anything. It was way too dark.
The only light in that place are whatever porch lights are on. That’s confirmed in the police report. It was dark and overcast.
The boy (#11) says that only one porch light was on when he went out. That would be the porch of the second house down – that of Witness #11 above who says that his porch light is always on.
There are no real eyewitnesses apart from #11 – who now realises that he didn’t actually see anything other than two people wrestling, one lying on top of the other and maybe just holding the other person down, or maybe not – he couldn’t see their hands yadda, yadda..
2. A story that the fight consisted of Martin decking and pinning Zimmerman on the concrete path from the get-go.
There is no evidence to support this story.
Rather, the physical evidence contradicts it. Whatever about Zimmerman’s record being “squeaky clean” his clothing shown no evidence of being between the weight of two men and wet grass/concrete for anything other than a very short distance.
The indications from people who ‘heard stuff’ are that they started off up near the T-junction and had pushing/fisticuffs moving South perhaps 40 to 50 feet and subsequently ended up wrestling on the ground according to #11.
There is no evidence as to who was yelling other than supposition.
We all (? = just the reasonable and/or Z-supportive people) think that Dee Dee’s interview is a total mess.
( Hey Mike! I’m back on topic! ;)
The other “witnesses” really are not much more help.
Someone says that they might have seen someone running or chasing and maybe it was one or two and maybe it wasn’t. It’s a mess.
We haven’t clue about what actually happened overall.
We have a few clues about what could not have happened.
One of the actual witnesses to all of it is dead.
The other actual witness might be considered to be having an amount of self-serving in his evidence. The only way of gauging the amount of truth/bias in his evidence is to judge how it stands up against known and deducible facts – and whether or not it contains self-contradiction.
bettykath said:
I’m not so sure that the screaming continued because the head blows were still coming. It’s also possible, considering that Zimmerman said that Martin had his hand over his mouth, that the screams for help came from Martin who had the weirdo with the gun pinned but he needed help in getting the gun away from him.
Allyn said:
TM is fighting for his life against someone who has a gun and TM decides to use only one hand in this fight because he wants to cover GZ’s mouth? What universe are you from, with all respect. If you think TM was calling for help, why do you think he would care if GZ was kept silent?
Tom said:
BettyKath, you still think TM was the one screaming? Are you serious?
HEELPPPP, HEELLLP!! my knuckle is bleeding….and I am beating the everlasting cr@p put of this guy. HEEEELP!!
Even if you didn’t have John’s eyewitness account, you have to be delusional to think that TM was the one screaming. With an eyewitness backing this up…..you have to have a motive or just flat out completely brainwashed for being so foolish.
SlingTrebuchet said:
Allyn,
The problem with your question : “If you think TM was calling for help, why do you think he would care if GZ was kept silent?”
… is that you are taking an assertion that Martin covered Zimmerman’s mouth as fact. There is no evidence of such a thing.
We don’t know which of them was shouting.</b.
According to the Zimmerman family, they ended up fighting over the gun.
They would both be in fear of their lives.
They would both have an equal reason to shout for help, no matter who was on top of who. The control of the gun would be in question no matter what.
Witness #6 now says that he couldn't really see anything. He just assumed that the one on the bottom was shouting, as that seemed the logical option to him.
He says that they were both lying on the ground. He describes them as wrestling, first on the grass near to the path outside his back porch and then wrestling in the same configuration towards the concrete. He only saw about 10 seconds or so he guesses – shortly before he locked his door. He didn't see the moment of the shot.
The boy thought it was a single person lying on the ground and shouting.
If Zimmerman was shouting, why would Martin cover his mouth?
– To have more time to beat on Zimmerman before any help arrived.
If Zimmerman was shouting and Martin was covering his mouth, why are the shouts coming in a fairly regular pattern?
Did Martin only cover the mouth at one stage, and then stop trying?
Did Martin continue to try covering the mouth but only succeed at regular intervals?
If they are fighting for the gun, why is Martin using one hand to cover Zimmerman's mouth? His other hand would be grasping Zimmerman's gun arm. He would have no arm with which to beat Zimmerman. Zimmerman would have one arm free to attack him.
If Martin is shouting, why does Zimmerman talk about Martin covering his mouth?
– To reinforce his story of himself doing the shouting.
If Zimmerman is doing the shouting, why does the shouting cease immediately the shot is fired?
If he did not realise that Martin was seriously injured, his life would still be in danger, so he should continue to shout.
"Zimmerman told police he didn’t realize that Martin was seriously injured, and that he lunged to get on top of him after the teenager fell to the ground."
http://globalgrind.com/news/george-zimmerman-police-report-trayvon-martin-final-words-sanford-florida-details
We don't know which was shouting.
There is no evidence to show which one.
It could have been either.
Allyn said:
Sling, I think you are just trying to wear us down. I didn’t know anything about someone’s mouth being covered. I was replying to someone who asserted it as fact. Her comment made no sense to me for some of the reasons I stated and you repeated. And then you went on and on, completely unnecessary, because you did not read my comment closely, and evidently, you did not read the post I was replying to.
SlingTrebuchet said:
Tom,
Just to reinforce the thing about “John’s eyewitness account”
He now says he didn’t see.
He just assumed that the one on the bottom would be shouting.
There was no MMA-style punching.
There was only wrestling.
http://trayvon.axiomamnesia.com/people/witnesses/witness-6-files-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-case/
Tom said:
Sling said
“I think that if Martin considered that the guy from the truck,
– who had followed him into this dark space, and
– who does not explain on being asked WTF(-ish)
– who makes a move under their jacket or to their hip
…… was a threat and was going for a weapon.
I think that I would have attacked him if I thought that I had a chance of overpowering him.
I would have used my left hand to grab at whatever hand I suspected was going for a weapon, and used my right hand to inflict damage. (I’m right-handed)
What would you have done?
Would you have waited to see if this weird follower was simply choosing that particular time to make a phone call?”
Sling, you’re making a whole of assumptions here, and I disagree with all of them.
Let me ask you a question. Let’s imagine you are a 30 year old man. There is a breakin in your house at night. You hear a burglar downstairs. You call the police who are their way and will arrive within minutes. You peek downstairs, get a visual of the suspect. The suspect breaks and runs out the front door.
Would you be completely illogical to walk downstairs and peek out your front door to see if you could get a visual on which way the suspect ran? No actually, most men would probably that exact thing. You wouldnt expect the burglar to be hoping to jump you outside if the suspect was the one fleeing the scene.
That is what I relate GZ’s behavior too.
When he didn’t see the visual on the suspect what he was hoping for to give the police, the amazing thing is we don’t even have to speculate to far on exactly what GZ was thinking. As he clearly shows fear when he doesn’t want to say his address out loud just in case the person showing unusual behavior is lurking about.
Turns out he was right to be nervous as he was violently assaulted less than 2 minutes later.
bettykath said:
Those who support Zimmerman’s story seem to see everything in terms of how Zimmerman saw them, how a cop would in the same situation would them. Those who see holes in his story see him as a wanna be cop without the training of a rookie and also see Martin’s side of it in terms of a Black guy being followed by a white guy when there is no good reason for it.
Allyn said:
Yes, the young black lad should have been scared being followed by a white guy due to all of the white on black crime you read about everyday. TM felt righteous in his attack, cause the cracker done dissed him.
Tom said:
“Those who support Zimmerman’s story seem to see everything in terms of how Zimmerman saw them, how a cop would in the same situation would them. Those who see holes in his story see him as a wanna be cop without the training of a rookie and also see Martin’s side of it in terms of a Black guy being followed by a white guy when there is no good reason for it.”
I see Martin as a 17 year old. And a bad 17 year old. I put myself in his shoes and when I was that age (not too long ago). I clearly remember how 17 year olds act. And 17 year olds getting in “fist fights”: for being disrespected, is about a common occurrence as they come.
The racial grievance crowd will infuse and bring up race every opportunity they get….as you have done. So please answer me this. How often do “wierd” white adults assault teenager black youths.
The answer to that is never.
How often do failing in school black youths with drug problems assault white people.
The answer to that is it occurs many times a day every day in this country.
bettykath said:
You need a tutorial on how Black youth are treated – by cops and the courts. Google nyc stop and frisk. In the past year cops stopped and frisked more Black and Latino young men than there are Black and Latino young men in the city. Over 600,000 stops. I’ve watched cops in a smaller city stopping young Black men for absolutely no reason. I know of a case where the cops killed a Black young man and left him on the street to bleed out before calling for an ambulance. Do you really think that Martin was not aware of this sort of thing? Go into a Black neighborhood sometime, maybe a rec center, and have a chat with the BYM there. I’m not suggesting that Zimmerman’s actions were racial profiling, although they may have been. But clearly from Martin’s POV, having a weird white man following him in a truck and then leaving the truck to follow him on foot and then having a gun? He knows that young Black men get beaten and/or killed with no reason whatever beyond being BYM. And the perpetrators usually get away with it.
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear BettyKath:
You do realize that the people beating and killing young black men are almost exclusively other young black men, don’t you? It might also be good to realize that when a police officer stops someone, we have no idea why he did it. He may have witnessed a traffic violation two blocks away and stopped them when it was safe. He may be looking for a vehicle or person that matches the description of the car or person he stopped. While it is possible that some police officers are racially motivated at some point in time, I’ve little doubt that’s far, far less common than some imagine. The simple fact is that black people being followed by white people are more likely to be relieved than worried. Even Jesse Jackson admitted some years ago that when he sees young black men behind him, he’s afraid.
SteveDinMD said:
“You need a tutorial on how Black youth are treated – by cops and the courts. Google nyc stop and frisk. In the past year cops stopped and frisked more Black and Latino young men than there are Black and Latino young men in the city. Over 600,000 stops. I’ve watched cops in a smaller city stopping young Black men for absolutely no reason. I know of a case where the cops killed a Black young man and left him on the street to bleed out before calling for an ambulance. Do you really think that Martin was not aware of this sort of thing? Go into a Black neighborhood sometime, maybe a rec center, and have a chat with the BYM there. I’m not suggesting that Zimmerman’s actions were racial profiling, although they may have been. But clearly from Martin’s POV, having a weird white man following him in a truck and then leaving the truck to follow him on foot and then having a gun? He knows that young Black men get beaten and/or killed with no reason whatever beyond being BYM. And the perpetrators usually get away with it.”
bettykath:
Ok, I get it now. It’s all the fault of the NYPD! Because of some alleged abuse that might or might not have occurred at some point 1300 miles away in NYC, the only thing that matters in THIS case is the parallel universe of illogic that alleged abuse caused to exist in the mind of Zimmerman’s attacker! To hold this view is to hold the view that every doped-up, mysogynistic ignoramus and budding delinquent is a law unto himself — so long as he’s BLACK.
SlingTrebuchet said:
Tom: When he didn’t see the visual on the suspect what he was hoping for to give the police, the amazing thing is we don’t even have to speculate to far on exactly what GZ was thinking. As he clearly shows fear when he doesn’t want to say his address out loud just in case the person showing unusual behavior is lurking about.
The amazing thing is that you don’t understand the sequence.
First – he spoke his name, number and address out loud. He did that without any hesitation whatsoever,
Second – he suddenly realised that he was in a dangerous place, and that it was poosible that the kid could be so close to him in the dark that his address would be overheard.
A reasonable person would have had that realisation and promptly retired to a place of safety – like his truck.
Zimmerman stayed there.
Turns out he was right to be nervous as he was violently assaulted less than 2 minutes later.
Turns out he was wrong to have ignored his sudden realisation of the danger because over</b< 2 minutes later, he was still in the same potentially dangerous area and encounterd Martin.
– Whereupon he provoked a violent confrontation by ignoring a query about why he was following, and instead reached for something that in the circumstances might well have been suspected to be a weapon by the person he was following in the dark.
Allyn said:
Alternatively, he felt it more important to hang around for a couple of minutes to see if he saw a door open and close or other movement that would indicate where TM was to try to judge whether TM had been in a position to overhear his address. Why do you run to your truck if you are concerned that TM may have heard your address. If you do, and the police don’t find the guy, you would never know what he heard. I guess bold type means you are really sure that GZ provoked TM by not answering? By the way, couldn’t TM have responded ” I’m going to my dad’s house, right there. Once again, why are you following me?”
SlingTrebuchet said:
Okies Allyn,
So now you argue that Zimmerman has a concern that Martin has overheard his address. So rather than doing the sensible and NW-recommended thing – withdraw to a safe distance – he wants to make sure Martin is apprehended so that he can be assured of what he might have overheard.
You now have him actively searching for Martin.
Do not do this. The game plan is that Zimmerman is not following. The story is that he is looking for an address (for some reason). The story is that he absolutely in no way following or searching for Martin.
.
Then you have the – It’s all Martin’s fault because…
1) he didn’t run straight home
2) when walking past the truck in Twin Trees, he didn’t stop to explain himself to a stranger inside
3) when he noticed the stranger was following after him, he didn’t shout out to explain himself
4) when he asked the stranger what he was doing, and the stranger rather than answering asked him what he was doing, he didn’t just fall over and tell the stranger – ignoring the fact that the stranger had made no effort at all to answer the question that was first asked.
5) When the stranger who had followed him into the dark and who had refused to answer a reasonable question reached for ‘something’, he did not just stand there quietly or run like hell.
