On July 5, Update 13, focusing on the recent revelation that Sanford Police lead investigator Christopher Serino has “voluntarily” taken a “reassignment” to work the midnight shift as a patrolman, will post. Oh yes, apparently Serino has been leaking information, including video, to the media, including Matt Gutman of ABC News who has, more or less simultaneous with Serino’s reassignment, also been reassigned–to the opposite side of the world. Isn’t life funny?
I hope to see you there!
Not specifically related to this post, but I just watched episode 9 of the first season of AMC’s “The Killing” and thought the readers of this blog might be interested to watch it. I was surprised to see it contains a scene of a brutal beating that could have been taken straight from the descriptions of the Martin – Zimmerman “scuffle”.
In the video, the character Stan gets another character Bennet on his back on the ground on a dark rainy night, straddles him, and starts pounding him with punches to the head while Bennet puts his arms up trying to fend off the blows. Stan then grabs Bennet’s head and pounds it into the ground.
Notably, Bennet does not pull a gun, but instead gets beaten senseless and when last seen is still unconcious in critical condition in a hospital room.
The episode first aired about a year ago, but it’s available on iTunes and Netflix. The beating happens around minute 42 of the video. If you watch it I think you’ll see a good representation of the actual seriousness of the situation Zimmerman found himself in.
Mike McDaniel said:
Well noted. As I wrote in Update 4, the human body is at once amazingly resilient and terribly fragile. The movies and TV have not been helpful in depicting fighting. The kinds of blows received in movies and TV shows could quite easily kill. The assault on George Zimmerman certainly could have resulted in crippling injury or death.
Thanks for the good reminder.
How incredible that he recieved only a broken nose, two scratches, no skull fractures, no defensive wounds, no further cuts or abrassions on the upper torso, etc etc etc etc.
ROO, don’t lie to yourself, it wouldn’t matter to biased people like yourself what injuries GZ had.
ROO, Who do you think was screaming. GZ or TM. I would give it 50 to 1 odds it was GZ. If GZ was screaming, which I strongly believe he was, there are barely any scenarios which would not be considered GZ acted in self defense. And those scenarios that do have more culpability on GZ’s side will be impossible to prove, because frankly they are very unlikely. For example, TM was getting up after his vicious beating of GZ (GZ then has time to reach for his gun and shoot him).
Mike, looking forward to your take on Serino with your experience as a police officer. Personally, I find the whole incident pretty boring.
But even though I find it boring, I am very interested in your take.
I didn’t even read the articles on conservative treehouse about this for example.
Mike McDaniel said:
Thanks for your kind comments. I hope to live up to your expectations.
Lets ask Zimmerman who he thinks was screaming. ;)
My take on it is pretty simple. It wasn’t a murder, they over charged.
GZ and Trayvon see eachother around the “T” shout at eachother for explanation of their various actions, approach eachother. Once they get with within arms reach of eachother, Z reaches for something concealed, Trayvon thinks he is going for a weapon, hits him, and fight is on. This first strike broke his nose, Z falls back, hits his head on something that caused the two scratches, probably a sprinkler head, loose debris, whatever. They wrestle on the ground for that concealed thing that Zimmerman pulled, and that is that. Zimmerman says he was going for a phone, but given how easily he says he was man handled, I don’t see him gathering the where-with-all to break a full mount without being rendered unconscious for dropping his guard.
Anyhoo, as nice as it is to say “there is no evidence” for that claim, but it fits REAL well, and given Z’s less than credible interpretation of events, and admitted memory issues, saying his word is exactly what happened cause we can’t prove otherwise is a pretty craptacular way to establish justice. It opens a very interesting door for what we consider self defense and SYG, etc. The rush to prosecute was a real hinderance, cooler heads should have prevailed and appropriate lesser charges should have been found to demonstrate the negligance, and poor judgement that Z conducted himself in.
I have to admit, GZ’s walk through was a little shady when he told the police he met up with Trayvon, as he was tripping over his words about reaching for his phone, but it was on the wrong side…
So GZ reaches for either his gun or phone, Trayvon thinks it’s a gun and strikes quickly.
While this is all possible and would put significant more culpability on GZ’s shoulders,…. I don’t think it’s likely. I would give it better than 1 in 50 odds at least. Maybe 1 in 5 that something happened along those lines.
But that’s 20%. For a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt….you should be at 90%.
Why didn’t Trayvon just go home? There is no doubt in my mind TM could have made it home sitting on his couch eating his skittles by the time GZ ended the call with the dispatcher.
The only explanations I have from the Trayvon camp are 1) He got lost/disoriented, or 2) He didn’t want to show GZ where he lived. I think both are extremely weak.
So I take it you just don’t think Trayvon would have assaulted GZ without provocation. I think that is the kind of thing bad 17 year old’s do. There seems to be a significant amount of people very disrespected over the alleged “profiling” of TM. TM was too.
Mike McDaniel said:
I agree with your conclusions regarding why Martin did not simply go home. We know from Dee Dee’s interview with de la Rionda (Update 11) that Martin told her precisely which way he was going so as to reach his temporary home more quickly. So much for the “Martin was lost” excuse. As to the idea that he didn’t want to lead Zimmerman to his home, he had left Zimmerman far behind. There is no evidence to suggest this is a reasonable possibility, in fact, all the known evidence suggests this is not a reasonable possibility.
As I’ve previously written, police officers know that teenagers can be uniquely dangerous because they are impulsive and lack self-restraint. Where an adult would not attack another without provocation, teenagers would, and particularly teenagers who are taking on “thuggish” affectations, and who are under the influence of drugs.
As to Zimmerman’s presentation during the video, one must keep in mind that he was essentially trying to tell the story verbally and physically simultaneously while trying to add the spatial element. It’s not surprising he might be a bit halting or appear to say or do something not perfectly aligned with a recorded statement. This ultimate issue is whether, taken as a whole, his multiple statements were consistent, and there is no doubt they were. Competent police officers always expect some variations and hiccups.
Mike McDaniel said:
I must disagree. Allowing only the evidence that can be reasonably proved is not a bad way to establish justice. It is, in fact, the only fair way to obtain justice. Allowing one to be convicted on supposition and possibility, on the ability of a prosecutor to tell a compelling story absent the support of actual evidence, is anything but just.
It’s always easy for us to judge with 20-20 hindsight the actions of others undertaken within seconds in the dark and rain. We can suggest that Zimmerman could have done X, Y or Z, which would have caused A, B, or C, or prevents D, E and F. But again, we have to proceed with the evidence, not with what we would like to have happened, not with what we just know happened, but with the evidence. Whether Zimmerman acted foolishly is irrelevant. Whether he acted within the law is not. Thanks goodness the justice system works that way.
is your scenario possible? Sure, but there is no evidence to support it. Was he overcharged? Ah, now that’s a matter of law, and something we can objectively argue and prove.
To Tom AND Mike:
Martin didn’t run home for the same reason Zimmerman left his car. Satsifactory? Nothing in the law states either one HAS to do anything, but that doesn’t mean its not bone headed. Last Martin knew, the dude giving him the stink eye was parked on the road, holed up in his car. It wasn’t until said dude was then seen chasings street signs that the situation changed.
Tom, Zimmerman said he was reaching for his phone. Whether or not you want to believe him, ats your call. But it makes sense as to why it might provoke an attack. And why is it no one else wants to take the WHOLE scene into consideration when considering Martin’s state of mind? This dude was running after him a few minutes earlier, why is that casually glossed over? If some one was running after YOU after staring at you for a few minutes, -and- previously you ran from said person, only to see him near your position after your withdraw, how would that make you feel? C’mon, admit it, that would be intimidating, if not threatening. I know I would feel a mix of both.
