This article is devoted to one issue: the fact the George Zimmerman stepped out of his truck on the night of February 26, 2012. I thought this issue had been long laid to rest–at least for those willing to be persuaded by law, reason and fact–but it appears that’s not the case. Comments to recent articles (update 29.2 particularly), and elsewhere make definitively addressing this issue timely. Consider this comment by ackbarsays at Talk Left, which is representative of what I’ve been seeing of late:
Jeralyn, last night I was discussing this case on Nettles’ blog with another blogger who was wavering back and forth over whether he should contribute. He apparently has the financial resources that he could easily contribute $25,000 to the cause, and he appeared to be considering it, but he kept going back to a question of whether Zimmerman was morally responsible for Martin’s death because Zimmerman had gotten out of his truck. I wrote this to him and I thought it might be helpful to anyone who sees your page here and is asking themselves the same question.
To be as complete as possible, I’ll analyze the matter legally, morally, practically and tactically.
The Facts:
The transcript of Zimmerman’s non-emergency call, his testimony, and the findings of the Sanford Police are clear and direct. Zimmerman saw Trayvon Martin, who, considering the circumstances, was clearly acting suspiciously. It was dark and raining, and rather than obviously moving toward shelter, Martin appeared to be casing the area. Zimmerman did not recognize Martin, and wasn’t initially sure of his race, but even if he had immediately recognized Martin as black, this would not be alarming as a substantial portion of the residents of the Retreat at Twin Lakes are black.
On the other hand, all evidence supports Zimmerman’s knowledge that a great many thieves and burglars had been plaguing the RATL, and as the Neighborhood Watch captain, Zimmerman had intimate knowledge of those crimes, and the fact that a great many of the known criminals were young black men. The Sanford Police were also aware of all of this and were cooperating with Zimmerman.
We know that the dispatcher asked Zimmerman to keep Martin in sight so that he could direct responding officers to him. We know that Martin appeared to be under the influence of something, and we know that this initial observation was accurate as the State’s toxicologist, in a deposition, testified that Martin was “impaired” by his marijuana use.
Wearing a hoodie, Martin was presenting the appearance of many criminals. When Martin circled Zimmerman’s parked truck, stared at him threateningly,l and then broke into a run, Zimmerman told the dispatcher Martin was running, and the sounds of his opening his door and following Martin can be clearly heard on the recording of the conversation. Remember that Zimmerman was on the phone with the dispatcher until less than a minute before Martin confronted him.
The recording also indicates that Zimmerman was not sprinting after Martin in an attempt to catch him, and we also know that Martin had such a substantial head start, Zimmerman would have had no hope of catching him in a footrace. Zimmerman told the dispatcher he lost Martin, and had no idea where he was, and there is no evidence otherwise. Some have made much of the dispatcher telling Zimmerman not to chase Martin, but Zimmerman, his voice and breathing normal, indicating he was not running and had not been running, agreed and was merely walking back to his vehicle to meet the responding officers when he was accosted by Martin.
Practical/Tactical Issues:
In order to keep Martin in sight, as he had been asked to do by the dispatcher, it was necessary for Zimmerman to follow Martin on foot. Particularly in a densely packed housing development, trying to follow a fleet-footed young man on foot by vehicle is futile. Vehicles are restricted to established roads, take substantial time and space to turn, prevent the driver from hearing anything going on outside the vehicle, and require taking the time to secure the vehicle if leaving it becomes necessary.
By the time Zimmerman began to follow Martin, the gap between them was so great Zimmerman could have had no real idea where to drive to have any hope of spotting Martin again. The only choice he had would have been to turn south onto Twin Trees, which would have placed one or two rows of homes between him and any path Martin could have taken, making it impossible to spot him or to determine his direction.
In this situation, the advantage was entirely Martin’s. While motor vehicles are faster than people on foot in absolute terms, their effectiveness in pursuit of people on foot depends entirely on the terrain, roads, the environment (darkness, rain, etc.) any potential cover (in this case, a densely packed residential area with hundreds of hiding places and many potential escape routes) and time and distance. All favored Martin and were against a vehicular pursuit by Zimmerman, or even the police, had they been there. Zimmerman’s only hope of keeping Martin in sight was to follow him on foot, into the midst of the housing development. There was no other practical possibility.
Some suggest that because Zimmerman was armed, he was somehow emboldened into pursuing Martin. There is no evidence to support this view and substantial evidence against it. Zimmerman did not draw or brandish his handgun, and had no intention of actually catching Martin. He did not sprint after him and continued his conversation with the dispatcher as he tried to keep Martin in sight. Because he had no intention of catching or detaining Martin, he had no need to consider drawing his handgun. Remember that he told the dispatcher he lost Martin. There was no pursuit. Zimmerman was merely trying to improve his relative position in the hope of seeing Martin to better inform the police he believed were on the way.
Legal Issues:
Zimmerman violated no law, in spirit or fact, in following Martin and trying to report his position to the police. Any citizen may drive or sit stationary in his vehicle and watch anyone he chooses. He may walk in the same direction as anyone else, in essence, following them. Particularly if he believes someone is acting suspiciously, he may watch them and even follow them. If that person did as Martin did, it is entirely reasonable and legal to follow him, particularly since the dispatcher, representing the police, specifically asked Zimmerman to keep Martin in sight.
Zimmerman’s position as Neighborhood Watch captain imbued him with no special powers beyond those of any citizen. However, his position did impose responsibilities beyond those of the average citizen. Zimmerman, and his neighbors, surely would have expected him to be vigilant, and to watch for suspicious people. They expected him to call the police and to direct them to those suspicious people, and that is precisely what Zimmerman tried to do.