.
Allyn said:
That is not what I said. He could have stood in the area without going to look for him, hoping to see where he had been when GZ told his address. After a couple moments, without seeing any movement, he may have assumed TM didn’t hear him, so might as well return to truck. I did not say he would learn if he was caught. You can really stretch some stuff and ignore what you can’t explain.
everlastingphelps said:
No answering a question is not provocation to violence. Ever. The end. Full stop.
If your answer to “he didn’t give me an answer I liked, so I…” is “I hit him”, you are in the wrong.
This how far afield from reason you are. You are saying that Zimmerman should go to prison because he failed to answer a question the way you would like.
SteveDinMD said:
“No answering a question is not provocation to violence. Ever. The end. Full stop.”
I wholeheartedly agree. Let’s not forget, too, that free citizens have both the right to free speech AND the right to remain silent.
SlingTrebuchet said:
It’s very simple.
I consider that taken as a whole, from the moment that he left the truck, Zimmerman’s actions amount to at least manslaughter.
It is not a case of one single action being *the* key.
It is a case of all of them considered together from the time he left the truck.
It is not illegal to be stupid.
it is not illegal to be reckless.
You have a right to be stupid.
You have a right to be reckless.
However, when stupidity/recklessness result in damage, there are consequences.
The fact that you have a right to be stupid/reckless in no way mitigates the need to answer for the consequences.
SteveDinMD said:
“It’s very simple.
I consider that taken as a whole, from the moment that he left the truck, Zimmerman’s actions amount to at least manslaughter.
It is not a case of one single action being *the* key.
It is a case of all of them considered together from the time he left the truck.
It is not illegal to be stupid.
it is not illegal to be reckless.
You have a right to be stupid.
You have a right to be reckless.
However, when stupidity/recklessness result in damage, there are consequences.
The fact that you have a right to be stupid/reckless in no way mitigates the need to answer for the consequences.”
How DARE the serf Zimmerman use the same sidewalk reserved for His Majesty, Trayvon I! How stupid! How RECKLESS! The KNAVE! Off with his HEAD!!! I love your “simple” logic. Simple, indeed — for simpletons.
SlingTrebuchet said:
SteveDinMD : “How DARE the serf Zimmerman use the same sidewalk reserved for His Majesty, Trayvon I! How stupid! How RECKLESS! The KNAVE! Off with his HEAD!!! I love your “simple” logic. Simple, indeed — for simpletons.”
You know?
You’re quite right.
.
I’ve just been doing some more research.
All this non-emergency line calls, following and suspect hoodies is just a huge conspiracy by the Muslim/Obama lamestream press.
Zimmerman was just out for a stroll on his way to the store.
He had no idea that the thug Martin was in the vicinity.
The guy just jumped him out of the blue.
Now the conspiracy is trying to get Zimmerman tried under Sharia Law !!
FFS.
Let’s gun up guys!!
Lock and load!! ( This is done by loading and locking I know, but hey! )
bettykath said:
No. Zimmerman should go to jail because he killed an unarmed kid.
Allyn said:
That simple statement tells me everything I need to know about you. You are so blinded by your racism you cannot even acknowledge that a victim might have to shoot an unarmed man in order to save his own life. Oop, I mean you cannot even acknowledge that a white victim might have to shoot an unarmed black man in order to save his own life.
SteveDinMD said:
“No. Zimmerman should go to jail because he killed an unarmed kid.”
No, you really MEAN to say that he should go to prison because he didn’t allow a doped-up, misogynistic ignoramus and budding delinquent beat him to death as is usually the case.
Joel C said:
Bettykath, if some fellow ever commences to cracking YOUR skull open, I hope to God that you will shoot him!
But I guess you probably won’t. Good luck with that.
Tom said:
Sling said. “Second – he suddenly realised that he was in a dangerous place, and that it was poosible that the kid could be so close to him in the dark that his address would be overheard.”
Exactly my point.
“Turns out he was wrong to have ignored his sudden realisation of the danger because over</b< 2 minutes later, he was still in the same potentially dangerous area and encounterd Martin."
We don't know exactly how long after GZ got off the phone with the dispatcher until he was attacked. Regardless, It was very short, and probably not longer than 15-30 seconds. We will have a better idea in the coming days as GZs interviews should be released.
"- Whereupon he provoked a violent confrontation by ignoring a query about why he was following,"
BIzarre theory. GZ "provoked" TM by saying the wrong thing.
Right….Do you blame women who get beat on by abusive husbands for "saying" the wrong things too? If only the women said exactly the right thing before the violent abuser started beating them…. then the wife beater would have kept his cool. It's the womans fault!
Even if TM was"provoked" by GZ saying the wrong thing…TM still had absolutely no right to violently assault GZ.
"and instead reached for something that in the circumstances might well have been suspected to be a weapon by the person he was following in the dark."
This is pure speculation on your part. It is not impossible, but unlikely. GZ reaching for his gun. TM assaulting him before GZ has the opportunity to pull it out.
This is one of the possible scenarios that puts much more culpability on GZs shoulders.
But there is not an iota of evidence to support this is what occurred. And again, this is where you look at "character" to determine what is the more likely scenario. I, and the author of this thread has spoken a lot about character, and unfortunately for TM he loses handily. He was very bad news, and everything in his profile shouts someone more than able to get in a fistfight with a stranger.
Next, you'll call me "racist" because race means everything to the racial grievance crowd.. I don't give a crap. If TM was white, I would feel the exact same way. If you accuse me of lying, you can go to h#ll, and don't expect a reply.
I believe GZ had the phone out and was looking at it when he was assaulted. This would explain how he was cold cocked so unexpectedly. I don't think GZ wanted to stare TM down…as that alone has been known to set off the wrong type of violent thug.
SlingTrebuchet said:
Tom: “We don’t know exactly how long after GZ got off the phone with the dispatcher until he was attacked. Regardless, It was very short, and probably not longer than 15-30 seconds. We will have a better idea in the coming days as GZs interviews should be released.”
We do know very precisely the gap between the call ending and the first 911 call connecting.
Call ended: 19:13:41
First 911 : 19:16:11
Do try to keep up.
We don’t need the statements for that. This is a matter of record. Automatically logged. It’s not a matter of opinion or someone’s memory.
What the statements may tell us is what Zimmerman says he was doing in those 2 minutes and 30 seconds.
The woman in the corner house who placed the call sounds like she was pretty quick on the trigger after hearing the disturbance. Maybe 10 seconds or so between noticing and the call connecting?
Zimmermans family talk about Martin going for Zimmerman when he reached for his phone. His brother says this on the Piers Morgan show,
Martin asked a reasonable question. Zimmerman’s brother does not describe the words, but understands it to be a query about why Zimmerman is there.
Zimmerman did not address the question.
He reached for ‘something’.
If Martin suspected a weapon being produced by this weird stranger who had followed him into the dark, clocking Zimmerman there and then, before he could produce the weapon, might be a good plan.
What would you have done? Someone follows you into a dark area for no good reason that you can think of. When you ask them what’s going on, they don’t say. They reach for something.
Maybe it’s the Tooth Fairy – reaching for a purse – to give you money?
SlingTrebuchet said:
Tom: “everything in his profile shouts someone more than able to get in a fistfight with a stranger.”
Good point.
I had forgotten that aspect of it.
Martin was the one arrested for assaulting ATF officers outside a bar wasn’t he? I seem to remember that now. He escaped a criminal conviction by agreeing to go on a diversion program.
My goodness, Yes. He does sound like a violent sort of person.
This does throw a different light on things.
Nitsujmai said:
Sling:
“Martin asked a reasonable question. Zimmerman’s brother does not describe the words, but understands it to be a query about why Zimmerman is there.
Zimmerman did not address the question.
He reached for ‘something’”
The question was answered. It just wasn’t a direct response, but an answer by a question. If I asked you “why are you following me?” and you replied with “what are you doing here?”, I would think you were following me, because you wanted to know what I was doing here, probably because you didn’t recognize me. My reply would be, “I live here” or “my dad lives here” or “my dad’s girlfriend lives here”. I would probably say it with an attitude, if I were 17. But, I would not hit the person and I would not assume they had or were reaching for a weapon. If I did see a weapon on someone’s hip, in a holster, my first thought would be that the person is a law enforcement officer. I wouldn’t hit the person if I saw their weapon and I wouldn’t assume they were reaching for it when reaching into their pocket, as they are different movements. This also begs the question: Where was GZ’s phone? Was it in his jacket pocket or his pants pocket? If the jacket, there is no reason to assume TM saw GZ’s weapon.
GWCarver said:
Where was his phone when he reached for it?
Rum said:
The law in Florida specifies that Zimmerman had no duty to retreat, even if he had reason to be afraid of TM. That is why this is not even manslaughter.
FWIW, I own a pistol just like GZ used. It is black and so tiny it almost disappears in your hand like a cell phone. On a moon less night, the odds that TM would identify it as a weapon are really low.
Besides, anyone who responds to a drawn weapon by running towards it to try to grab it away is either a truly desperate criminal willing to do anything to avoid arrest or a serious candidate the Darwin Award Finals,
GWCarver said:
I recall seeing an interview with a Detroit gang-banger years ago. The kid was in the hospital, and was maybe 16. He was in obvious pain and told the woman from the local news he never knew it hurt to get shot. That stuck in my mind. Kids with guns running around all over Detroit who don’t know a bullet hurts.
SlingTrebuchet said:
Rum: “Besides, anyone who responds to a drawn weapon by running towards it to try to grab it away….. “
It seems Martin didn’t need to run.
He might have had to take a step forward, because Zimmerman’s brother says on the Piers Morgan show:
Whatever he was grabbing for, he didn’t get to use it immediately.
It’s a pretty stunning plan on the part of Zimmerman.
This real suspicious guy, who looked like he was on drugs or something, who had his hand in his waistband and had something in his hand, and who might possibly have circled his truck in a gang-signature move that looks threatening and indicates imminent violence …. had confronted him in a very dark deserted place away from the road.
What does he do?
Well he does what you or I or any other reasonable person would do.
He steps back and tries to call 911 so that he can give them a running commentary on events.
Zimmerman: Hello? The suspicious guy that I told you about? The one who I lost sight of and was not pursuing, because the non-emergency Dispatcher told me that you didn’t need me to do that, but I still followed and have been hanging around in this dark deserted place for 2 minutes and 20 seconds since my last call… has now confronted me.”
Dispatcher: Ok. What is he doing?
Zimmerman: He’s beating the crap out of me.
Dispatcher: OK. What was your name again?
Zimmerman: George. He’s banging my head on the pavement.
Dispatcher: Alright George what’s your last name?
Zimmerman: Zimmerman
Dispatcher: And George what’s the phone number you’re calling from?
Zimmerman: (redacted)
Dispatcher: What address are you being assaulted in front of?
. etc.
.
Suggested alternative plan: Run like fuck!!!
SteveDinMD said:
“Suggested alternative plan: Run like fuck!!!”
Sling: So now you say that GZ deserved his beat-down because he didn’t run away. What if he DID run away but was chased down and beaten by TM anyway? You’d be arguing that GZ deserved his beat-down because he didn’t run away FAST enough. Face it; you don’t have a leg to stand on. The little thug was looking for a fight and he GOT one. There’s no way to justify the little thug’s action in attacking GZ.
SlingTrebuchet said:
Hi SteveDinMD,
No. I don’t say that he deserved a beat down.
I say that that running like f*** would have been a better alternative to calling 911 – in the immediate circumstances in which he found himself due to his own stupidity.
Going to call 911 right then with the dangerous punk (as he understood matters) confronting him was very sub-optimal as a plan.
Running like f*** would have been better, but you do point out a problem with such a plan. He might get chased down and beaten.
It still would give him some sort of chance.
There is however, yet another alternative plan.
It does not involve being beaten up while trying to hold an intelligent conversation with a police dispatcher.
It does not involve huffing and puffing, followed by a beating anyway.
The plan : Take out the gun.
Allyn said:
Ironically, I think you are right. If GZ had pulled out the gun, TM would probably still be alive, unless you think TM is so stupid as to attack a man pointing a gun at him. The downside for GZ in that scenario is that GZ would probably have been arrested for illegal detention. A charge the prosecutor COULD make.
SlingTrebuchet said:
Rum said:
Sling
You and all the Trayvonites put a great deal of stock in that episode from more than 5 years ago to shed light on who GZ is today.
GZ was accused of non-violently resisting an out of uniform ATF agent who was hassling a friend. He argued, non-violently, with the out of uniform cop, in other words. The whole thing went away rather painlessly for him afterwards. Do you think that would of happened if he had gotten physically violent with a real cop?
This is a test, to find out whether you live on planet earth or somewhere else entirely.
RuleofOrder said:
My open ended deal is that I won’t muck rake Zimmerman’s checkered past, and post it to portray him in less than favorable light, if those taking opposition against me do the same with Martin. I can keep all my remarks confined to the events on that evening, from Zimmerman’s phone call and on, and even leave race out of it.