“some variations and hiccups” — like being assaulted from some bushes, no wait, assault from behind. Or following the kid, no wait, getting my bearings of street signs. Dude, these are not “small” discrepancies.
“and who are under the influence of drugs.” — c’mon, Mike. Not yet proven. Thus far, the released toxicology, assuming Martin were to take a urine and gas spectro test, he would have passed. That is not indicative of under the influence.
“….we have to proceed with the evidence, not with what we would like to have happened..” — but the “evidence” is not evidence, its testimony. Testimony from a guy who readily admits he has memory issues.
“…Zimmerman acted foolishly is irrelevant…” — which fully explains why we are here now. ;)
Now, regarding the charges, yes, over charge. I don’t think it was murder, too many steps in which Zimmerman demonstrate that foolishness that you think is irrelevant, which don’t add up to a murderous intent. My resolution to that matter would have been to conduct the stereotypical MO of Orlando area police on a Friday night, and throw a bazillion BS charges at him, some minor some major, see what he wants to plead off and take to court, and been done with it.
BTW, if you get to say Trayvon was “thuggish”, so help me, I can flood this board with instances of what makes Zimmerman a vigilante through past actions. Again, I don’t need anything before that fateful night to demonstrate my case. Zimmerman does it all on his own. It seems like some folks -require- that Trayvon was “thuggish”, so as to justify Zimmerman’s actions, even though Zimmerman had no clue of Trayvon’s past.
Mike McDaniel said:
Just a couple quick points:
(1) Martin was under the influence of marijuana (under Florida law) and potentially other drugs. As I’ve often noted, that’s likely why the prosecution is withholding the urine screen results. This is not in dispute. The only question is which–if any–other drugs, and to what degree Martin may have been impaired. Perhaps Martin would not have been obviously impaired to the casual observer, but do you really want to defend any teenager smoking pot and/or using other drugs? Do you really want to deny that that drug use and the attitudes and behaviors that accompany it have no bearing on this case?
(2) I wrote “thuggish affectations,” which means Martin was adopting the outward attitudes and behaviors of contemporary thug/gangsters. If you have taken the many links I’ve provided and seen Martin’s self-posted photos and his tweets and other Internet communications, and if you’ve read about his criminal behaviors at school, you’d have no doubt of the accuracy of my observation. Keep in mind that I make this observation with decades of experience in education and law enforcement. I know that those behaviors and attitudes look like and how they are manifested. It was not necessary that Zimmerman have any idea of Martin’s past, only his present behaviors and actions, actions and behaviors influences and motivated by his “thuggish affectations.”
Finally, I’ll assume that when you wrote “so help me, I can flood this board with instances of what makes Zimmerman a vigilante through past actions…” you were making a, ahem, passionate rhetorical point rather than issuing an ill-considered threat.
Under the influence of THC is my main point of contention. If his tox screen has other goodies not yet released, I owe you a Coca Cola. Assuming Mr. Martin were alive at the time of the lab tests, no court in the US or any of its states would have bothered trying him for Reefer, heck, the tests wouldn’t even pick it up. How “under the influence” are you if the tests designed to find said influence -can’t find it-?
However, two can play that game. Zimmerman that night was under the effects of a mind altering psychotrope. He was also driving under said effects. How many sedatives/prescription strength sleep inducers can we find in his system that night? Under Florida law, that is an influence, and indeed he was driving under it. The side effects that Zimmerman might expirience under said psychotropes include paranoia. What an excellent quality for a NW captain to have.
Yes, indeed, I have read a lot about the thuggish affectations you have posted. Again, I am curious as to when the laundry list of Zimmerman’s various faults will be posted along side. Since Zimmerman is the NW, who are the subordinates? How did Mr. Zimmerman get his illustrious title? How many other people has Mr. Zimmerman persued, be it on foot and by vehicle? Do any members of the neighborhood have complaints about his… “gung ho” attitude? Mr. Zimmerman has called alerted authorities to various situations in that complex, do you know how many, and for what reasons? Might I refer back to the side effects of the psychotropes he uses.
My me stating that I could flood the board, etc, yes, that is a bit passioned, so let me use a less aggressive language.
There are MANY links and resources demonstrating that Mr. Zimmerman has exhibited both vigilante tendencies, and the potential side effects of his meds. Why do you feel compelled to show Trayvon the Thug, and not ZimmerBatman? Do you find examples of George behaving like that to be threatening? If so, why, and if not, why are we not seeing that aspect here for a side by side comparison of personality traits?
Mike McDaniel said:
Regarding Martin’s THC content, actually, the tests did pick it up, but as I’ve previously written, you’re right in believing that that sort of finding–absent officers finding him in possession of actual drugs not in his bloodstream or urine–would probably not result in charges. There are exceptions, such as people on probation or parole having their probation or parole revoked with any positive drug test result, but the fact is, under Florida law, Martin was chargeable and was breaking the law.
As to Zimmerman being under the influence of a “mind-altering psychotrope, please go here for a brief and accurate explanation of why that was not a factor in this case. The police obviously had no reason to believe that Zimmerman was under the influence of drugs–prescription or otherwise–and clearly considered his behavior to be normal under the circumstances, and they had extended close contact with him for many hours.
I have indeed written about and discussed various of the accusations of Zimmerman’s past behaviors–you can find them in the updates. All about which I’ve written have amounted to little or nothing, and I have not pursued them because unrelated events happening years before the incident under discussion have no bearing on the case, while Martin’s actions–and his physical and mental condition in the mere days and seconds before he met Zimmerman, clearly have a significant bearing. Again, my primary focus is on the law, and the law will not allow testimony about unrelated allegations years old, but surely will allow testimony about physical and psychological factors contemporaneous with the shooting which arguably are material to what happened. This is a good thing. Imagine how many people might be willing to testify that you or I were rude, mean or did something foolish some years ago if a court allowed it.
As to Zimmerman alerting the police to potential crimes and suspicious people, there is nothing at all unusual about that, nor, considering his position as Neighborhood Watch Captain, would any of that be unexpected. Professional police agencies want citizens to report such things and encourage them to do just that. Several of the newsletters for Zimmerman’s neighborhood I’ve reproduced in updates clearly indicate the police were actively involved in crime suppression in that neighborhood and were encouraging precisely that kind of action. Therefore, I have paid relatively little attention to those issues. Whether Zimmerman made 20 calls in a year or 100 calls matters not at all, and the sources I’ve read indicate that the calls he made were reasonable and well-founded. Again, any professional officer would prefer to respond to ten calls that don’t amount to anything if the 11th call did.
Thanks for your comments!
“…why that was not a factor in this case. The police obviously had no reason to believe that Zimmerman was under the influence of drugs–prescription or otherwise–and clearly considered his behavior to be normal under the circumstances, and they had extended close contact with him for many hours….” — Florida law is pretty specific about what it states as “under the influence” in its definition. By the letter of the law, Zimmerman is just as guilty of driving under the influence as Martin is of … well whatever law you want to cite outside of possesion that states zero tolerance for walking down a street.
“…I’ve written have amounted to little or nothing…” — you don’t consider chaseing an alleged shoplifter, or driving after another assumed intoxicated driver to be signifigant? History repeats itself.
“…Whether Zimmerman made 20 calls in a year or 100 calls matters not at all….” — this is creation of a pattern, Mike. 48 in three years, as I recall. How many issues of interjection into a non-issue would you like to excuse before something bad happens as a result…. oh… wait….
“this is creation of a pattern, Mike. 48 in three years, as I recall.”
Unless this is 2007, it’s not been 3 years.
“Zimmerman called police 46 times since 2004 to report disturbances, break-ins, windows left open and other incidents.”
That could be, at most, once every two months. His calls were also to non-emergency numbers, which is significant, as it shows he wasn’t unreasonable in his response … he didn’t think everything was an emergency.