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear RulesofOrder:
Interesting, but I’m afraid I can’t accept that deal. As I’ve already noted, I’ve dealt with the past difficulties of both of Zimmerman and Martin. The difference is–here and in a trial (if one ever occurs)–Martin’s background and character is relevant primarily due to the indisputable fact that he was under the influence of pot (and potentially other drugs–we’re still waiting for the urine test results to be released) at the time of the incident. Zimmerman’s arrest–which did not result in conviction–and other unconfirmed accusations, such as being mean to a co-worker, all of which took place years ago, simply are not relevant and would not be allowed in court. Therefore Martin’s character and background, particularly considering these factors are of very recent vintage indeed, are reasonable to discuss and consider. Those issues in Zimmerman’s past–years past–simply aren’t legally relevant. I would hope we could agree that one can change significantly in the early 20s, as the evidence seems to suggest Zimmerman did.
RuleofOrder said:
If he was “under the influence” at the time, then I have no means to argue it as being irrelevant. “Martin’s background and character is relevant”. So, then, yes, I get to mention Zimmerman’s arrests (no, they didn’t result in conviction), tattoos, domestic violence, reqs for prescription drugs, Myspace accounts regarding cases of domestic abuse, and testimonies from his co workers regarding racial remarks. Because those would indicate that perhaps a leopard didn’t change his spots. And, in addition, we are going to hold Martin to the same standard as Zimmerman, even though Martin is a minor in all this, while Zimmerman did it well into his adult years.
If the kid is under the influence at the time, peachy. Its immediately relevant. Though, it would be a tough case to state he was impared or under the influence of pot with less than 2 percent of what is normally considered “impared” (100-200ng being a good bench mark, his I believe at the time was 1.5ish). I don’t consider myself “impared” from little bit of Listerine I incidentally swallow when brushing my teeth. I think that is a fair comparison regarding quantity. Would I be correct in stating that if he had smoked THAT NIGHT, the numbers would be drastically higher? In any case, should we find something other than some reefer, we can indeed argue that Zimmerman’s suspicions were right to be raised for Martin’s (possible/alleged to this scene) drug use. I wouldn’t go so far as to say he was specifically under the influence of marijuana, though. Smoked up in the past? Sure. I don’t think given his current toxicology that imparement is reasonable.
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear RuleofOrder:
Hi There. The amounts of THC in Martin’s blood were sufficient for Martin to have been considered under the influence for the purposes of driving in several states. Florida has a no tolerance standard. Martin was under the influence. As I noted, it will be interesting indeed to see the results of the urine test. I can’t imagine the prosecutor withholding it if it was clean. By any reasonable standard, Martin was impaired, and appeared to be so in the 7-Eleven video some 40 minutes before meeting Zimmerman.
RuleofOrder said:
Hey Mike. I did a little research regarding the amount of THC found in Trayvon Martin. From what I have found (and the first part may or may not be relevant, your interpretation depending), In controlled studies, people consuming 3 poppy seed bagels tested positive for opiates six hours later. The amount varied of course with regard to water intake, mass of the person, etc, however tests had a close result of 200-300 micrograms per mililiter. On the matter of THC, instant tests and lab standards find a “positive” in the instance of 50 or more. This was raised from 20 due to a large amount of false positives. Trayvon Martin had 4 micrograms. This wouldn’t pass a positive result, by lab standard. Even under the most stringent of standards, a secondary test would follow up for under the threshold, for Martin’s “metabolite” levels for THC. Those were under the 15 ng/mL threshold by 8 ng/ml. Not only can I safely conclude TM was not under the imparement of THC, but were this the only grounds for his incarceration, he would be released, as the levels of THC in his body would not even pass a verification of a false positive.
The imparement that you believe to be there cannot have been caused by THC. We will have to await further release of results.
juggler523 said:
Once again….Trayvon Martin’s THC metabolite levels are basically irrelevant to Zimmerman’s defense. Drunk, high, legally impaired…whatever! Except that ANY level only paints Martin in a bad light, as an illegal drug user.
What really matters is whether George Zimmerman reasonably feared serious bodily injury or loss of life…period. A young man was giving him a beatdown! Zimmerman was seriously injured, called for help, and none came. A jury WILL find he acted reasonably.
They won’t give a damn whether Martin was high, stupid, drunk, whatever.
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear RuleofOrder:
I’m not sure where you’re getting this information on Martin’s THC levels. If you’ll examine Updates 4,5,6 and 7, you’ll find a variety of sources that indicate it was much more significant than you suggest. I continue to be concerned and suspicious by the prosecutions failure to release Martin’s urine results. If they were clear, I’m certain that fact would have been trumpeted to the treetops by now. In those updates, you’ll also find substantial evidence to indicate that Martin’s use of drugs was of long standing.
Phelps said:
THC and THC-COOH levls can do weird and unexpected things after death. I would need to hear from a forensic toxicologist before I would form any opinions based on how THC/THC-COOH behaves in live patients.
In any event, that same Tox report apparently shows Zimmerman’s blood under Martin’s fingernails and on his clothes. (That’s based on reporting — I have seen the autopsy report but not the tox report itself.)
RuleofOrder said:
tampa.cbslocal.com/2012/05/18/autopsy-indicates-trayvon-martin-had-thc-in-blood-at-time-of-shooting/
My mistake, 1.5 ngs. I looked around regarding various news sites, CNN, etc to verify. They seem to be all in agreement, what results of NMS’s tox screen have been released indicate levels that wouldn’t show a positive in most drug tests, or confirm a false positive if reviewed.
SteveDinMD said:
I’ve noticed many of the Trayvonistas lately pursuing a line of argument justifying TM’s attacking GZ. According to their theory, TM might well have feared for his life, making such an attack “justified.” By extension, they argue that GZ’s act of self-defense was UNjustified — even if he had committed no crime up to the point of using his gun — because his earler actions MIGHT have caused fear in TM and invited TM’s attack. Finally, they argue that we can’t PROVE that TM wasn’t in fear for his life. This entire argument is complete RUBBISH. First, the establishment of state of mind for the purpose of justifying self-defense is from the standpoint of the ACCUSED, i.e. Zimmerman. Martin, being dead, is not under threat of prosecution. Secon, TM’s state of mind is irrelevant in assessing the reasonableness of GZ’s actions. If GZ had committed no crime up to the point of using his gun, an attack by TM of the sort described certainly would justify the use of deadly force. Third, the defense need not prove ANYTHING. It is the prosecution’s burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ wasn’t, in the eyes of a reasonable person, in fear for his life or serious bodily injury. That’s today’s remedial civics lesson.
Though I’m under no obligation, I’ll take it a step further and actually PROVE that TM didn’t consider himself to be at risk. First, following someone — i.e. progressng down a public thorofare in the same direction as others — is not a crime, nor is it considered inherently threatening. Second, though GZ was armed, his weapon was CONCEALED, and incapable of provoking alarm in others. GZ also enjoys the right to keep and bear arms under the U.S. Constitution and holds a valid license to carry a concealed weapon, issued by the State of Florida. The fact tha GZ was armed, therefore, has absolutely NO bearing on TM’s state of mind, nor does it establish any criminal conduct on the part of GZ. Third, TM’s actions in the minutes leading up to the shooting contradict any claim that he feared for his life. He had a functioning cell phone yet never dialed 911, though he had ample opportunity to do so. He ran when spotted by GZ sitting in his car, yet didn’t run to the “safety” of Brandi’s house, though he had ample opportunity to do so. He didn’t knock on anyone’s door seeking refuge, though there were many doors close by. He didn’t cry for help; George did. Finally, the most conclusive evidence comes from the PROSECUTION’S star witness, Dee Dee. According to her recorded testimony, it was TRAYVON who confronted GEORGE, asking him if he “had a problem.” That’s NOT the action of someone frightened by an assailant.
For the record, that’s game, set, and match. TM wasn’t assaulted. He wasn’t threatened, nor was he in fear for his life. In short, he wasn’t a victim; he was a statistic — a doped-up, misogynistic, ingnoramus and budding delinquent. Barring a miraculous turn-around, his early demise was never in doubt, except as to the exact nature and timing. He was destined to either wind up the victim of a gang banging drive-by, or he’d eventually find himself in Florida State Prison serving 25-to-life before he turned 30. Pick ’em, but don’t blame GZ, because none of this was his doing. If you need to blame someone, blame TM’s old man — a REAL piece of work he. He cared so much about his darling boy that in the kid’s moment of crisis he’s nowhere to be found. Rather than being home counseling his deeply troubled son, he was out all night on “booty call” with Brandi. THERE’s your culprit. Go call HIM to account and condemn his BS public displays of indignation while you’re at it.
SlingTrebuchet said:
SteveDinMD: Finally, the most conclusive evidence comes from the PROSECUTION’S star witness, Dee Dee. According to her recorded testimony, it was TRAYVON who confronted GEORGE, asking him if he “had a problem.” That’s NOT the action of someone frightened by an assailant.
Your confusion in this matter is understandable, particularly if you have not read much around this whole case.
I think everyone here and all over would agree that the interview with Dee Dee was the interview from Hell. Some parts appear to have flashes of clarity however.
What she relates is Martin asking “Why are you following me?”
She does not describe Martin as accosting Zimmerman in this.
Rather she describes Martin as indicating that Zimmerman is search for him.
.
The “You got a problem?” comes from the Zimmerman side.
juggler523 said:
Yes, “You got a problem” DOES come from the Zimmerman side. But it is THAT side that no one can characterize as the “interview from hell”. Dee Dee’s testimony smack of occasional clarity? In what BIZZARRO-world? You will take one apparently “clear” statement from an otherwise bonkers interviewee and give it the weight of a clear lucid statement from interviewees whose comments are pretty much always clear and concise? Oh, for God’s SAKE!
juggler523 said:
SlingTrebuchet –
You have spent a great deal of time here being lambasted for your “out in left field” conjecture, your wild guesstimating, your flippant hypotheses, and your incessant hypotheticals. There is a saying: “1,000 Frenchmen can’t be wrong.” Apparently you take it literally, and require 1,000 comments contrary to your position. It’s a hyperbole!!!! Can’t you accept a couple dozen??
What Trayvon Martin thought when he first encountered Zimmerman is irrelevant. Whether he felt he was defending himself is an argument he is not here to make – too bad. What Zimmerman did SEVEN – not five years ago – with regard to the ATF agent is irrelevant. Since then, all charges were dropped and he was even accepted to attend the Seminole County Citizen’s Police Academy (after revealing the circumstances of that incident). Oh, and Judge Lester (arguably a sort of legal expert) dismissed the incident as irrelevant when it was posited by the prosecution at the first bond hearing.
What DOES matter is George Zimmerman’s reasonable state of mind in the moments before he shot Trayvon Martin. Can it be reasonably stated that Zimmerman was in fear of serious bodily harm, or (God forbid) death, as FLorida law requires before the use of deadly force is justified? Well, when one has been punched in the face, has had his head banged on the concrete, has cried for help, with no assistance apparently forthcoming, only an IDIOT would think otherwise. Thus, Zimmerman WAS justified in shooting Trayvon Martin.
Forget about the Skittles, forget about the Arizona watermelon cocktail drink, forget about Trayvon Martin’s school suspensions. Yes, take away EVERY one of those things that would support Zimmerman’s argument even more. Zimmerman doesn’t need them.
Yeah, you can try to overanalyze this very unspectacular case all you want with your “scientific” measurements, time analysis, voice stress comparisons, etc., etc. All you will have done (as you already HAVE done) is mercilessly fill Mr. McDaniel’s blog with so much ridiculous detritus that conscientious readers will throw their hands up and avoid reading/posting here until a future update.
Zimmerman was NOT arrested because of the evidence. He was arrested because an over-zealous prosecutor has an agenda. She is a loose cannon. She over-charged in this case, hoping for a plea…didn’t get it, and now has one or more of her underlings prepared to take the heat in the courtroom for her. They will lose the case, dragging Zimmerman through the mud along the way, and stoking the fires of the race-baiters who have long since wanted to make this unspectacular case their poster-child for pushing various race agendas.
You can continue to pontificate conjecture until the cows come home. All you accomplish is to illustrate what may have happened in a parallel world to our own. You generally do not conclude that with is supportable by the available evidence. But on the occasions when you DO, all you present is a reasonable alternative – which is EXACTLY the approach that is beneficial to the defense. You see, for the prosecution to succeed, there CAN’T be alternatives. They must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that THEIR scenario is the only possible one. They can’t do that. End result: NOT GUILTY.
Allyn said:
Articulate. Well reasoned. Exactly correct. Wish I had written that. I may have just stated 4 reasons for Sling to ignore. It is not likely it can intersect his parallel universe.
juggler523 said:
To SlingTrebuchet:
Tom wrote: We don’t know exactly how long after GZ got off the phone with the dispatcher until he was attacked. Regardless, It was very short, and probably not longer than 15-30 seconds. We will have a better idea in the coming days as GZs interviews should be released.”
You responded:
“We do know very precisely the gap between the call ending and the first 911 call connecting.
Call ended: 19:13:41
First 911 : 19:16:11
Do try to keep up.”
You do not contradict Tom, although you do apparently think it appropriate to add your condescending comment. The fact remains we DON’T know how much time between Zimmerman hanging up the phone and the beginning of the altercation. You have stated we know when the call ended and when the first 911 call began…and then you suggest that the woman making the call probably did so rather immediately after she heard the scuffle. But did she HEAR the scuffle immediately as or after it began? You have NO evidence to suggest she did, so Tom’s comment remains relevant and unanswered despite your smug reply.