While you’re correct that TM had the right to not go home, it is far more suspicious that he didn’t go home than it is that GZ left his vehicle. It is also far more telling that the fight started where it did, minutes after he first ran.
You agree this is an over charge. What appropriate lesser charge would have fit the situation if cooler heads had prevailed? How much longer did the prosecutor need to wait to have a cooler head? Gun possession? Nope, that was legal. Trespass? Nope, he lived in the complex. Following an unknown individual in an area where he was not a resident? Nope, not illegal. Sitting in car, watching said unknown person? Not sure what crime that would fit. Following unknown individual after he circles the car and then takes off running? No crime there. Trying to find out where this individual is going so he can tell the police? Sounds perfectly legal but somewhat risky since GZ had lost sight of him and he couldn’t know what to expect of him. Oh, I know, not directly answering TMs question. Felony answering a question with a question! Guilty as charged. Wait, I can’t find that crime in the Florida statutes. Must be just a Texas law.
The only crime that could fit is manslaughter. In order to make that fit, there would have to be proof that GZ started the fight, and finally resorted to deadly force to end it. The only shred of evidence is DeeDee’s interview where she heard a bump. I do not believe that would be convincing when the physical evidence & eye witness testimony is supportive of GZ’s story. Remember that the investigator admitted that they had no evidence to contradict GZs account.
The possibility that some of GZ’s actions could have been misinterpreted by TM and therefore TM acted reasonably only exonerate TMs actions. (I don’t believe that he did act reasonably and if he had, he would still be alive today.) GZ’s guilt or innocence does not hinge on what TMs state of mind was, only what GZ’s state of mind was.
So, what charge is appropriate, assuming cooler heads?
Allyn, thats just it. A bunch of “reasonable” actions can still lead to man slaughter, and a lot of what Zimmerman relates in a walk through wasn’t mentioned on the phone call. There are some glaring inconsistancies with his re-telling. I am pretty sure you could have put manslauther on the table, with a please to simply culpable negligence. What you are considering “reasonable” actions, I consider incredibly unreasonable. If you are in fear from this person circling your car, a) why didn’t you tell that to the dispatch, and b) why then follow them? How come you state to the dispatch you are following some one, but later change that to looking for a street sign? There a lot of unanswered questions that should have an easy “reasonable” answer, but in looking at the big picture, its a series of mistakes that wound up leading to that moment.
“The possibility that some of GZ’s actions could have been misinterpreted by TM and therefore TM acted reasonably only exonerate TMs actions” — how Freudian. ;) I am going to assume you meant exonerate GZ’s actions: GZ’s actions were misinterpreted because he made some poor judgement calls. Bad choices. Negligent decisions.
Personally, when I make use of my CWP, I become acutely aware of how what I do would be taken by law enforcement, and the general public. Me using that as a form of “insurance” in following some one through a neighborhood… there is no way I could make that a positive. I would be an armed individual, running after some one; Zimm puts the icing on the cake by having a flashlight. I don’t want to be in that position, I think a lot of people would have chosen a more pragmatic decision to stay in the car, or perhaps circle the block.
Anyways, long story, Manslaughter, culpable negligence, Orlando Cops would have thrown in aggravated stalking, resisting arrest without violence, and trespass for good measure. ;) Okay, that part was cynical.
“It is also far more telling that the fight started where it did, minutes after he first ran.” — Justin, I am afraid I am not following. Its more suspicious that Trayvon ran away to fight rather than at the car he (supposedly) circled? That plan hinges on knowing Zimmerman would follow him, then. Otherwise, Martin is a dude hiding in a bush for the rest of the evening, or circling the buildings for a while in hopes to attack Zimmerman from behind. You get to pick which story you prefer, I don’t think Mr. Zimmerman has fully decided on one yet either.
It is telling because of DeeDee’s testimony. She’s either lying or GZ chased him down to where he lost him in the first place. If she’s lying, then virtually everything she has claimed is incredibly suspect. Without her, what does the state have?
Inconsistant stories, a dead body, and inconsistant injuries, and a guy who forgets why he exits a car with his gun.
Mike, thought I would post some comments (citing evidence) to de-bunk some of Trayvonites who actually argue that it was Zimmerman on top of Martin, and that he was on top of Martin when the shooting occurred:
This is evidence that Zimmerman was NOT on top of Martin when the fatal shot occurred:
1) DNA analysis confirmed that Exhibit DMS-19 (Zimmerman’s jacket), Stain “N”, contained DNA from Trayvon Martin.
2) DNA analysis confirmed that Exhibit DMS-19, Stain “U” could not be ruled out as having been contributed to from DNA from Trayvon Martin.
3) DNA analysis from Exhibits DMS-21-A thru D (swabs from Zimmerman’s gun and holster) did not come up with any DNA confirmed to be from Trayvon Martin. This suggests that the closest item to Martin (the gun) at the time of the shooting received no detectable back splatter from a gunshot received at close proximity. Taking this in tandem with Exhibit DMS-19 (Zimmerman’s jacket), Stain “N”, one should conclude that Stain “N” was NOT the result of backsplatter, either, but the result of a direct drop of blood onto Zimmerman’s jacket.
4) DNA analysis from Exhibit ME-8 (Trayvon Martin’s Nike sweatshirt’ lower left sleeve/cuff – worn beneath his hoodie), Stains “A” and “D” confirmed blood from George Zimmerman.
5) Autopsy report of Trayvon Martin indicates the following injury: abrasion to his left ring finger.
6) Officer Timothy Smith, first law enforcement officer on the scene, wrote in his initial report: “I could observe that his back appeared to be wet and was covered in grass, as if he had been lying on his back on the ground.” Note – NO such observation was made of Trayvon Martin’s clothing.
7) Eyewitness John (Witness #6) is recorded as saying on at least three occasions that Trayvon Martin was on top of George Zimmerman seconds before the fatal shot. NO other eyewitnesses observed anything other than that Martin was on top of George Zimmerman – until AFTER the fatal shot occurred. At that time, several witnesses corroborated Zimmerman’s account that he got on top of Martin after the shot was fired. NO OTHER witness (besides Witness #6) could visually distinguish who was whom prior to the fatal shot.
8) Prior to the fatal shot, Zimmerman suffered a closed fracture of his nose, a laceration on the bridge of his nose, two lacerations on the back of his head, and multiple contusions and scrapes. According to the EMT who testified at Zimmerman’s bond hearing on 29 June, Zimmerman’s head and face were approximately 45% covered with blood upon his arrival. Despite this rather profuse bleeding to Zimmerman’s face and head, there was NO blood from George Zimmerman on any of Trayvon Martin’s clothing, except for the left cuff of his Nike sweatshirt (worn beneath his hoodie sweatshirt), as referenced above.
Conclusion – Zimmerman was below Martin when the fatal shot occurred. The Zimmerman blood on Martin’s lower left sleeve cuff is consistent with Zimmerman’s story that Martin was holding his hand over Zimmerman’s face, and that Martin repeatedly hit Zimmerman. The abrasion on Martin’s finger is consistent with striking Zimmerman (Martin was left-hand dominant). The LACK of blood from Zimmerman on Martin’s clothing (other than the lower sleeve/cuff) supports accounts that Martin was above Zimmerman. The blood evidence from Martin that was on Zimmerman’s jacket supports that Martin was above Zimmerman immediately after the fatal shot – the only blood injury Martin received was from the shot. It has been suggested that Martin might have coughed up blood (his lung WAS penetrated by the bullet) while in a prone position, immediately after Zimmerman fired the fatal shot; however, it is unrealistic to suggest that in coughing up blood strongly enough to get it on Zimmerman’s clothing, some of it wouldn’t have also got on Martin’s OWN clothing. Such was not the case. Additionally, such an argument does not de-bunk the reality that Officer Smith’s observations of Zimmerman support that Zimmerman was on his back in the grass. There is no suggestion that Martin’s clothing was wet on the back, or covered with grass. Finally, John SAW Zimmerman on his back with martin on top of him. What normal person would even argue otherwise?
Excellent post Juggler. Now take a look at where the struggle began confirmed by witnesses #11 and #20, the “T” in the sidewalk. Trayvon had to have returned there to even been involved in the fight. He wasn’t scared. He returned to confront George. At that point Trayvon was the aggressor.
“At that point Trayvon was the aggressor.”
“At that point….”
So, then yes, Zimmerman was the aggressor previously (before that point). And then Trayvon met Zimmerman’s aggression.
GZ had called for the LEOs to hurry to the scene. He expected them to arrive any minute. Do you think he called to invite them over to watch him commit some crimes? Holding a weapon on a fellow citizen is a very serious crime, especially when you cannot prove they are doing anything illegal. Being in a physical altercation you had a role in starting while armed per a carry permit, where I live, puts a person deeply in the wrong and subject to all sorts of nasty repercussions. And juries have NO sympathy for that sort of shite.
GZ was no doubt aware of all of this.
Tell us again why he wanted a confrontation.
“Tell us again why he wanted a confrontation.” —
Because these assholes ALWAYS get away. (pardon the explicative)
Keep grasping at straws, your desperation is understandable.
The racial grievance crowd are desperate to prove that this is NOT a case of just another black youth caught up in the thug gangsta culture assaulting a law abiding citizen.
Instead it is just SOOO much more attractive if they can turn this case on it’s head and make this a case about racism and profiling.
So they are in pure desperation mode, and are conjuring up every nonsensical scenario they can come up with to fit their narrative.
The press being lazy and politically correct and never wanting to appear “racist” have bent over backwards to portray this as the way the racial grievance crowd wants them too. Some in the press are waking up and taking a more even-handed approach. However, it’s too little too late.
“Keep grasping at straws, your desperation is understandable” —
Tom, I would encourage you to look through any of my posts and look to where I make use of race or racism to make any of my rebuttals.
Having done that, are you sure its -my- desperation?
What motivated GZ was the desire to be able to give LEOs good information about where the scary guy was when they arrived. Thus, looking for house numbers, keeping him in sight, even if he had to leave vehicle and run a bit, all lined up with that simple, innocuous, and honorable intention.
So, if Zimmerman thinks Trayvon is running to the back entrance (like he told the non em operator)… why not drive there? Though it does tickle me that Trayvon is suspcious for “looking around”, and now we have Zimmerman jogging through the neighborhood doing the exact same thing.
So, you are saying that GZ was willing to destroy himself legally – which is what would inevitably happen if the police arrived as expected and found GZ confronting or holding a weapon on TM – all because he had this blind, crazed intent to prevent this one guy from getting way like “all the others did”.
Plus, before shooting Tayvon, which was his real intent, he took a prolonged, life threatening head-beating which at any second could have rendered him unconscious..
Really?? Are we living on the same planet?
Rum, those were Zimmerman’s words. Not mine. You go ahead and talk to him about what he meant with them. I am sure his intent was to get out of his car, run after a street sign, then run RIGHT back to his car, right? That makes perfect sense, doesn’t it?
Head beating which consists of… drum roll please, two scratches. Two cuts, cool. By the measure of that being a “head beating”, I must nearly decapitate myself when I cut myself shaving. He doesn’t have injuries to satisfy that. Or the hair, for that matter. No bruises on the back of the head, no knots the day after, nada. Zimmerman can’t even get the story straight about how he got a broken nose, so of course a head beating had to have happened as well.
Your planet consists of a dude that rolls out of his car to persue a road sign, is attacked from (insert direction here), and has the activity of a starfish during the ensuing scuffle. It was by random MIRACLE it seems that Zimmerman got his gun from underneath Trayvon’s leg, and bring it to ready before Martin knew what was going on, despite being what has been described on this board as an accomplished (my embellishment) MM-artist. Your planet consists of a kid running from a guy, only to later jump him from (insert direction here) for the reason of (insert motive here).
Over 700 people a year are killed by fist injuries. Lots more are brain-damaged.
I do not know for sure why TM at first ran from GZ and then closed in on him for to deliver a beat-down. But he did, and that can get a person killed. The only real question, at that point, is who is the one to die.
The thing is, if GZ had been an out-of-uniform Cop that night, everything would have gone down the same except he would have shot almost instantly after the beat-down started.
“Over 700 people a year are killed by fist injuries. Lots more are brain-damaged.” — is that a rebuttal to Zimmerman not having injuries consistant with his depiction of events? By your own logic, Zimmerman had the same capabilities of matching force and delivering the same injuries.
“I do not know for sure why TM at first ran from GZ and then closed in on him for to deliver a beat-down. But he did” — if you choose to believe Zimmerman’s… loose interpretation of events, sure. Stating that you have no idea why Zimmerman was set upon is a bit disengenuos to the situation. He was punched because he spooked a kid, followed said kid, and when confronted with said kid decided to fiddle for concealed objects rather than take the chance on explaining himself.
I have been told that the self defense laws have been written to represent common sense situations. But if everything a person who wishes to use self defense laws to justify their actions defy common sense up to the action, how “self defending” can it be?
1) Who do you think was screaming? Who do you really think was screaming?
2) Why did Trayvon not go home,and how did he meet up with GZ 50 feet from GZ’s car more than 3 1/2 minutes after TM left the area?
My answers are
1) GZ. Beyond a reasonable doubt.
2) Trayvon was most likely offended by some punk ass cracker looking at him because he was either suspicious or trying to pretend he’s hard. In the thug culture, both are “No-No’s” to be looked at hard. TM was hard on the other hand, and he proved it by assaulting GZ. It is pretty clear that was not a fight, but an assault, as only one side was fighting, the other trying to escape.
1) Between the two, I have no idea.
2) Because Zimmerman drove after, left his vehicle and followed him. That, my friend, will always be the answer as to why Zimmerman was anywhere near Martin. He exited his vehicle, and went looking for him.
In response to your “2”, if Trayvon was a Thug, George was the ZimmerBatman. You don’t let these Assholes get away in the ZimmerBatman culture. Its pretty clear that ZimmerBatman saw some black asshole, whom was OBVIOUSLY up to no good, what with his hands at his waist, and looking around, and such. Its pretty clear ZimmerBatman tried to catch this kid, which is why he was between the apartments during the “epic battle”, as opposed to the top of the T, in his vehicle, near some phantasmal street sign that needed chasing, or driving to the back entrance where he thought Martin was running to.
GZ was trying to catch TM? First of all, he was physically incapable of catching TM in that open space. Second, TM was hundreds of feet away from where he should have been if he was looking to avoid trouble. Third, GZ expected the cops to show up at any second. Did he want to be arrested at that point? How can a person avoid being arrested if you have “caught” another civilian that is demonstrably not breaking any law when you have a handgun in a waist holster?
You seem to be implying that GZ had some weird desire to be arrested and have his life ruined and that is why he called the cops – to observe his criminal outburst.
No, sir, I am trying to belabor the point that of Trayvon is a thug, George is a vigilante.
“avoid being arrested if you have “caught” another civilian that is demonstrably not breaking any law when you have a handgun in a waist holster?” — Now THAT is a fine question. As a matter of fact, it would even call into question why one followed this person in the first place.
Mike McDaniel said:
Traditionally, Americans understand a vigilante to be one who works outside the law, who does not involve the police, and who acts without legal justification, indeed, who breaks the law because they seek to break the law. Just as those who have suggested that Zimmerman was “stalking” Martin are wrong–practically and on the law–the title of vigilante does not in any way fit here. Here are the simple reasons:
(1) Zimmerman was the neighborhood watch captain of a neighborhood being given considerable attention by the Sanford police because it was a high crime area.