You also wrote:
“If Martin suspected a weapon being produced by this weird stranger who had followed him into the dark, clocking Zimmerman there and then, before he could produce the weapon, might be a good plan.
What would you have done? Someone follows you into a dark area for no good reason that you can think of. When you ask them what’s going on, they don’t say. They reach for something.
Maybe it’s the Tooth Fairy – reaching for a purse – to give you money?”
Again, a smug attempt at sarcastic humor.
If Martin was afraid Zimmerman had a gun that he may have intended to use, you are ENTIRELY wrong that punching a man with a gun is a good move. Even if it was the right thing to do, laying that man out, jumping on him and pummeling him is NOT. Had Martin simply punched Zimmerman and fled, or even just stood there, Zimmerman wouldn’t have had justification to shoot. But we all know that’s not what Martin did. And martin’s stupidity resulted in his own death.
But as has been mentioned before, it doesn’t MATTER what Trayvon Martin thought. What matters is what ZIMMERMAN thought. Zimmerman is going to argue that he was in fear of serious bodily injury or death at the hands of Trayvon Martin. The prosecution is arguing second degree murder. The prosecution didn’t even show a CRIME was committed in the probable cause affidavit. Zimmerman’s defense is most definitely going to win the day at trial.
SlingTrebuchet said:
Juggler,
Although you might think otherwise, I am open to well reasoned alternative takes.
I have already demonstrated this here.
I had asserted that ‘circling’ apparently described by Zimmerman was impossible.
I was quite strong in putting that forward.
Everlastingphelps posted to suggest that ‘circling’ could have been a particular type of gang-signature ritual that only involved a slow arc rather than a complete circle.
I immediately accepted this and confirmed the such a move would fit into the timeline.
I updated my blog to note that this sort of circling was a possibility, and would vindicate Zimmerman’s description of a ‘circling.
So you see.
My analysis, estimates, etc are not some fundamentalist article of faith that I must defend regardless.
So I will take Tom’s assertion into consideration.
Tom wrote: “We don’t know exactly how long after GZ got off the phone with the dispatcher until he was attacked. Regardless, It was very short, and probably not longer than 15-30 seconds. …”
Let’s put it at say 20 seconds. Not a fixed stance. Just a sample to see how it stands up.
Zimmerman’s call ended at 19:13:41
20 seconds later he is attacked. 19:14:01
First 911 call connects at 19:16:11
This means that Zimmerman would have been been under attack for the previous 2 minutes and 10 seconds.
OK. It could have happened.
There is a possible problem in that Zimmerman had apparently described going to Retreat View Circle in order to get an address. His father reports observing a video re-enactment. It’s only a possible problem, as the walk to RVC and most of the way back could have been undertaken during the course of the call.
I will avoid infuriating some parties by attempting to calculate where he might have been on the path back at that time so as to be attacked near the T-junction15 to 30 seconds after the call ends.
I think however that on this one, before updating the blog, that I will wait on the release of the statements as Tom suggests to see how Zimmerman described the events.
juggler523 said:
You wrote:
“I think however that on this one, before updating the blog, that I will wait on the release of the statements as Tom suggests to see how Zimmerman described the events.”
You should have followed that advice from the very beginning.
bettykath said:
I don’t understand why Zimmerman would go to Retreat View Circle to get a house number. I don’t dispute that he said that’s what he did, it just doesn’t make sense that he’d do it. His truck is on a different street. Why didn’t he get the number of a house there? Another reason to think Z doesn’t operate on all cylinders. By that I mean he exudes poor judgement.
This is probably my last time here. There isn’t enough objectivity or intelligence to make it worth my while.
Allyn said:
Bettykath said “I don’t understand why Zimmerman would go to Retreat View Circle to get a house number. I don’t dispute that he said that’s what he did, it just doesn’t make sense that he’d do it. His truck is on a different street. Why didn’t he get the number of a house there? Another reason to think Z doesn’t operate on all cylinders. By that I mean he exudes poor judgement.
This is probably my last time here. There isn’t enough objectivity or intelligence to make it worth my while.”
Woooo Hoooo!!! This from a woman who cannot understand why GZ wanted an address from the street where he lost saw TM and who thinks GZ should go to jail simply because he shot an unarmed thug, no matter what the circumstances were.
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear BettyKath:
I believe the primary reason he went to Retreat View Circle is because he needed to look north and south, for that road was one of the possible paths the fleeing Martin might have taken (remember, he lost him earlier). At that point, he may have checked a house number in case he saw Martin and needed to direct the police there.
Thanks for your comments, and we’ll do our best to labor along without our reduced brainpower:). You are, by the way, always welcome back.
Tom said:
Ok, 15-30 seconds before they encountered each other may be low. But I would be willing to bet it’s closer than your 2:20 estimate.
Tom said:
Nobody besides GZ knows with 100% certainty what happened those 2 1/2 minutes after he hung up with the dispatcher, and the first 911 call by a neighbor reporting the disturbance.
I feel strongly the most likely scenario is exactly what GZ told police within minutes of the encounter, over and over during police interviews, during the lie detector stress test, and then the reenactment the following day at the scene.
I think very few people besides the greatest liars, criminal minds in the world, would have lied about the series of events within minutes of the event, and then kept their lies straight throughout future retelling. Not a 28 year old married loan officer.
And then the screaming which occurred for over 45 seconds. The scheme team has the audacity to have us believe that GZ lied to the police within minutes of the event by telling them he was the one screaming….when it was actually Trayvon. That is PREPOSTEROUS! There were dozens of witnesses in the proximity! I don’t think even the greatest sociopath in the world would have thought up that lie at the scene. And I don’t even have to bring up the obvious beat down GZ took, with the only reciprocation being to TM’s knuckle.
However, if you take away the screaming, there are some scenarios that put more culpability in GZ’s camp. For example TM saw the gun and that was the reason he assaulted GZ. These are possible but unlikely. Assaulting someone you know to have a gun, is usually not the behavior of a sane person. And instead of concentrating on disarming the individual, TM seemed much more content on pounding GZ’s face into oblivion.
While we never know for sure, the key to piecing together the most likely scenario is looking at character. I’ll tell you one thing for sure, if Trayvon was a straight A student going to an Ivy college next fall, I would think GZ was probably guilty as sin.
The fact of the matter is there are those that will give every benefit of the doubt to Trayvon precisely because of his race. The majority of black people will….and many white people too. Look at the earwitness for example.
When you combine the forces of political correctness and the racial grievance crowd, you have a dangerous combination, and logic and objectivity are thrown out the window.
JOC56 said:
I’ve expressed my disagreement with Sling on this issue in a previous post but I’ll expand upon it just a bit here. Witness 11 is the woman who called 911 and was connected at 19:16:11. Here is what she said in her written statement to police: “Heard some scuffling and loud talking outside our back door. Muted TV because it got louder and wanted to hear what was going on. Heard a man yelling but couldn’t make out what he was saying then same man started yelling help. We called 911 and while on phone heard gun shot”. When the call connected there was already screaming in the background which means that the fight had progressed from the original encounter, to scuffling and loud talking, to yelling (muting the TV), to yelling for help at which point 911 was called. I stand by my original assertion that the ‘meeting’ between TM & GZ happened well before 19:16:11, perhaps as much as 30-45 seconds prior.
As Mike says we’ll never be able to nail this down to the second. The best we can do is deal in ranges. Until we actually get to read the statements GZ made to the police this is all speculation anyway, but it is the type of speculation that a lot of obviously find interesting. I realize a lot of this is way off topic from the Dee Dee interview and I appreciate Mike indulging us in our digression.
juggler523 said:
It (the timing of the fight) doesn’t MATTER. What matters is whether a reasonable person going through what Zimmerman went through (i.e., getting beaten by a man who is on top of him, suffering a punch to the face, which ultimately broke his nose, calling for help – and no help coming, with the young man continuing to pummel him) would have used deadly force to stop the beating.
The severity of Zimmerman’s injuries is irrelevant in judging whether deadly force ought to have been used.
The intent of Trayvon Martin is irrelevant. He is not on trial here, and what he thought or felt is unable to be ascertained.
Whether Zimmerman profiled Martin is irrelevant. If that was why he was suspicious, so? There is no evidence that is why he shot Martin.
Whether Zimmerman was carrying a firearm contrary to Neighborhood watch protocol is irrelevant. It is legal to do so in Florida.
What Dee Dee said about whether Trayvon Martin was scared is irrelevant. Whether martin was scared while hitting Zimmerman or simply being macho doesn’t play into Zimmerman’s mental state.
The Skittles and the Arizona drink are irrelevant.
Zimmerman’s past brushes with the police are irrelevant.
Martin’s school suspension is irrelevant.
What matters is whether George Zimmerman reasonably felt in fear of serious bodily injury or death, and if so, whether deadly force was a reasonable course of action to take in stopping Martin.
Sandy said:
Hello Mike- Happy Father’s day. This is out of control. Right now there are 254 comments, and the majority of those comments have nothing to do with the DeeDee interview. I’ve recently read that the most successful websites don’t allow their comment sections to become a free for all. Shoot, this has now become a discussion about how many more blacks/minorities are arrested/harassed by the police. No thanks Mike, no interest, no desire to come here to read this kind of garbage. It is out of control.
juggler523 said:
AGREED!
Sandy said:
juggler- It should be a lesson to you that the more and more you keep challenging someone, the bigger the invitation gets to keep that crap going on. You are as guilty as Sling for destroying this comment section. Unfortunately there are some that just can’t find any way to stand down, and LET IT GO.
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear Sandy:
Observant and wise as always. Sometimes it is indeed smart to simply let things lie. Readers are more than smart enough to know when people aren’t making sense or are just trying to provoke others. It is fun to respond, but it’s often best to just let them alone.
juggler523 said:
I’m sorry, Mike. I didn’t realize Sandy was elected Moderator. My bad.
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear Juggler523:
Hi there. Not a problem, but Sandy is correct. This thread has gone far off topic. That’s hardly the worst thing that’s happened to any of us, and it has been interesting indeed, but I’ll probably try to keep things a bit more on track in the future. I do appreciate you contribution, though!
Thanks again!
SlingTrebuchet said:
Mike,
If it’s any help to you, I’d like to wave goodbye to everyone in the thread.
Nothing new is going to happen until the statements are released.
There will be all sorts of debate then.
For now , I bid you all ‘au revoir’.
juggler523 said:
Woooo Hoooo!!!
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear SlingTrebuchet:
Thanks for running up the comment count! See you soon.
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear Sandy:
Insightful. In this case, I wanted to see where it would go. I doubt I’ll allow this kind of off-topic wheel spinning in the future.
Thanks as always for your comment!
Phelps said:
Also, in regards to all of this, I would like to make a point of order.
It is entirely feasible for both Martin and Zimmerman to have been, at various points, acting in legal self defense. Even if Martin was at some point justified in whatever he did, it in no way abrogates Zimmerman’s right to self defense.
There are plenty of times when people make mistakes — tragic, deadly mistakes — that do not rise to the level of criminality.
Zimmerman does not have to prove that he was a squeaky clean paragon of virtue and justice to escape criminal charges. He simply has to show that his actions do not meet the elements of the crime he is charged with. Currently, that charge is Murder 2, and he in no way meets those elements.
RuleofOrder said:
Agreed on all points.
Dedicated_Dad said:
I followed a link from “The Treehouse” to this post.
My response grew into a monster MUCH too big to be left as a “Comment” – still I think it’s worth reading, so I decided to turn it into a blog-post and link it here…
http://dumbolddad.blogspot.com/2012/06/trayvon-deedee-and-passion-of-saint.html
I have no ads, and get no revenue from my blog, and my “hits” thus far have been scarce, which is more than fine by me.
I gain nothing if you follow my link but the knowledge that I may have helped open someone’s mind and save an innocent man from a wrongful persecution.
Note for the slow-kids: We’re all entitled to our own opinions – but NOBODY is entitled to their own “facts.”
Do us all a favor and stick to the topic – the law and the evidence. If you haven’t seen it, or don’t know it, you’re not qualified to respond!
Our Justice System is based on LAW AND EVIDENcE — or at least it is SUPPOSED to be — and NOT on emotion. How you, Jesse Jack@$$, the Nutty Black Pamper P***ies – or even Ma Skittles – feels about it is irrelevant to the LEGAL case at hand.
The FAcTS known thus far point to no other conclusion than that TM prepared for a fight and then back-tracked at least 100 yards to brutally attack someone for eyeballing him, and thus JZ had every legal right to self-defense by any means necessary.
Anyone doubting the lethality of the assault is cordially invited to put their skull where their mouth is and play JZ’s role in a videotaped reenactment. I’ve yet to find anyone willing to prove the strength of their convictions – but who knows! Maybe this will be the place!
Anyhow, thanks for reading…
juggler523 said:
To RuleofOrder:
I must admit, I do not spend nearly as much effort injecting attempts at sarcasm, satire, etc. into my posts as you do. So, I apologize up front for the bland delivery.
I reiterate: Did Zimmerman initially pursue Martin? Sure. And NO, while this may have appeared to be an “aggravation” of the situation in your eyes, you have clearly disregarded the reality that Zimmerman DID dis-engage, and remained disengaged from Martin for at LEAST two minutes, during which time he even related tot he dispatcher that he didn’t know where Martin was. Zimmerman CLEARLY expressed no concern for finding Martin once he was discouraged from continuing his pursuit. NONE. His only worry was that since he didn’t KNOW where Martin was, it was possible Martin was within earshot of Zimmerman – which is why Zimmerman was apprehensive about verbally exposing his home address.