(2) Zimmerman worked with the police and had regular contact with them in that role. While this does not make him a police officer, it does set him apart from the rest of the public in real ways.
(3) Zimmerman and his wife armed themselves years earlier at the direct suggestion of the Sanford Police in response to dangerous dogs.
(4) Rather than taking matters into his own hands, Zimmerman called the police and did all he could to get officers there to check out Martin.
(5) In trying to keep Martin in sight so he could report his location to responding officers, Zimmerman continued to seek their support and allow them to make contact. There is no evidence Zimmerman ever intended to actually contact or in any way restrain Martin. One can suppose about this all they wish, but no such evidence exists.
(6) Zimmerman believed he lost Martin completely and his last communication with the police dispatcher regarded how he and the responding officers would meet.
Under the dictionary or any other rational definition of “vigilante,” Zimmmerman clearly does not qualify.
What Americans view as a traditional role, I am not certain. As I mentioned in a previous post, the actions taken by Zimmerman that night fit the dictionary defition of vigilante. You don’t have to work outside the law to prevent others from recieving due process.
1) From what I can understand of Zimmerman being NWC, he made himself that position. There wasn’t a vote, there wasn’t a committee, etc. Self appointed preserver of the peace.
2) Dude, even Batman had a phone to the commissioner. ;)
3) Dog, Singular. While Zimmerman is well within his rights to obtain a firearm, I wonder if a few calls to animal control would have been simpler. Meh. In any case, why he had a firearm is really inconsequential to how he decides to use it. I can only assume since he got a CWP, and kept his gun on him during drives, it was because those vicious dogs hunted in packs during the night. Was George worried about a dog when he went chasing streetsigns?
4) Dude left his car. For -insert reason here-. This was after the “circling” incident, that strangely went unreported to the person on the phone at the time. This was also after his infamous always get away remark. Get away with what, detective Zimmerman? Walking? Looking? Keeping your hands near your waist while being a black male?
5) Zimmerman states he believes Martin was heading to the back entrance of the complex. However, he felt the need to exit his vehicle, cross the courtyard, and look at a streetsign, rather than simply drive to that location, and at the same time, pass said back entrance. Zimmerman also had the tools on him for searching for some one.
6) Why hang up with the non em, and why have the officers call you for your current whereabouts? If you were heading back to your truck, wouldn’t the obvious answer be “look for the vehicle at x location”? Zimmerman didn’t have designs on heading to his vehicle.
For all this supposed common sense rationale that is being trumpeted on Zimmerman’s behalf, he executed none of it. You have a destination you think some one is going to, and you are in a car, so why leave your vehicle? You have an agent of law enforcement on the phone, but neglect to tell them the suspicious person you think is on drugs circled your car. You then (from what I can gather of your posts) leave your vehicle to keep Martin in sight, but later you can’t clearly identify why you left your car, be it to follow some one, or look for a street sign. In any case, you packed a flashlight for the “street sign”, and your gun for the “dogs”. You know what street you were previously on, what street your vehicle is on, SAY you are heading back to your vehicle, but instead ask to have law enforcement contact you for your current where abouts.
Conclusion: you literally went looking for trouble. You left your vehicle to trail the person you thought was breaking the law. You took your flash light, because it was dark where you were going, and your gun, in case things got dicey. You tell law enforcement to contact you for your current locale, even though your vehicle is by far the best landmark. You then hang up with non-em personnel, because hearing them continually sqwak in your ear about not following the “perp” distracts you. You find the person, he finds you, both shout at eachother, you go for your gun, but the hit to the nose is faster. In going down, you hit your head on the sprinkler as you push yourself back, just as the person you were looking for descends upon you. Thus begins the wrestling match, in which your clothing gets streaked, no further injuries to you are done, and not surprisingly, being on the ground and a few pounds heavier pays off against the perp you followed. Its not pretty, but its still a scratch in the W column.
Know what the best part is? My story is just as valid as Zimmerman’s. He sustained the same injuries, followed the same script to the non em, enables ear witnesses to hear the scuffle, and incorporates their placement in the courtyard. What does Zimm’s additional input provide us? That he lay there like a starfish and took the beating that strangely gave him no further wounds. BTW, would we be able to tell if Martin had any bruises? Probably not, he be dead, and a beating heart is what causes them. Now while its totally awesome to say there is no evidence to prove my statements, there is no evidence to disprove them either. As a matter of fact, I would say my re-telling would be more accurate than Zimmerman’s considering I am not trying to BS the rest of the world into thinking I was infallible in my actions.
So, why the passioned reply? Because the shooting is not the sole thing that happened. Taken in a bubble, sure, Zimm gets off. Shouldn’t be charged, have a nice day. But, that is not at all what happened. The pull of the trigger was actually the answer to an equation where most of the variables were input by Zimmerman. Missed chances of explanation/identification. Poor judgment. Lack of common sense. A strange forgetfulness as to what that piece on his hip was actually for, rather than how it can be used. We set a very dangerous precedent in this case now, because of the over charge. Once Zimm gets off, self defense has just been widely expanded as to what you can do, and it still be in the bubble of protecting yourself. Now, conducting nightly patrols with a firearm is perfectly sensible. Bothering random citizens is now part of defending yourself. In short, more people will be hurt because of this, and the most immediate knee jerk reaction will be more gun control laws. Something that prevents you, me, and every other law abiding citizen from behaving in a sensible manner
Joel C said:
“Know what the best part is? My story is just as valid as Zimmerman’s.”
Horseshit. Zimmerman was there, you were not. Maybe Zimmerman is dissembling and maybe he is not. It is not uncommon for people who have gone through a (perceived) kill or be killed experience to later find themselves confused or forgetful of some (sometimes glaring) details. Hell, people often enough forget or misrepresent the details of perfectly ordinary events. You, on the other hand are not dissembling, you are not forgetting or misremembering any details. You are guessing. You are speculating. You are making things up.
“Now while its totally awesome to say there is no evidence to prove my statements, there is no evidence to disprove them either.”
There is no need, here or anywhere, to disprove your statement. No evidence to disprove your statements is required, here or in any court of law.
It would be better for your own purposes, I suppose, that you sought to prove it. From what I see, and judging by your possible admission here, you have not made any great effort.
“As a matter of fact, I would say my re-telling would be more accurate than Zimmerman’s considering I am not trying to BS the rest of the world into thinking I was infallible in my actions.”
Whether or not you are trying to BS anyone of anything has no bearing on the accuracy of your statements. Even if, as per your statement, you are not trying to convince us of the infallibility of your actions (in this case, your speculations, assumptions and assertions,) it does nothing to lend them credibility.
In contrast, Mike McDaniel frequently offers speculations in his Zimmerman posts. He is generally, perhaps always, careful to inform us when he is speculating and is diligent in supporting his suppositions with as much evidence and experience (sometime friggin’ mountains of it) as is likely available to him and apropos. This is probably the reason why people post “mighty fine article there, Mike” comments to him from time to time.
But you have for the most part supported your narration with questions, dissents, distractions, and assumptions. Perhaps this is why people refute and argue with you rather than writing “mighty fine article there, ROO.”
“Dude, even Batman had a phone to the commissioner,” is not powerful logic.
Back ta front:
““Dude, even Batman had a phone to the commissioner,” is not powerful logic” — are you familiar with Batman/vigilantees, etc? Tongue in cheek, but its a reply to the opinion of vigilantees not working with recognized law enforcement. I don’t know how many examples I need to provide for Zimmerman’s “exuberance” with regards to his actions on behalf of his self appointed post?
“He is generally, perhaps always, careful to inform us when he is speculating and is diligent in supporting his suppositions with as much evidence and experience (sometime friggin’ mountains of it) as is likely available to him and apropos” — so, tell me, minus the guy that the judge called a maniuplator and a liar, what evidence have I not taken into consideration? Also, Mike doesn’t need to clarify what his suppostions and assumptions are… its his blog. I think its understood that the whole concept here is one man’s take based on information released. I don’t comment hear for the kudos, Joel.
“It would be better for your own purposes, I suppose, that you sought to prove it. From what I see, and judging by your possible admission here, you have not made any great effort.” — can lead a horse to water, bro. ;)
“There is no need, here or anywhere, to disprove your statement. No evidence to disprove your statements is required, here or in any court of law.” — um… I know? Refer to blog/comments comments nature above.
“Horseshit. Zimmerman was there, you were not. Maybe Zimmerman is dissembling and maybe he is not” — do you really want to following dismissing my conclusions, then follow up with saying Zimmerman is possibly dissembling? Considering we are both using the same verifiable info, I am just leaving the part where Zimmerman opens his mouth (unless its recorded) out of the equation. I think that is only fair, considering his admission to memory problems.
Joel C said:
OK, from back to front right back at’cha, even though I know I probably shouldn’t.
Yeah, I’m willing to concede that Zimmerman is possibly dissembling- at something maybe. Why not? He might be, he might not be. I’m perfectly willing to own that I don’t know. For instance, you might be right that he was reaching for his weapon. That is certainly a possibility and if that is true, then evidently Zimmerman decided not to admit it. That may be so but then again… c’mon, say it with me! Maybe. Not.
“— um… I know? Refer to blog/comments comments nature above.”
Yeah, but, –“Now while its totally awesome to say there is no evidence to prove my statements, there is no evidence to disprove them either.”
You wrote that, man. You seemed to think it was a valid point. You included it in the “best part” paragraph. So I commented on that. Nobody can disprove your statements in the same way that no one can disprove the existence of an invisible, intangible, non-heat producing and in all other ways undetectable dragon in the garage. Nobody has to disprove stuff like that, so you crowing it was foolish. But, “— um… I know?”
Oh! Well, pardon me. Did I misjudge you? Did I just getch’a all wrong there ROO? Oh well. Sorry’bout that.
— can lead a horse to water, bro. ;)
If ya do and the horse don’t drink? Not your fault. Lead a horse to a dry creek bed though, bro… ;)
“I don’t comment hear for the kudos, Joel.”
I’m sure you don’t. What is praised is at least sometimes praised because it is praiseworthy. What is not, is not. I would have had you consider that, but maybe it was a slightly spiteful comment. For any extent that I meant it in spite, I apologize.
“–so, tell me, minus the guy that the judge called a maniuplator and a liar, what evidence have I not taken into consideration?”
It is not what you haven’t considered that’s really a problem here. It’s the stuff you kind of add. Like, “the guy that the judge called a maniuplat…” er, manipulator “and a liar.” Where do you get that, bud? Did Judge Lester SAY that, or are you paraphrasing statements from the findings in Zimmerman’s recent bond hearing? See, if you are paraphrasing, generalizing, that’s actually not cool. It’s misleading. But if Judge Lester or some other judge DID say that, then I am confident you will be willing to offer a link or citation so we can all see it for ourselves?
Another example, banged his head on a sprinkler? Really? Evidence? Oh wait, –““Now while its totally awesome to say there is no evidence to prove my statements…”
“— can lead a horse to water, bro. ;)” Yep, or you can lead it to a dry creek bed, bro! ;) Is this reason?
“— are you familiar with Batman/vigilantees, etc?”
Yep, I’m pretty familiar with Batman, as familiar as any casual comic book and movie fan can be with a fictional character. I am well aware of some dictionary definitions of vigilante which you dubiously claim Zimmerman meets. I’m even familiar with a couple of historical accounts of American vigilantism in the old west, for whatever that’s worth.
(And here’s a common dictionary definition, just for kicks.
a member of a vigilance committee.
any person who takes the law into his or her own hands, as by avenging a crime.)
Exuberance is not a necessary element of vigilantism. It’s not an element of vigilantism at all. Oh, and self appointed post?
“Taaffe” (Zimmerman’s neighbor and fellow watch captain, according to this article) “said that Zimmerman was appointed as a watch captain, despite reports that he appointed himself to the post.”
Now, this Taaffe guy says some other stuff which is speculative and not necessarily favorable to George, but would he be wrong about the appointment? Would he have motive to lie about that? What would that motive be?
For all that, what does it matter? I suspect you believe, or want us to believe, that if George Zimmerman was the “self appointed” captain of a nonexistent or unofficial neighborhood watch that is the equivalent of a vigilance committee? You claim he went looking for trouble, and would have us believe that is equivalent to taking the law into his own hands? Well it ain’t, logically, necessarily so. In neither case does the one follow from the other.
So when you tell us that George was a vigilante you are really reeeeeeeally streeetching there, ROO. Ah’don’t care if you think you aren’t cause y’are.
And, ah heck, why not? About Batman…
You do realize that when Batman coordinates with Commissioner Gordon, even when Gordon blatantly summons him with that spotlight, they are both working outside the law? Just by tolerating that bat signal, the entire city government is acting outside the law. In short, when the cops work with Batman they are all vigilantes, and it’s all illegal. Helluva place, that Gotham, innit? So when you cite a comic book character, no matter how tongue in cheek, that’s arguably kinda dicey but by any standard Batman was a horrible example. Y’grock it, ROO?
Wait, are YOU familiar with Batman and vigilantes? ;)
But enough. I’ve had my fun and I don’t want good ol’ Sandy to come storming down on me (maybe justifiably so) for engaging in all this diversionary nonsense! Whether or not she would, this is the last point-for-point I’m gonna do with you.
Ah! Joel, THAT was a fun read! Good reply! BTW, the only reason the back to front came up was because its easier for me to type a post, scroll up, then respond. ::shrug:: To each their own, but if you get the gist, peachy.
So, full explanations, because I don’t think you have been following my posts. Not this thread, I can tell you did a great job of checking over it and replying. I mean as a whole, previous commments, OS boards, etc. My whole Zimmerman/Batman comparison stretches as far as people want to make the Trayvon/MMA thug correlation.
So, meat of the matter. No tongue in cheek, no sarcasm. Dictionary dot com. Was Zimmerman member of a “vigilance” group? I think that one answers itself.
Anyone who takes the law into their own hands, as by avenging a crime. Can we demonstrate that Zimmerman had designs to do this? Again, I think his quote to the non em operator satisfies that equation as well.
So, QED, Zimm is a vigilante. No Batphone required.
Now, the link you provided was most interesting. MOST interesting. The gent in question was also a neighbhorhood watch captain. While I won’t get into the specifics about rank, and a leader of a group, etc, what he said about Zimmerman later on, I think is even more telling of the vigilante premise I am making, without jumping into wild hyperbole.
““I think any time you use a weapon, there are certain anger issues working,” Taaffe said. “I think he had fed-up issues. He was mad as hell and wasn’t going to take it anymore.” — I notice that Mr. Taaffe said Zimmerman was acting in self defense, but feels the need to tag his interview with those statements. Mad as hell. Not going to take it anymore. Anger issues working. These assholes always get away. Do these statements sound like some one acting in self defense?
Here is judge Lester’s quote of Zimmerman, btw, from the Orlando sentinel:
“It appears to this court that the defendant is manipulating the system for his own benefit.”
and again, from the Sentinel:
“n his order, the judge accused Zimmerman of committing a new felony — lying while providing evidence about bail” — so, manipulator, and lying. Liars lie. Judge says Zimmerman is lieing. QED, Zimmerman is a liar. Is that misleading?
Now, my concessions. Indeed, I was mistaken, Zimmerman, and… Taaffe apparently were appointed to the NWC status.