A running foot pursuit?? For all of about 12 seconds! Not particularly pursuit-worthy. And yes, you and I certainly must have a drastically different definition of “disengage”. I believe disengage means what the dictionary says it means: to break off action with. I have no idea what you think it means. Zimmerman HAD broken off action with Martin. But for Dee Dee’s statements (which I give almost ZERO credibility to), there is NO evidence to support your belief that Zimmerman remained engaged.
Even the special prosecutor’s investigator could not say who initiated the physical confrontation. Even the special prosecutor’s investigator could present no evidence to contradict Zimmerman’s claim that he was en route back to his vehicle at the time the confrontation occurred (which was 300ft NORTH of Brandy Green’s condo, where Martin was staying, and it was nearly 5 minutes AFTER Martin took off on that run YOU claim was intended to indicate his (Martin’s) intent to withdraw. Withdraw??? You or I could have crawled the distance Martin covered in 5 minutes (several TIMES). Withdraw? NOT! No, the spider didn’t come moseying along. The spider was Trayvon Martin, laying in wait to gangsta-bash Zimmerman.
You wrote: ““Did Zimmerman spend the last 90 seconds of his phone call merely exchanging contact information with the dispatcher? Yes!” — I would like to point out that during this exchange, Zimmerman is wary of Martin’s position. Again, he states as such. That being the case, are we confident his direction was back to his vehicle, or… perhaps… lingering?”
Hell, Zimmerman could have been laying on his belly counting blades of grass, or catching insects at the nearest lamp post for all we know, especially if we use your logic. But where is the EVIDENCE! You suggest it…but it is mere supposition, nothing more.
You can play games all you want. The evidence doesn’t support your conclusion, and it most CERTAINLY does not prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. You offer conjecture. But your approach is EXACTLY what the defense lives for – possibilities…multiple ones, even. Because all the defense needs to do is throw a hundred possibilities against the wall and see if even just ONE sticks. On the other hand, the prosecution MUST prove the elements required for a second degree murder conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. They cannot just guess and hope the jury agrees with them. They have to PROVE it. Your approach ain’t gonna cut it…not even close.
And you know what? NOTHING matters except Zimmerman’s state of mind – whether he reasonably believed he was in danger of serious personal injury or death, and deadly force was reasonable under the circumstances. He will win that argument.
Dedicated_Dad said:
A 23 year old man in TX just beat a man to death with his bare hands.
He lacked the 7″+ Height advantage TM had over JZ, as well as the multiplying factor of having his victim’s head striking the edge of the concrete as he recoiled from every blow – yet his “victim” is D-E-A-D DEAD.
“Unarmed” means exactly JACK.
What matters is that this suspicious person he spotted and believed had fled suddenly appeared out of the darkness, sucker-punched him – knocking him to the ground and breaking his nose – then mounted him and began a “MMA-style” “ground & pound” which continued for at least a minute and likely closer to TWO.
Further, TM continued his “pounding” even after being challenged by a witness and told that 911 was being called.
Having seen his only potential aid appear and then disappear, and finding himself again alone,pinned and being beaten by someone far larger and more athletic who was showing no signs of tiring, it would require an utter fool to *NOT* believe he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.
Period.
RuleofOrder said:
This is what I am referring to regarding the Four Armed Ninja defense.
Appeared from thin air, felled him with one blow, sidewalk/concrete “edges” now, apparently, MMA style attacks, etc. The “being told 911 was being called” is a new addition though, kudos.
I find your discertation to be just as fantastic and credible as stating that Zimmerman followed Martin with his gun drawn, from his car, calling Martin a coon, and having intention of murdering him regardless. What you state as “period” draws finality to what are adequately demonstrated as a string of questions. Some of the answers are likely, some aren’t. The aggression that you postulate is coming from the same indivual that others have opined seem “drunk” and unsteady on his feet a few minutes earlier, as such as file it the “aren’t” column.
juggler523 said:
You wrote the following your words in parentheses – my responses clearly identified):
“Appeared from thin air, felled him with one blow…”
RESPONSE – Maybe not “thin air”….but consistent with being cold-cocked and felled to the ground. It is not at all unrealistic to believe someone who is not expecting a physical attack can be felled with one punch. Would you care to be a guinea pig for such a test? Zimmerman suffered a broken nose. Trayvon Martin had no injuries but for the gunshot wound and knuckle scrapes consistent with being the aggressor, as Zimmerman had multiple contusions, scrapes, bruises and lacerations to the back of his head, as well as wet clothing indicating he was on his back on the ground.
“…sidewalk/concrete “edges” now, apparently, MMA style attacks, etc.”
RESPONSE – You act as if this is new. It’s simply NOT. This is what John “Witness #6″ said in his statements to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement….he specifically mentioned MMA and that as he was going inside, he saw Zimmerman and Martin on the ground moving more toward the sidewalk.
” The “being told 911 was being called” is a new addition though, kudos.”
RESPONSE – Again, are you not following? Perhaps this is new to you (maybe you aren’t particularly thorough), but John “Witness #6″ stated the following in a media interview the day following the shooting:
“The guy on the bottom, who I believe had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, ‘Help. Help.’ I told him to stop and I was calling 911”
” I find your discertation (sic) to be just as fantastic and credible as stating that Zimmerman followed Martin with his gun drawn, from his car, calling Martin a coon, and having intention of murdering him regardless”
RESPONSE – Again, there is EVIDENCE to suggest that Zimmerman’s head was banged against the sidewalk. There is evidence to suggest that Zimmerman was attacked (his injuries vs a lack of injuries to Martin). There is evidence Zimmerman had not continued a pursuit of Martin (his proximity to his vehicle and the more northerly locations vs. Martin still being 300ft away from home 5 minutes after he took off running). There is NO evidence to support your supposition. Zimmerman had called the COPS!! Why would someone call the cops, not know when they might arrive, then about 7 minutes after he calls them shoot the suspicious person he has reported? Zimmerman had NEVER before approached a suspicious person – black OR white, and in fact is recorded in a previous call as saying he didn’t want to. You are making crap up. We here who support Zimmerman are using the evidence to conclude what we have.
“What you state as “period” draws finality to what are adequately demonstrated as a string of questions. Some of the answers are likely, some aren’t. The aggression that you postulate is coming from the same indivual that others have opined seem “drunk” and unsteady on his feet a few minutes earlier, as such as file it the “aren’t” column.”
RESPONSE – Other have postulated that he seemed “drunk”? How does what “others” think matter? Zimmerman said he looked like he was on drugs or something. Zimmerman NEVER said Martin looked unsteady on his feet. He said he looked like he was up to no good, wandering about, etc.
Please please do a little more research. You appear to have suggested that the writer made up the MMA, 911 references, yet there are available recordings. Come ON!!
RuleofOrder said:
I think I need to apologize, what I am thinking I am replying too isn’t following the nesting I assumed… Anyways, Juggler, there are some snide remarks I can say regarding keeping up, but I will let them pass in light of the following.
“There is NO evidence to support your supposition” — there is no evidence to refute it either. Zimmerman’s testimony is exactly that, the words of gentleman whom has every motive to lie. But, before I continue my musings on that, what is my suppostion? I have stated it before, and and pretty sure it fits the scenario.
“RESPONSE – Maybe not “thin air”….but consistent with being cold-cocked and felled to the ground.” — please refer to my suppostion as to how this happened.
“Witness #6″ said in his statements to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement….he specifically mentioned MMA and that as he was going inside, he saw Zimmerman and Martin on the ground moving more toward the sidewalk.” — Does Witness Six still hold to this account? Does he still hold to his account that it was Zimmerman calling for help?
“then about 7 minutes after he calls them shoot the suspicious person he has reported?” — this part tells me you aren’t clear as to what my supposition is.
“Other have postulated that he seemed “drunk”? How does what “others” think matter? Zimmerman said he looked like he was on drugs or something. Zimmerman NEVER said Martin looked unsteady on his feet. He said he looked like he was up to no good, wandering about, etc.” — well, if you scroll up, me and the author of the blog are talking about various degrees of imparement, and Martin’s appearance at the 7 11. Mike, if you think “drunk” is out of the question regarding your description of Martin’s actions, I will be happy to use another word for “impared”. Juggler, If you don’t care what others “think” on the matter… why exactly are you here?
“Please please do a little more research. You appear to have suggested that the writer made up the MMA, 911 references, yet there are available recordings. Come ON!!” — No, I don’t suggest that at all. But, perhaps the research is not mine to do. I would kindly suggest you take a gander as to what Witness 6’s current evaluation of the events are, regarding who was looking for help, and who was throwing blows.
juggler523 said:
Rule of order – you wrote a lot not worth responding to, but I will address two points.
First, you wrote: ” ‘There is NO evidence to support your supposition’ — there is no evidence to refute it either.” <–your comment about the "refuting" part.
NEWSFLASH!!!! The defense doesn't HAVE to refute anything. The prosecution has to PROVE. SO, I reiterate, you have no evidence to support your supposition. In layman's terms, you can't prove it. Not just can't prove it – you have NO evidence to even support it…none…nada…zilch…zip.
Second, you wrote that the witness' threat to call 911 was new – it wasn't. I am WELL aware of John's current (at least his most current public) statement with regard to MMA and whether he heard or saw any punching. I am also aware that BLDR questioned John for less time than you or I spend taking a dump. He asked if he heard the sound of punches (he demonstrated by punching his hand and causing a loud "slap" noise. John said he didn't hear such sounds, and John couldn't be certain about punches being thrown. Whoopie…the point is John DID say it, so it's not new – you implied the writer was making it up.
Also, regardless of what John said to BLDR, NOTHING he says contradicts Zimmerman.
Did John reiterate that it was martin on top? YES
Did Zimmerman have the bleeding injuries, bumps, scrapes, broken nose. YES
But for knuckle scrapes and a gunshot wound was Martin injury free? YES
Did John say Martin was on bottom? NO.
Did John say Zimmerman was holding Martin at bay with his 9mm? NO.
Did John say Zimmerman WASN'T the one crying out? NO.
Did John say Zimmerman was pounding Martin? NO.
Did John say Martin complied when he (John) told him to stop, that he (John) was going to call 911? NO.
Witness' statements change all the time….after reflection. But John's statement is NOT a retraction. And it certainly was not earth shattering or supportive of the prosecution. Had it been, BLDR most certainly would have questioned him for more the 2:13 that he did. Good God, that's like 10% of the time he spent on Airhead Dee Dee, and about twice as long as Zimmerman's call with the dispatcher!
RuleofOrder said:
“The defense doesn’t HAVE to refute anything.” — again, this indicates to me that you are not clear on what you think I am saying.
“Not just can’t prove it – you have NO evidence to even support it…none…nada…zilch…zip.” — and what you are basing YOUR evidence on is the word of the guy whom has every motivation to lie about the events. BTW, how is Zimmerman’s credibility looking?
“Not just can’t prove it – you have NO evidence to even support it…none…nada…zilch…zip.” — minus of course Zimmerman’s retelling that stems from him producing his (concealed) phone when standing toe toe with Martin. It has been related that Zimmerman was going for his cell phone when Martin hit him. As I have previously mentioned, this could easily have been interpretted as going for a weapon.
“John said he didn’t hear such sounds, and John couldn’t be certain about punches being thrown. Whoopie…the point is John DID say it, so it’s not new – you implied the writer was making it up.” — OR I am implying the writer doesn’t know what the current relation is about MMA punches, and whether the witness still wants to stand by that. IE, its old news. Not germane. New testimony from witness 6 superceeds that of the previous. From “MMA” punches now to being –unable to tell– if punches were being thrown AT ALL while on the ground.
“Did John say Zimmerman WASN’T the one crying out? NO” — didn’t say he was, either. His current stance is that he is unsure, not being able to have seen either of their mouths.
“But John’s statement is NOT a retraction.” — I agree. Its an edit. A re-write of some of his statements. However, those re-written statements just got used in an argument. Why did Dad up there use the “MMA” style attacks observation if that was no longer the witnesses opinion on the matter?
Regarding the concrete edges, I can understand how that caused confusion on what I was trying to relate. My point was that it started off as the sidewalk, which then turned into concrete (no problem there), but now its concrete edges. The lethality of the danger that Zimmerman was in (and I agree, btw, at the time he was), seems to keep increasing or changing to fit the “evidence”. First he was jumped. Oh, he had words with Trayvon? Okay, well he just got sucker punched then. Oh, he was reaching for something when Trayvon hit him? Well, then he got cold-cocked. As I made reference to previous, the narrative that comes from Zimmerman supporters are shoe horned into what is there victimize Zimmerman more, and as well as demonize Trayvon.