“That is certainly a possibility and if that is true, then evidently Zimmerman decided not to admit it. That may be so but then again… c’mon, say it with me! Maybe. Not.” — sure, maybe not. I wonder if Zimmerman knows how to manipulate the system to his own benefit…
When you sax “X happened”, there should be evidence of it. Zimmerman doesn’t have that. When you say “I did this because….”, it follows to reason, you would have done that. Zimmerman didn’t. When you say “I think that…” and do damn near everything in contradiction to what you think, it gives reason to think you are concealing something. Zimmerman matches ALL that. As I have stated once, and probably will have to many times, yes, Zimmerman gets off on second degree, but for the rest of us folk, who think running after people in the dark of night with a firearm is a bad idea… we get penalized for it. Already, there are groups wanting to scrutinize the SYG laws to further explain what constitutes self defense. Zimmerman, innocent or guilty of the charge will be held up as the “What not to do….” examble for future NW organizations. His actions HURT “us”, and by us, I mean the sane, reasonable folk who might have taken a more conservative tack in dealing with the situation. Read that as NOT chasing some kid at night, NOT putting ourselves in situations deeming of such probing.
Joel C said:
Wow, you kudo’d me! I didn’t post here for thaat… (But thanks anyway.)
I’m sorry to see that we’re probably just gonna have to agree to disagree on this vigilante assessment. I’ll try to show you why I and others are unconvinced, though.
“Was Zimmerman member of a “vigilance” group? I think that one answers itself.”
Well, yeah… From the Merriaim Webster,
Definition of VIGILANCE COMMITTEE
: a committee of vigilantes
A committee of vigilantes. A committee of people avowed to take the law into their own hands. A neighborhood watch, even one not registered with the USAonWatch-Neighborhood Watch Program, does not by and of itself meet that definition. Neither does anything else we know about that particular neighborhood group. So just so we’re all clear, the question that answers itself say’s NO. Good. Glad that’s settled.
I believe the quote you mean is the, “These assholes always get away,” statement. I’ve listened to that call too, so I heard it. What that quote demonstrates is, George Zimmerman was thinking ”these assholes always get away” and said it out loud. We can reasonably infer by the context and tone that Zimmerman was frustrated by that notion.
And that’s it. That’s as far as it goes. To continue to extrapolate from that statement that Zimmerman intended to take the law into his own hands is grossly unreasonable and unjust. You QED’d it wrong.
As for the link I provided, yeah yeah yeah, MOST interesting. Taaffe’s “angry George” comments: I figured you’d figure that they figure nicely with your figuration, and I see that indeed you really do like ’em.
When Taaffe says that he and George are appointed watch captains, that is a statement of fact which can be verified or falsified. When he goes on to speculate and opine about other matters, those statements do not carry the same weight as do objective facts. Nor do they matter as much as you may think they do.
You see, ROO, you could (hypothetically) be “mad as hell” at me, “fed up and unwilling to take it anymore” and everyone could know it too; yet even so, if I then attacked you and you fought back, your action of fighting back would still be self defense. No question about it. If it can be so for you, it can be so for George Zimmerman.
(See, I provided you that link, and I knew, I just knew for sure that you were gonna jump ALL OVER that part and I provided the link to you anyway; so now when you quote Taaffee’s opine again and again and again to support your faulty arguments in future posts it’ll be my fault. Mine! Aaargh! The shame! The responsibility! Like handing a chimp a loaded gun!! That’s why I had to make this argument: to show you the truth! To stop you! I have to stop you. Have to counter you again and again if necessary, to show you the light, the reason, the…)
Ahem. Well, I did what I could. Moving on then.
So, it looks like the Orlando Sentinel is quoting from Judge Lester’s July 5th bond order which you can read here http://media.trb.com/media/acrobat/2012-07/70893622.pdf if you want to.
How is saying a judge called Zimmerman a liar manipulator misleading? Good question. I’ll try to explain.
The devil, you see, is in the details and the details matter.
There is a far cry between asserting probable cause to believe a man has committed a felony, and declaring that that indeed he did commit it. If you read page 07, paragraph 06 of the bond order, you can see exactly what J. Lester said concerning Zimmerman and Fla. Stat. 903.035(3).
Also understand, if we declare that George has told a lie and manipulated a process, that does not have the exact same meaning or portent as it would did we say, “George is a liar and a manipulator.” The first only tells us that George had done thus and so at least, but not necessarily more than, once. The latter, however, stands as an assessment of character and implies that G. does “thus and so” really quite freely and often. A small detail, yet the gulf between the meanings is large.
As far as we know, then, Judge Lester has NOT stood forth and declared, verbally nor in writing, specifically that “George Zimmerman is a liar and a manipulator” (and a scurrilous scoundrel to boot!) Maybe he has, though I’ve not seen it. But, and get this! even if he had it wouldn’t count for much.
You wrote: “— so, tell me, minus the guy that the judge called a maniuplator and a liar, what evidence have I not taken into consideration?” You portrayed it as a character assessment and the context in which you did is part and parcel of the disagreement between you and I as to whether your account of things is as credible as George’s.
So when you toss in “…the guy that the judge called a manipulator and a liar,” you are clearly trying to strengthen your argument through an Ad Hominem attack, (character assassination,) and to do it you are resorting to a fallacious Appeal to Authority.
Here is why. If, even IF, Judge Lester had called Zimmerman a liar and a manipulator (as an assessment) , that statement would carry little or no weight unless, A). J. Lester has known George Zimmerman personally for a significant period of time and can speak about his character on that basis, or B.) Judge Lester is ALSO Doctor Lester and has performed a psychological evaluation of George Zimmerman. Both those conditions are improbable. A third workable condition could be if the Judge was inferring this idea from a trend of behavior known to the court, but if you read the bond order you will see that he was not.
Bottom line. Misleading? Yes, I think I have shown as much. Appeal to Authority? Ad Hominem attack? That’s dirty pool ROO, and you played it. It discredits your argument to some degree.
And finally: you think that “running after people in the dark of night with a firearm” is a bad idea?
Well, I won’t quibble with you about that. That’s a perfectly reasonable and valid opinion. But please understand something.
I am a former soldier and Military Policeman. I have a CCW license and like many but not all licensed people I do not carry when I think I will need it, but rather carry almost all the time in case I need it when I did not expect to. I am accustomed to doing so and it does not seem even remotely unreasonable to me.
I also carry a flashlight nearly all the time, because small easily portable flashlights are commonly available and because roughly half of all the time in my life it is dark outside and all the time it is dark somewhere. It has been useful to me on several several occasions. I recommend everyone do it, but whomever does not need not justify it to me.
Related not to this, but to other statements you have posted, I have suffered two head injuries as an adult that I think worth mention. One was worse than any Zimmerman appeared to incur that night, the other less damaging than his broken nose. The minor wound (I got hit in the face with a #@%&* load lock) bled copiously. The greater wound (rear ended on the German Autobahn) probably bled less, but caused me to drift in and out of consciousness for several hours. Neither injury, ROO, when cleaned up and tended, looked any bit worse, nor any bit better, than those cuts we can see on the back of Zimmerman’s head here on the internet.
So when you ask “why did Zimmerman get out of his truck with a gun?” I think, “because he had a gun when he got out of the truck.” When you attack him for carrying a flashlight, on a presumably cloudy night, I shake my head and wonder if you REALLY think that. And when you mock his injuries and declare that they are piddling and minor I frown and snarl in disgusted frustration because I am certain that you, nor anyone else, cannot know that by looking at a picture.
When you say sane and reasonable folk would do thus and so but not this and that, you leave “this and that” only to the insane and unreasonable. But I know that a sane and reasonable man might impulsively jump out of his car to chase a suspicious character for reasons neither reasoned nor wise, only to reign himself in when told “you don’t need to do that” (“OK” said George) and then to decide to look around a bit more and at least identify and fix the location where he last saw the runner so that he could pass it on to the police. That does not strike me as unreasonable. It does not seem to me wildly implausible.