Zimmerman’s relation of his pre-brawl altercation with Trayvon does indeed make it seem like Trayvon appeared from thin air (yes, while Zimmerman was on his way back to the truck). Given the T junction, the location of the brawl, the body, etc, how could anyone have “hid” there? Its virtually wide open terrain, its a house, grass, and sidewalk. Is it really to much to say that Trayvon saw Zimmerman and started heading toward the T from the cut through, Zimmerman in turn saw Martin, and started heading toward him, during this time, Trayvon started to shout about why he was being followed, George started to shout about who Martin was and what he was doing there? It would actually make sense, given where Trayvon’s body came to rest. They are a good… what, 25ish yards from the crest of the “T”? THAT to me is the common sense answer. How else would they have gotten down that far? If Zimmerman’s story is 100 percent accurate that he was taking NO track other than heading for his vehicle, wouldn’t the altercation have occured more along the cross of the “T” than down the path way?
juggler523 said:
Bottom line is this:
On the night of the shooting, Zimmerman spoke for hours with police, providing them details of what happened. Concurrently police canvassed the neighborhood, collected evidence and interviewed witnesses.
NOTHING…NOTHING they learned at the scene of the shooting or from witnesses contradicted Zimmerman’s version of events to the point that an arrest was warranted.
Witness statements have changed since then, but NONE of the witness statements have contradicted what was said to police earlier, or by Zimmerman. Have there been inconsistencies? Absolutely.
If you ask me to describe an event immediately after it happened, my recollection is going to be different from my recollection some time later. But my general description will remain consistent with what I said earlier.
Nothing that Witness #6 has said since the night of the shooting has contradicted what he said then, and it hasn’t contradicted what Zimmerman said on the night of the shooting.
I find Dee Dee’s comments utterly lacking in credibility. I find no logic in her failure to mention to a living soul that she was talking to Trayvon Martin only moments before he was shot. I find her mention of certain things in her statement to BLDR as very oddly out of place – as if their mere mention was intended to dove-tail her account with Zimmerman’s unrehearsed one to GIVE her credibility. I believe it backfires, and not in her favor.
So, I throw everything Dee Dee says in the crapper.
You also wrote: “and what you 9juggler523) are basing YOUR evidence on is the word of the guy whom has every motivation to lie about the events. BTW, how is Zimmerman’s credibility looking?
Choo Choo!!!
WRONG!!
As I stated immediately above – to date, NOTHING has contradicted Zimmerman’s version of events. He gave his version absent ANY knowledge of what people would say and what the evidence would paint. What people said, and what the evidence painted corroborated his story. THAT’S what I base my conclusions on. If you looked at the evidence holistically, perhaps you would come to the same conclusion – but what you are is someone who likes to fill in the blanks with supposition that has no basis in the facts or evidence. You pick and choose a possible scenario merely because it is possible, and it may be your personal favorite, but the available evidence plays no role in your selection.
Chooo Chooo…..
RuleofOrder said:
“… to fill in the blanks …” — huh. Blanks. Zimmerman’s story has… blanks?
“…possible scenario merely because it is possible…” — its possible, and there are blanks.
“…but the available evidence plays no role in your selection.
…” — so, again, if Zimmerman is heading to his car, why are the two embroiled about 20ish yards down the path, instead at the top of the T? Zimmerman’s answers don’t satisfy that, Juggs. Surely you must see that.
juggler523 said:
You have presumed to know the exact location of Zimmerman’s vehicle, his exact route to it, exactly where he was when he began to walk back toward it, the exact direction from whence Martin approached him (according to Zimmerman) and exactly where Martin and he encountered each other – again, without evidence to back it up, you have painted a picture that is not based on anything resembling reality. Nice guessing, though, to fill in the blanks of the unknown.
If you can provide an exact source that explains why you have filled in “unknowns” with your “knowns”, I would be more than happy to entertain what is otherwise your hypothesis.
RuleofOrder said:
“If you can provide an exact source that explains why you have filled in …” — because Zimmerman hasn’t.
“with your “knowns”,” — my knowns consist of many ear witnesses stating there was an argument, or exchange of loud words. Zimmerman’s casual ‘Do you have a problem’ -WHAM!- explanation doesn’t at all jive with what a lot of witnesses reported hearing BEFORE definite cries of help, and then the shot. Of those interviewed, the ones that provide the most testimony to what they heard, indicates an argument. These, btw, are in the reports that have been released. I could attempt to go into a huge timeline of each step like Trebuchet up there does, but… wow. Being that meticulous becomes self defeating.
juggler523 said:
You DID quote Dee Dee’s version of what Trayvon Martin supposedly said, Rule….
Choooo Chooooo!
RuleofOrder said:
“So, I am done being on the phone, and start to head… well, wherever”….
Choooo Chooooo!
I have given you ample reading material while on your trip. Make use of it.
Kinda hard to quote some one as saying something some one else said if the device that enables that insight is turned off, don’tcha think?
If “Who the f*** are you” works better or “Stop following me!” works better, or, even as George stated “Do you have a problem?” fine, insert it there if it helps you to follow along. The point is that indeed there was an argument, and and argument consist of more than question, answer, and immediate knuckle sandwhich. Given the situation, the most logical question would be any of the above statements. Dig? Or would you rather remain obtuse and make train noises?
juggler523 said:
NO one can say how long the verbal encounter lasted, what words were exchange, etc. Make it up as you go…still doesn’t matter. What matters is whether Trayvon Martin’s beatdown of Zimmerman (evidenced by the eye witness + obvious injuries to Zimmerman + no injuries to Martin + length of time screams were heard on 911 call). It doesn’t matter who initiated what, or who said what. Ultimately, if Zimmerman was reasonably in fear of serious bodily injury or death (as per FLORIDA LAW), he was justified in shooting Martin. Yawn
RuleofOrder said:
” Ultimately, if Zimmerman was reasonably in fear of serious bodily injury or death (as per FLORIDA LAW), he was justified in shooting Martin” — and the fact that Martin could claim the same protections should mean something. Of course, there were a lot of steps taken and ignored on behalf of Zimmerman to get there, SPD even states that this was ultimately avoidable, and the SPD could finds no crime in what Martin was doing up until the point the 911 calls were made… Yawn if you want, but this case is a great test of what will be clarified in the upcoming months regarding SYG, reasonable self defense, etc.
juggler523 said:
You wrote:
” Ultimately, if Zimmerman was reasonably in fear of serious bodily injury or death (as per FLORIDA LAW), he was justified in shooting Martin” — and the fact that Martin could claim the same protections should mean something. Of course, there were a lot of steps taken and ignored on behalf of Zimmerman to get there, SPD even states that this was ultimately avoidable, and the SPD could finds no crime in what Martin was doing up until the point the 911 calls were made… Yawn if you want, but this case is a great test of what will be clarified in the upcoming months regarding SYG, reasonable self defense, etc.”
Me – Uh…IF there was any evidence that Martin was in reasonable fear for his life as Zimmerman was beating him, or cornering him, or whatever, you might have an argument….however, is there any indication Zimmerman ever laid a finger on Martin except in self-defense? Let’s discuss Martin’s injuries….OOOPS!! He had none (other than knuckle scrapes – what!! Was Zimmerman biting his fingers?). Seems Martin was unable to create distance between himself and George “Carl Lewis” Zimmerman, huh? ‘Cuz the Zimmer is just that sneaky fast…he’s not overweight…he’s just big-boned, huh?
OOPS! Yes, Martin DID have time to get away – almost 5 minutes elapsed between when he took off running and when the fatal shot was fired. Let’s scratch one minute and say there were four minutes he had to get away. And how far did he get? About 150-200 feet….hmmm….that’s MAX 1.2 feet per second. That’s only about 3 x faster than a friggin’ GARDEN snail!! We’re talking 3-toed sloth speed here. I looked it up! A giant tortoise moves faster than that!! So, a giant tortoise could have made it to Brandy’s condo before Trayvon Martin. Wow… OK, let’s be generous and say he only had THREE minutes to cover a 90-second slow-walk route. Well, now he’s in the unmanageable speed range of .a SPIDER!!! Those common spiders move like greased lightning!!!
So…the SFD’s opinion means something to you, huh? You find their collective opinion valid. Well, perhaps you are a pick and chooser-type of guy, because that’s the SAME SPD that chose NOT to arrest Zimmerman, which means they could find no crime in what ZIMMERMAN did. HELLOOOOOOO……Mc Ruuuuuuullllle!!!
Chooooo Chooooo……
RuleofOrder said:
“because that’s the SAME SPD that chose NOT to arrest Zimmerman, which means they could find no crime in what ZIMMERMAN did. HELLOOOOOOO……Mc Ruuuuuuullllle!!!” — Again, is there an echo in here? Would you find any place in this blog where I stated Zimmerman did something illegal? At all? I keep gettings this strange sense that you are reading about half the posts I make, or maybe every other paragraph or something. Look, again, congrats, your dude is innocent of murder, back up the confetti truck. What a shining example of common sense, truly a paragon. Be proud. Hold your head up high that Zimmerman is a model person in which all CWP holders should follow, all his actions were completely legit, and absolutely NO consequences will come because if it.
Oh, wait…
RuleofOrder said:
Juggler, indeed, I interject a lot of sarcasm, humor (some times even to the absurd). I would like to think it keeps an interesting read, but if that is not the case I will dry up my posts a bit.
Now, as I have been insisting here, Zimmerman didn’t have the desire to murder anyone. Of course, Martin didn’t exactly have the aims to beat some one up, sight unseen, either.
“I have no idea what you think it means. Zimmerman HAD broken off action with Martin” — other side. Other person. Martin had broken off with Zimmerman first. He fled to a new location. Then the non-note worthy foot persuit happened. After Martin’s initial retreat.
“NOTHING matters except Zimmerman’s state of mind” — I would be careful about using Zimmerman’s state of mind as the deciding factor on that one. He is the one that thinks they always get away. Good thing he followed this one, to make sure it didn’t get away.
juggler523 said:
You wrote: ““NOTHING matters except Zimmerman’s state of mind” — I would be careful about using Zimmerman’s state of mind as the deciding factor on that one. He is the one that thinks they always get away. Good thing he followed this one, to make sure it didn’t get away.”
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Zimmerman followed Martin for approximately 15 total seconds, and immediately stopped when the dispatcher counseled him to. Within 15 more seconds, Zimmerman’s breathing and speech were again at pre-pursuit levels. The physical encounter began no less than 90 seconds after Zimmerman stopped following (That’s when his call ended – but it certainly started well after that), and the remainder of his conversation entailed arranging with the dispatcher how and where he would meet the police when they arrived.
Honestly, only a bull-headed ignoramus would equate Zimmerman’s behavior as threatening by the time the phone call ended. In short, if there WAS a threat, it had been extinguished by Zimmerman’s subsequent behavior. Only an ignoramus would suggest that Martin might simply have been on a stroll. Only an ignoramus would suggest or believe that Martin felt threatened, because if he did, he had PLENTY of time and opportunity to distance himself from Zimmerman. But he didn’t do that. He had about 450ft to go from Point A (his start point on his run) to Point B (Brandy’s condo). I have walked a 100ft distance where I work uncomfortably slowly – painfully SLOWLY. It took about 25 seconds. Multiply that 100ft by 4.5 and that’s 450 feet. Multiply that 25 seconds by 4.5 and that’s 112.5 seconds. A man on CRUTCHES could have made it in less than two minutes. Keep in mind that Martin took off RUNNING, and Dee Dee says he was out of breath! If he was out of breath, he would have HAD to cover more distance than 150ft – which is about where he was shot. Actually had he simply walked to Brandy’s condo, he would have been inside watching the pre-game of the NBA All-Star game before Zimmerman finished his phone call – a call DURING which Zimmerman told the dispatcher he didn’t even know where Martin was.
But Martin was still a football field’s length away from home FIVE minutes after he took off running. He was afraid? He felt threatened? So threatened that he STAYED in the vicinity of Zimmerman? Only an ignoramus would say so.
RuleofOrder said:
“Only an ignoramus would suggest that Martin might simply have been on a stroll.” — I agree. He was on a snack run. Even have pictures of the snacks to prove it. ;)
“…to distance himself from Zimmerman. But he didn’t do that…” — I agree. He didn’t really have a reason to, nor onus to do so. The dude giving him the stink eye was in his car a block away.
“Keep in mind that Martin took off RUNNING, and Dee Dee says he was out of breath!” — refresh my memory, are we relying on Dee Dee or not? I am perfectly willing to ignore her completely if you are. I really have no desire to state other parts of Dee Dee’s words, only to have them labeled as as being either a lie or coached, only to have her same testimony used in my opponents favor as the God’s honest.
“So threatened that he STAYED in the vicinity of Zimmerman? Only an ignoramus would say so” — he didn’t. He ran. Why would he think Zimmerman would follow him? And if he did think Zimmerman was following, why lead him back to his parent’s place?
juggler523 said:
I am utterly convinced that the common sense choo choo has left the station, and you’re simply NOT on it.
I wrote: “So threatened that he STAYED in the vicinity of Zimmerman? Only an ignoramus would say so”
You responded: ” — he didn’t. He ran. Why would he think Zimmerman would follow him? And if he did think Zimmerman was following, why lead him back to his parent’s place?”
You’re kidding, right? You have to be. Because you seem to have a very hard time understanding how a 17yr old should easily conclude that there is no danger anymore (not that there ever was) when he has approximately 4 1/2 minutes to figure out that the guy who took off after him (if he even knew Zimmerman did) is no longer even looking for him (Martin), AND likely doesn’t even know where he (Martin) is (as evidenced by Zimmerman’s comments to the dispatcher). As the prosecutor’s investigator Mr. Gilbreath stated under oath, there is NO evidence to contradict Zimmerman’s claim that he was en route back to his car when he and Martin came face to face. In layman’s terms – no evidence that Zimmerman is lying about that.