When you go on as you do, you are implying that I and many others here are insane and unreasonable.
I must disagree.
“Well, yeah… From the Merriaim Webster,
Definition of VIGILANCE COMMITTEE” — I think you might be moving the goal posts here. “A volunteer group of citizens that without authority assumes powers such as pursuing and punishing those suspected of being criminals or offenders” George and the NWC collectively hit three of the qualifiers that night. NWC has no authority. He did persue some one. And it was some one he believed was an offender. That pesky get away quote keeps coming back. If you didn’t think this dude was doing anything wrong, why the explicative, what was he getting away with? Zimmerman started off by justifying his call as seeing some one whom fits descriptions for recent break-ins. Granted, he didn’t actually see a break in being committed, but when Martin ran… apparently he was now graduated to the level of asshole for it. I mean, how dare he run away!
Regarding lieing, manipulating, I don’t know how much more I can do than to tell you what was said. Appeal to authority is fallacious? This is the entire justice system. A judge has authority. A detective has authority. LEOs have authority. The judge stated his assesment, and there it is. Given the other inconsistancies that have been pointed out, I don’t think the judge’s assesment would be too far off. BTW, do you really want to harp my using a JUDGE’S assesment, when compared to the resident references of Trayvon and the ThugLife that float around here? Selective Outrage is selective.
I agree, the nature of injuries is an imperfect science. I feel confident in saying that Trayvon Martin could not utilize kinetics involved in the Autobahn. If T really was on top of Z delivering the beating that he states he recieved… shouldn’t there have been more? In light of there not being more, is it more probable that it didn’t happen as described? And instead, the scene more likely lines up with revised statements from witness, that described more wrestling, and no striking?
“When you attack him for carrying a flashlight, on a presumably cloudy night, I shake my head and wonder if you REALLY think that” — person or thing. That is what flashlights are designed to find. Zimmerman says he believes Martin is heading to the back entrance. But, he stops on the way, and exits his vehicle (the one that could have taken him to the back entrance MUCH faster), to go looking for a street sign. I don’t think Mr. Zimmerman had designs of going back to his vehicle. His last few sentences with the Non Em operator don’t point to that.
“mock his injuries and declare that they are piddling and minor” — compared to what he states he recieved? Yeah, I do. He says he was punched in the face. Yup, busted up nose, check. He says Trayvon tried to smother him. Well, that wouldn’t cause bruises, but… okay. He also says he had his head banged into the concrete. For that, we have 2 scratches, in a near “V” formation. Nothing more. Doesn’t that strike you as odd? The dude on top was represented as manhandling Zimmerman. In the course of a little over a minute, Trayvon went from smother, to striking, to banging head into concrete… yet… just wasn’t able to get the gun out before Zimmerman. This representation of the situation strains credulity.
“…and then to decide to look around a bit…” — Ah ah! Simon-Zimmer didn’t say! He was heading back to his vehicle. So for a few minutes after not chasing Trayvon, he… well, good question. He spoke with the non em about where he would be, so the police should call him when in the area. Notice he didn’t say find me at my car. He is still looking for the one that got away, Joel.
Now, humor me on a role reversal. How long would you keep running from some one following you for.. well, no damn reason that you can think of before you are gonna find out what his deal is? And the more pointed question, how long are you obliged to do so?
Joel C said:
A couple of clarifications for ya ROO, and then we’re done. Skip to the bottom before you read this.
Nope. Didn’t move the goal posts. Replied to what you wrote. Anyone moved goal posts, then, it was you. But they weren’t moved. You just said that in order to change the argument.
Pesky quote? You already know the answer. You’ve had it from plenty of people, and it’s not a hard thing to figure out. The neighborhood and suffered a rash of burglaries. Zimmerman and crew formed a watch group to try and help stop the problem, and to date had no success. They “always got away.” He emoted. He pissed and moaned about it. Duh.
By the way, the quote you call pesky is the quote which you bring up to support your own arguments. Don’t want to own that?
A judge has authority; that doesn’t make him an authority on psychology. A king has authority; doesn’t make him an authority on chess. This is an easy concept to understand. Your sophistry fails to impress me.
Yes, Appeal to Authority is fallacious when you cannot show that the “authority” is sufficiently knowledgeable to expound on the disputed subject. It does weaken your argument. You have a computer. Google it. Learn something.
And I don’t give a damn right now about the other claims “floating around” here. You are who I was talking to. “Why are you harping on me for something they’re doing too?” Grow up. That’s probably a fallacy with some Latin name as well, but I only know about three of those and it’s not worth my time to look it up for you
“Ah ah! Simon-Zimmer didn’t say!” I didn’t say what Zimmerman said. I didn’t even pretend to replicate exactly what he’s done or said about it. I just tried to show you how a reasonable person could replicate some of his actions. You still don’t agree? You want to slide around that and change the argument? Fine. Play that game alone.
For the record, though, I do agree with you that it really seems like Z wanted to keep looking, probably for T. His statements on the phone do imply that he’s thinking about it. Maybe he wanted to catch’im and dispense some justice, like in your lurid fantasies! Or maybe he had some idea of meeting the police officer, pointing at T, and saying “he’s right there officer.” Not likely to work out real well no matter what his intent, which leads to… If Zimmerman was returning to his car like he claims, it only means that he changed his mind or called it quits. You couldn’t think of that by yourself? You think more convoluted theories are more likely? Feh.
If you really give a shit, here’s the role reversal.
Q. “How long would you keep running from some one following you for.. well, no damn reason that you can think of before you are gonna find out what his deal is?”
A. Either zero seconds, or all way home. See, if I run, it’s cause I have no intention of learning “his deal.” If I engage the fellow, (meaning I did NOT run) and it turns out to be George Zimmerman who either want’s to know what I’m doing here or doesn’t have a problem with me, then either way I’ve no reason nor inclination to punch him in the nose and get into a fight about which “Rule Of Order” knows far less than he pretends.
Q. “And the more pointed question, how long are you obliged to do so?”
A. That is a silly question. What does it mean? Who obligates people to run? Nobody does! Never mind. I might a little bit smarter than you seem to think I am. I’ve read way more of your posts than you thought I had, and I see what you’re doing. Same thing you keep doing over and over. I don’t care.
SKIP TO HERE
I enjoy the debate, obviously. I disagree with your over arching theory, (though not all the components of it) but I did not come here to offer you an alternate vision. I posted in order to challenge just a few of the many logical failures I had seen in your endlessly repetitive narrative.
This I believe I have done, and we had some interesting and even fun exchanges along the way, but in the end it seems you are not swayed. Either you are too committed to “winning” to bother yourself with the innate rules of a well structured and compelling argument, or you simply just don’t understand. Either way, there is nothing left here for either of us.
I have replied to your latest post more tersely than usual and with no effort to conceal the scorn I feel, not for you personally, ROO, but for your arguments.*
But if you read it and post again, it will be for yourself only. I probably won’t read your reply, and I certainly won’t respond to it. I tire of this.
Knowing as much, should you choose to ignore the rest of this post it would be quite understandable.
So long “ROO”. Not all your arguments are unfounded, not all your concerns unsympathetic. I think I understand where you’re coming from, and believe it or not, I get it. But your method of debate is false. It fails you here, and it will fail you again. That said, I wish you success and happiness in, well, some other venture.
*(Just looked it over real quick and it’s pretty cranky. S’late, I’m tired, and I want to get this done. So it stands.)
Pingback: Trayvon Martin Case Update, Black Leaders Under 40 Weigh In On What’s Next « BGTV MEDIA ONLINE