So, absent any evidence to the contrary, we must conclude that at least that part of Zimmerman’s statements to police is accurate. And if that is so, only someone intent on confronting George Zimmerman would have been where the frightened little Trayvon was several minutes after he took off running. You have NO evidence otherwise…none…nada…zippo…
RuleofOrder said:
After reading and re-reading your reply, I can’t actually find an answer regarding my questions you quoted.
Maybe I didn’t phrase it right. Let me try a new approach, in first person as Trayvon: I ran from Zimmerman. I rounded the houses, and stopped at the first cut through. I take a peek see. No one is following me. Groovy. I have some calls to make, some punch to drink, whatever. Why do I need to run further, it would appear the wierd guy in the vehicle isn’t around. So, I am done being on the phone, and start to head… well, wherever. Oh snap, look, at the top of the T. Its that guy again. “Why you following me I” I shout, and start to head toward him. I hear him shout what are you doing here. He starts to walk toward me ::fin::
Now, is this on your common sense choo choo, or is Zimmerman the lost book of the Gospel?
juggler523 said:
Hmmmm…so you still rely on Dee Dee. She’s the one who said Martin said, ““Why you following me?”
All the 911 phone calls were made public FOUR days before Dee Dee EVER made any kind of statement. Yes, after 3 and ½ weeks of saying absolutely NOTHING to ANYONE, Dee Dee, potentially the most significant witness in the prosecution’s case, comes forward ONLY when contacted by the Crump Chumps, and does a PHONE interview aired on ABC…not an interview with police. And who was asking her the questions OFF-camera? Benjamin Crump!! And it was a recording!! Not even a live interview!
Dee Dee only answered questions before the special prosecutor (Bernie de la Rionda – BDLR) after 35 days had passed since the shooting, and only after receiving a subpoena! By then, she had PLENTY of time to make her story gel with Zimmerman’s account, even if it doesn’t completely, and even if it paints Trayvon Martin in the best possible way. Until she was located by the Crump law firm, Dee Dee had not mentioned to a LIVING soul that she had been on the phone with Trayvon Martin immediately before he was shot. She didn’t tell a friend, a teacher, a police officer, her mother…not even her Twitter account…no one!!
But wait there’s more!!! During that “phone interview” Dee Dee said the following:
“he say this man was watching him so he put his hoodie on. Trayvon say what you are following me for. Then the man say what you doin’ round here. Someone push Trayvon because the headset just fell.”
Yet during questioning by BDLR she said the following:
“he tell me..he put his hoodie on”…”cause he said it was starting a little bit dripping water….”
So, did he put his hoodie on because it was starting to rain, or because he was being followed/observed? And why would Trayvon Martin narrate his every move for Dee Dee. If YOU were walking down the street and you were on the phone, would YOU describe the mere act of putting your hoodie on? Or did she just mention the hoodie at all because it had already been mentioned in the Zimmerman call and she wanted to sound more authentic?
But WAIT!! If Trayvon Martin put his hoodie on AFTER leaving the store (whether it was because of Zimmerman or the rain), what was that thing covering his head the entire time he was inside the 7-11. Sure looks like a hoodie to me!!! Yep!! And he was wearing it the ENTIRE time he was in the 7-11! Take a look yourself at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FP1Xs1UN_I&feature=related
So, was Trayvon Martin in the habit of taking it off outside and putting it on inside???
Another thing. Remember how Dee Dee said the headset just fell after Trayvon was bumped? Well, the only “headset” that crime scene investigators collected at the scene was the headphones the police report says were “[l]ocated and collected from within the victim’s pockets.”
So, during a life and death struggle, Trayvon Martin, who was apparently using headphones attached to his cell phone, had the wherewithal to put those headphones in his pocket AFTER the struggle began. Hmmmm
But wait, there’s MORE! When Dee was making her statement to BLDR, the following exchange took place:
BLDR: OK, and as he was walking to the store, were you conversing with him?
Dee Dee: Yes.
BLDR: OK, you were talking to him.
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BLDR: How about when he got to the store? Did he talk to you about being at the store?
Dee Dee: Yes.
BLDR: OK, and did he talk to you once he left the store?
Dee Dee: Yes.
BLDR: And now was this a continuous phone call, or were there times when you would stop and then call each other back?
Dee Dee: Yeah, but the phone was acting up.
BLDRr: OK, alright, OK, and we’ve got all the phone records that would establish that, so I’m not going to ask you details as to what specific times. But, what I wanted to cover with you is when he left the store, did he mention something that at that time whether it was raining or not?
Dee Dee: Like, when he come home, or..?
BLDR: Yeah, tell what happened as he’s talking to you when he’s leaving the store on his way back home.
Dee Dee: When he was leaving the store, he just told me that he bought the drink…and it about to rain.
Interesting!! In the 7-11 store video (see link above), Trayvon Martin isn’t ON the phone…ever!! And you still rely on Dee Dee….even a little?
Hear that sound? Choooo Choooo! There’s a vacant seat with your name on it.
RuleofOrder said:
Juggs, I take it reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit. If I wanted to quote Dee Dee, I would have mentioned Dee Dee. I’m not even saying Trayvon was on the phone at the time of my little drama. I am saying, however, said drama fits the scene, and fits the people. But, since its not in the Gospel as Told by Zimmerman, it MUST be false… even though it would, you know, make sense it fits well.
Let me see here, 1, 2, 3, 4… +. 5 plus paragraphs about testimony I never referred to, and have even stated in previous posts that it was suspect, if not lieing. Huh. Sounds like your train is the one Ozzy was singing about. You can have my seat. ;)
Nitsujmai said:
RuleofOrder,
Sorry to jump in here, but you quoted “DeeDee” when you offered the quoted conversation between GZ and TM she gave in her interview. GZ’s version is different.
Going back to your possible scenario, it is possible, but the state cannot go with a possible scenario that does not have a grounding in evidence. Because of that, the state cannot claim that TM’s phone call ended and he was not on the call with “DeeDee” when he questioned GZ. The state also cannot claim that TM came back toward GZ unless they’re embracing GZ’s version which seems very unlikely (are you now saying you think TM did confront GZ?). They have to go with “DeeDee’s” story or they really have nothing.
I don’t think “DeeDee” is telling the truth, but regardless of that, her statement is in evidence and the state has decided that it will use it. Because of that, the fact that she claims that TM spoke first, TM was close to his father’s house and a couple minutes later GZ was behind TM are all going to be relevant. If there ever is a jury, they’ll have to decide if the state’s case, with those facts, make sense or if GZ’s version makes more sense. They can’t come up with their own scenario without evidence and neither can the state.
RuleofOrder said:
::sighs:: okay, lets try this again.
If you have a whole bunch of witnesses stating there was an argument outside before yelling and cries for help, I don’t have to quote Dee Dee as to what that argument was about. Hell, that might have been why she was coached to say what she said, so it would fit with various (ear) witness statements to that effect. See what I mean now? Wouldn’t their various motives for the situation dictate that the argument be about what the other person is doing? In any case, I my little drama above had Trayvon as hung up by the time this all happened.
“..it is possible, but the state cannot go with a possible scenario that does not have a grounding in evidence…” — interesting choice of words. That being, the ground. Right now, based on their location of the scuffle, Unless Zimmerman parked at a location that would have put him on top of TM, he couldn’t have gone directly back to the car. And, as I have mentioned… MANY times previously, any kind of murder should not have been the charge. I disagree with the state, whole heartedly, and feel that he was over charged. Zimmerman’s actions -at the time of the shooting- were indeed self defense, but everything UP to that time was him actively looking for trouble. What has me dumbfounded about this case is that once he is declared innocent of the charges, we have just opened the door to rampant vigilantee”ism”. Something I think that is going to be MUCH worse than the situation Zimmerman put himself in.
juggler523 said:
You wrote:
“Zimmerman’s actions -at the time of the shooting- were indeed self defense, but everything UP to that time was him actively looking for trouble.”
Me – WRONG!!! But even if so, he broke no law.
“What has me dumbfounded about this case is that once he is declared innocent of the charges, we have just opened the door to rampant vigilantee”ism”. Something I think that is going to be MUCH worse than the situation Zimmerman put himself in.”
Me – WRONG!! The law is governed by what is reasonable…period. There is absolutely NO evidence to suggest that Zimmerman was acting as a vigilante. Sure, he followed Martin for a short while, then broke contact…that is not vigilantism unless you live in BIZZARRO – World. Chooo Chooo.
RuleofOrder said:
Ah, I have an idea. Lets be painfully obvious:
“I am shouting at you with the obvious intent of finding out what your deal is, and other people are currently about to hear us shout at eachother living in these very residences!”
“Well, you suspicious black late teen kid, I am yelling at you with the specific intent of finding out what your deal is, and currently, people are now hearing us in these various residences!”
“That is fine, but you still aren’t answering my questions about what you are about while people are definately hearing us in these various residences!”
“I can’t help but notice you didn’t answer MY question about what you are doing here, in these residences while now people are muting their TV to hear what we are shouting about between these various residences!”
Apparently, because Dee Dee said something, and she is either a liar or coached, the obvious question that anyone would have asked is couldn’t have been asked, and there for could have never been uttered. Even if she wasn’t on the phone with Trayvon at the time. :eye roll:
juggler523 said:
Rule of Order = making things up.
RuleofOrder said:
“Rule of Order = making things up.”
Works for Zimmerman. ::shrug::
RuleofOrder said:
“There is absolutely NO evidence to suggest that Zimmerman was acting as a vigilante. Sure, he followed Martin for a short while” — Zimmerman thinks Martin committed a crime. He said he was up to no good. He tried to bait the non em operator into thinking Martin had a weapon. Martin ran. Zimmerman then followed the person he said maybe had a weapon, committed a crime, and was possibly on drugs. He also plainly stated that these explicatives always get away.
Vigilante, noun, as defined from dictionary dot com. “any person who takes the law into his or her own hands, as by avenging a crime. ” as an adjective : “without recourse to lawful procedures”. Zimmerman attempted to avenge the crime he thought he precieved when Martin ran (“always get away”). The “crime” Martin committed was deduced without recourse to lawful proceedures. Dictionary, bizzaro world, same diffs.
Allyn said:
There is zero evidence that GZ attempted to apprehend TM. I don’t recall GZ saying that TM committed any crime, just that he was acting suspicious, like he was on drugs. He thought TM was up to no good, not that he had committed a crime. There was nothing to avenge. He was trying to get information regarding TMs location to provide to the cops, which he requested. All of GZ’s actions were legal. If you do not agree, simply state which specific actions GZ took that were against FL law.
juggler523 said:
RuleofOrder….recommendation for ya – stick with the facts instead of trying to delve into Zimmerman’s brain to try and determine haphazardly what he was or was not thinking. As Allyn said, there is no evidence that Zimmerman thought Martin was committing a crime. He simply looked suspicious, which is why he didn’t call 911. Had Martin been committing a crime in Zimmerman’s view, 911 woulda been more appropriate…DUH!
You are REALLY stretching it with your vigilante approach…but that’s what “fill-in-the-blank” people do.
Chooo Chooo….
juggler523 said:
You wrote:
“”There is absolutely NO evidence to suggest that Zimmerman was acting as a vigilante. Sure, he followed Martin for a short while” — Zimmerman thinks Martin committed a crime. He said he was up to no good. He tried to bait the non em operator into thinking Martin had a weapon. Martin ran. Zimmerman then followed the person he said maybe had a weapon, …”
Are you READING what you are writing? Did Zimmerman EVER use the word “weapon”? NO. Did he EVER say he thought Martin was committing a crime? NO. But, the dispatcher DID tell Zimmerman to let him (the dispatcher) know if Martin did anything else – kinda hard to do that if one stays in the car after the suspicious person takes off running, huh?
Again…you are making crap up.
RuleofOrder said:
::sighs::
“Did he EVER say he thought Martin was committing a crime?”
“These assholes always get away”. Get away? Don’t you have to be first be doing something wrong, or caught up in something wrong to “get away”?
Suspicious, on “something”, looking around, up to no good, getting away, an asshole. No, you are right, this is totally innocuous language I describe of everyone I meet. I especially run after these kind of people that I describe with such innocuous language.
“He tried to bait the non em operator into thinking Martin had a weapon” and “said maybe had a weapon”. Indeed, my mistake. Poor language choice. I think I would have been better served to have typed: “he then followed the person he intimated had a weapon”.
I say intimated because of the following:
“He’s got his hands in his waistband” “He’s got something in his hands.” “Something is wrong”. “He is coming to check me out”. “Hes got his hands in his waist. And hes a black male”.
“kinda hard to do that if one stays in the car after the suspicious person takes off running, huh?” — yes. Nigh impossible, so can, so don’t. You were not instructed to do so, this situation is over. All the verbal clues that Zimmerman drops indicate that he has good reason NOT leave the saftey of his car.
Allyn, I can’t say he did anything illegal. Being stupid isn’t illegal. I am still looking for laws specifically pertaining vigilante activity in Florida.
Juggler, were I you, I would indeed be more focused on what Zimmerman’s says he didn’t say as opposed to what he did say as well. ;)
juggler523 said:
Yawn….intimated? So Zimmerman intimated….by YOUR very liberal and groundless estimation. He was NARRATING everything Martin did for the dispatcher – as the dispatcher ASKED him to. When he followed Martin, he did so from a distance, and he very quickly stopped and lost sight of Martin.
Once again….no law was broken by Zimmerman….none….the evidence on the other hand supports a conclusion that Martin assaulted Zimmerman. There is NO evidence to suggest that Zimmerman ever laid a finger on Martin.
End of story….move along now, McRule….choo choo…
Rule…I’ll tell you what you would do if you were me….you wouldn’t be off on tangents pretty much every time you post, and you would have a grasp of the case a hell of a lot more than you do. You continue to very weakly grasp onto that which is either irrelevant, or extremely insignificant.
You are like Amanda Corey – you talk a lot, but you have YET to show a crime committed by Zimmerman, and you can’t outweigh the evidence that it was martin who likely assaulted Zimmerman.
I’m talking guilty/not guilty….you’re talking – hell, I can’t even THINK of an analogy to describe what you’re talking.
But I am through with ya. I can lead you to common sense, but I can’t open your brain up and put it there.
Chooo Chooo…
Allyn said:
Great, I think we are finally coming to closure. You have never said he committed a crime, so it is safe for us to assume based on all of yor writings, that you believe GZ is not guilty of the charge, or any other crime associated with the event. This blog string is supposed to be about DeeDee’s interview and how it impacts our understanding of the case. Without a crime committed by GZ, what do you think should now happen to him? Many of us believe he acted reasonably, while others don’t think so. What do you think will happen now and what do you think SHOULD happen now?
RuleofOrder said:
“But I am through with ya. I can lead you to common sense, but I can’t open your brain up and put it there.” — which includes what you identify as “blanks” in Zimmerman’s story. ;) Have fun with that.
“very quickly stopped and lost sight of Martin” — got it backwards. Very quickly lost sight of Martin, then stopped.
“the evidence on the other hand supports a conclusion that Martin assaulted Zimmerman” — because the guy with blanks in his story said so, got it.
“no law was broken by Zimmerman” — must be an echo in here.
“You continue to very weakly grasp…” — and you contiue to make train noises. Lets call it even.
“He was NARRATING everything Martin did for the dispatcher …” — well except for the part about Martin challenging him, circling the car, whatever he would like to have described it when not on the phone with the operator.
Nitsujmai said:
RuleofOrder,
You keep assuming there are blanks because the media and public have not had access to GZ’s statements. The police have. The state’s investigators have and they can find nothing to refute his version of events. They aren’t talking about blank spots or gaps in his story. You and others like you are. Have you ever wondered why that is?
I would strongly suggest sticking with the evidence and drawing conclusions from that. Going into analogies or supposing about possibilities that have no evidence is a waste of time.
RuleofOrder said:
Aw, come on Nits, you know how much I like to play Devil’s Advocate. ;)
Allyn, Oi, Dee Dee’s “testimony”. Ya know, I actually feel sorry for her. She really should have just been given a prepared statement, and a tape recorder and told to read. I think Kermit the Frog has more chance of being called an “individual” than her, right now. If her statements are cut to bits, and they will be, how deep into some form of misconduct can be done? There is some grandscale shennanigans going on with her, and for what its worth, I bet the defense could shut a portion of this situation down by grilling that end of the prosecutions case.
As I mentioned above, what comes next is a haphazard case of reasonable speculation, refuted common sense, and a good please for misunderstood intent, followed up by a jury picked from some of Florida’s most.. um… “choice” suburbs, and we get Casey Anthony 2, The Zimmerman Reclamation! It was an over charge. Serino (sp?) raised some EXCELLENT questions, but I think he was widely panned. Its an over charge, followed up by aquital. Then Jesse and Al start their usual schtick to demonstrate how injust the white man (or the WHITE hispanic man??!?!?) to blacks, followed up possibly by small demonstrations, the occasional isolated incident of looting, maybe a burnt car. And Zimmerman dissappears to some remote location with a name change, a good nest egg from donations, and hopefully wiser from the situation.
Pingback: Police say Zimmerman had chances to defuse situation before shooting Martin - Page 17
Pingback: Zimmerman Passes Lie Detector Test - Page 24
Pingback: Zimmerman granted $1 million bond - Page 62
Pingback: Did George Zimmerman try to get away with murder? - Page 14
Black_Racism_is_the_Good_Kind_of_Hate said:
Just want to say thanks! Am a Florida resident and a Black belt since 1992 (thus self defense scenarios are of great interest – yeah, even a 17 y/o smashing your head into concrete is something to be avoided). Have been to Compton, Roxbury, Harlem & Sanford (and seen how hatred of white people is common in such places).
I was sincerely hoping for Pres. Obama to have a beer summit with the African American racists so they could publicly apologize for their racism (Spike Lee is such a coward when it comes to apologizing publicly for terrorizing that elder couple).
Eric Holder is another coward when it comes to black racism
Looolooo said:
…..got a problem with black people, do ya? yeah, you do. how’s about white people appologizing to EVERY non-white person on the planet for stealing their lands, raping their women, pilaging their bounty, obliterating their cultures and history, decimating entire animal populations, tainting the bloodlines of many generations, wreaking havoc on international economies, poluting our envirnments, and causing 90% of all wars and civil unrest ….. globally. you’re one to talk. and never forget, …. as powerful as you are, have been, and will be for a while yet,……. you’re greatly outnumbered. think about that for a minute.
juggler523 said:
What a sad sad person you are. So, I as a white person should apologize to every non-white person? For what? For black African tribes kidnapping and selling other black Africans into slavery for a couple hundred years? Whites have caused 90% of all wars? You’re smoking CRACK!!
First, concerning slavery –
The Atlantic Slave Trade saw the rise of an era which transferred more than 12 million Africans across the waters to a number of different countries throughout the world. During this period African tribes like the Imbangala sold their prisoners of war to slave traders and even went out in active search of slaves to capture and sell.
Other African tribes, or rather kingdoms, that followed suit are that of Dahomey, now known as The Republic of Benin in West Africa. Dahomey, along with other west African imperia, including the Asante Empire and the Bambara Empire, survived almost entirely on profits made from the slave trade. Again this constituted selling prisoners of war from neighboring countries of West Africa to the European traders. This caused a severe depletion of West Africa’s population and also its resources.
Second concerning whitey being the world’s warlord. You have no sense of history. There have been conflicts in Africa for more than a thousand years that have had NOTHING to do with whitey. Likewise, there have been conflicts in Mexico and South America that only archaeology and tribal legend have documented.
You wanna blame whitey for lots of things – and as a lemming who drinks the Kool-Aid that other racists make, you are entitled to.
But keep this in mind. Was it the black man who ended his own slavery in the United States in the 1860’s? No. Was it a black President who signed into law the sweeping Civil Rights Acts of the 1960’s? No.
I recommend people like you pull their heads out of their rectums and learn more about history before they start pointing fingers and blaming whitey for everything short of being born other than white.
ItsMichaelNotMike said:
I have not read this lengthy page, before I do I will post my comments made elsewhere on the Net, as I think they are relevant to this Ms. DeeDee, and her surfacing in the first place.
The correct inquiry here, to determine her truthfulness is not looking at the SA, but instead Crump. DeeDee is evidence of Crump, Jackson, Julison and others conspiring to defraud insurance companies and taxpayers (where entities are self-insured, for example) into paying settlements.
Anyway, here is what I said, it was in response to articles about Fulton making a move on the HOA insurance policy and filing a claim against FL’s Victim’s Fund.
_______
I want to see the retainer agreement Benjamin Crump had Tracy Martin sign a mere two days AFTER Trayvon Martin was shot. (Tracy Martin saw this as a money making opportunity. He was talking to a lawyer less than 24 hours after the incident. Martin retained Crump on Feb. 28. By March 6 attorney Natalie Jackson and public relations guy Ryan Julison were also signed.)
Attorneys don’t work for free. Law offices are a business, they need to make money to pay the bills and make a profit. So to figure out what happened from February 27 forward, and who did what and said what to whom, is “follow the money, follow the motive.”
A lawyer with average intelligence would be able to figure out what happened here after Crump, N. Jackson, and Julison got involved. They set about scheming how to maximize the profits they could realize from the Trayvon Martin case.
The first thing lawyers do to maximize profits is to have an iron-clad retainer agreement with the clients, that entitles the lawyers to a substantial percentage of the money obtained from any source (what lawyers call in the retainer agreement “recovery”). So Crump and Jackson would get anywhere from 33.3 – 40% of any monies that come in.
Lawyers who handle civil PI cases then set about looking for sources of settlements. Insurance policies, self-insured payments, victim funds, licensing bonds, these are all sources of profits.
After figuring out sources for money, lawyers like Crump (who IMLO is a hack lawyer) then set about the easiest way to collect the cash.
For these lawyers “obtaining justice” is not the goal because, as these lawyers will tell you, “Justice does not put food on my table, I can only get you money”). Sidenote: lawyers for whom obtaining justice is paramount are what for-profit lawyers and firms derisively call “legal clinics.”
Anyway, it was quite clear that making BIG money was on Crump’s mind, since at the time Crump pitched his services to Tracy Martin there were no bases whatsoever for Martin to retain legal counsel and certainly no reasons other than financial for Crump to decide to invest in Tracy Martin. (That is, simply look at the fact that less than 24 hours after the shooting Martin was seeking out lawyers and two days later Crump was singing to Martin his siren song of instant riches, to where Martin signed the dotted line by Tuesday, around 48 hours from the Sunday evening incident.)
IMO if you want to follow the motive, follow the money, you need only investigate the actions of attorney Crump from February 28, the day he thrust himself into the case.
Crump has his fingerprints on every aspect of the case, IMO from tampering with witnesses and physical evidence, fabricating witnesses or testimony (DeeDee), obstructing justice, and manipulating the media with a false narrative.
In addition, Crump has “supervised” Fulton filing intellectual property applications, made a claim against the Retreat’s HOA Errors and Omissions policy (Traveler’s Insurance), and the FL Victim’s Fund (meaning FL taxpayers). As Crump would say, you ain’t seen nothing yet.
Follow Crump, follow HIS motive, follow the money he sniffs.
Pretty much EVERYTHING that has happened in the Zimmerman case leads back to Crump. Crump has controlled many witnesses, interceded on the production of witnesses and production of evidence (DeeDee, Martin, Crutcher, and others all went to Crump BEFORE talking to the police. Crump has been at every police or state attorney interview, sometimes representing the witnesses (why do witnesses need lawyers), he has been at every press event, every court proceeding, and has no problem admitting he has worked closely with the State Attorney on the case.
With this foundation (Crump is orchestrating the entire case, to make money), it is obvious that DeeDee is merely echoing what Crump told her to say. (Remember, it was Crump who produced DeeDee to the police, but only when he was good and ready, and that he was sure she had sufficiently memorized her lines (to fit Crump’s false narrative).
Crump thought he sufficiently covered up his tracks and involvement by “laundering” the production of DeeDee as having come from Tracy Martin looking at Trayvon Martin’s phone bill.
Bottom line: DeeDee is a fiction, something conjured up by Crump (and probably Tracy Martin) to force George Zimmerman to crumble and plead out.
But like any con based on telling months of lies, it is damn hard to maintain em, especially when there’s so many to keep straight.
If this was not so serious, it would be humorous. Clearly Crump did not think the day would ever come where DeeDee would have to testify under penalty of perjury. He thought George Zimmerman would have caved by now and no one would ever be testing Crump/s false narrative, including what all of HIS witnesses have to say.
Pingback: Zimmerman Prosecutor Files Gag Order Against Defense - Page 6 - Christian Forums
Pingback: The Trayvon Martin Case, Update 18: The Scheme Team Exposed? « Stately McDaniel Manor
Looolooo said:
You guys need to check out …LLMPapa’s channel on YouTube. His latest video “Evidence of Direction” is quite telling, as all of his video’s are. Also.. frederickleatherman.com. Come over and join the discussion. Malisha, Jun, Xena, Whonoze, etc. plus the professor himself, will set you guys straight. Your collective ignorance/racial bias is in a word, is astounding.
Allyn said:
Bizarre.
Perhaps you or LLMPAPA could explain why Jews, Irish, Asians, etc. don’t continue to play the victim card so many generations after their enslavery ended and yet some blacks think it happened to themrather than 5-10 generations ago. (Sorry, I’m not sure how long a black generation is.)
Pingback: George Zimmerman sues NBC over Trayvon Martin reports - Page 30
Pingback: Zimmerman defense finds more evidence held back by the State. - Page 30 (politics)
Pingback: The Trayvon Martin Case, Update 20: A Suspicious Gap « Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: The Trayvon Martin Case, Update 28: Audio Evidence and Deadly Force | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: The First Top Ten Most Popular SMM Articles! | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: The Trayvon Martin Case, Update 47: Justice At Last! | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: SMM All Time Top Ten Articles | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: The Trayvon Martin Case, Update #50: Anniversary | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: The Trayvon Martin Case, Update #55: The Prosecutors Are Incompetent Racists! | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: The Trayvon Martin Case, Update 58: Fraud? | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: The SMM Top 10: 2011-2019 | Stately McDaniel Manor