We can be comfortable that Zimmerman had no evil intent in that he called the police and remained on the phone with them until he–and they–was satisfied that he lost all hope of keeping Martin in sight. This is hardly the act of one plotting murder.
Florida law gave Zimmerman no special powers, but it did not require him to do less than any citizen observing a suspicious person. Particularly since Martin was running away, it would have been entirely reasonable for him not to expect any kind of confrontation, nor is there any evidence he sought one.
Oh, but the dispatcher told Zimmerman not to chase Martin! This admonition, done without knowledge of what Zimmerman was actually doing and seeing, had no force of law. Police dispatchers are often in no position to give advice, having no idea what’s actually happening on the other side of a phone line, yet they are often trained to make a variety of stock responses. In any case, the evidence suggests that when the dispatcher said that to Zimmerman, he immediately complied, and may well have been in the process of doing that anyway as by then, he had completely lost Martin. Remember that Zimmerman was completely free to ignore the dispatcher, as any citizen would be free in his place. Remember too that minutes earlier the dispatcher told Zimmerman to keep Martin in sight.
In determining the validity and reasonableness of someone’s actions, we must consider what they knew or reasonably could have known at the time they acted. This is not only a rational standard, it’s a legal standard as well.
In this case, George Zimmerman knew the number and kind of crimes that had been occurring for years in his neighborhood. Because of his position, he worked far more closely with the police than the average citizen. Some have tried to make something of his many calls to the police, but considering his position in the community, it was entirely reasonable for him to call the police whenever a suspicious or criminal act occurred. In fact, it was what one would expect of anyone in his position.
Zimmerman also knew the general characteristics of the criminals that had been recently plaguing his neighborhood. Specifically, many were black, and they were teenagers or young adults. Most criminals anywhere are teenage or young adult males. Even the black residents of the neighborhood knew this and did not think kindly of the members of their race victimizing them. For them and Zimmerman, race was beside the point.
Zimmerman’s conversation with the dispatcher also indicated he understood the realities of police response. He understood by the time a call could be made and the police could arrive, criminals often got away, frequently having completed their crimes. In short, he understood the importance of speedy response and keeping the suspects in sight until the police could arrive.
There is no evidence that Zimmerman, in his years with the Neighborhood Watch, behaved unreasonably. There is no evidence of him abusing his position. He did not harm or harass others. He did not brandish his handgun or threaten anyone with it, and he surely never shot anyone. He never tried to make a citizen’s arrest, instead, working with the police in every case. The evidence indicates that he was well thought of by his neighbors who appreciated his efforts on their behalf.
Moral Issues:
What is the obligation of any citizen when they may be witnessing a criminal act? What should they do when they see a suspicious person in their neighborhood? Is calling the police and keeping that suspicious person in sight while trying to direct the police to them an immoral act, or does immorality lie in doing nothing for oneself and for the community?
If this is the case, we surrender our property and lives to those immoral enough to take them. We allow criminals to instill fear in us, and submit to them before they so much as make a threatening gesture. We surrender all of the advantages of civilization and reduce ourselves to a state of nature where the strongest rule before we actually assess the strength of those that would rule us.
Anyone unsure of these issues would be wise to read Jeffrey Snyder’s classic “A Nation of Cowards,” first published in 1993. It’s a brilliant exposition of the issues I merely summarize here. It’s writing every informed citizen should know.
Considering what George Zimmerman knew, considering his personal experience, considering what he was observing, he acted entirely reasonably and morally. He acted to defend his neighbors and their property. There is no evidence suggesting he hoped for or expected a confrontation of any kind, quite the opposite.
In leaving his vehicle, he did the minimum any of us should do. To do less is immoral and cowardly. To do less helps no one but criminals and their enablers.
Trayvon Martin decided to confront Zimmerman, a man who had no idea who he was or where he was. He decided not to run home, despite the indisputable fact that he had more than sufficient time to get there, never seeing Zimmerman again. He decided instead to hide or double back, to actively seek out Zimmerman, a man he did not know. He decided to assault him, and having injured and stunned him, took him to the ground and continued to rain blows on him, blows that any reasonable person would have recognized as having the imminent potential to cause serious bodily harm or death. To do this to any person for any reason outside the context of legitimate self-defense, is not only immoral, it’s illegal.
Final Thoughts:
What ifs don’t matter. What ifs aren’t evidence. The facts are clear and there is no evidence–only supposition–to dispute them. The prosecution’s investigators have admitted as much.
Knowing what any reasonable person in his place knew and observed, George Zimmerman acted reasonably, morally and legally. He did not act rashly or intemperately, but employed proper tactics in response to Martin’s actions.
One person and one person alone is responsible for Trayvon Martin’s death: Trayvon Martin.
UPDATE: 05-31-13, 2140 CST: Diwataman, who has done fine work on this case, has a pertinent post. It’s very much worth your time.
Joel said:
Mike,
What people also forget is that George lived in that gated community. He had every right to be there.
cassandra said:
thanks Mike,
O’ Mara needs to review this paragraph in particular:
“He did not sprint after him and continued his conversation with the dispatcher as he tried to keep Martin in sight. Because he had no intention of catching or detaining Martin, he had no need to consider drawing his handgun. Remember that he told the dispatcher he lost Martin. There was no pursuit. Zimmerman was merely trying to improve his relative position in the hope of seeing Martin to better inform the police he believed were on the way.”
ackbarsays said:
Thanks for the mention, Mike. It is an honor to even know you are reading my comments. :)
ackbarsays said:
By the way, I think you’ll enjoy my first ever blog post: http://ackbarsays.wordpress.com/2013/05/29/standing-up-for-george-zimmerman/
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear ackbarsays:
You’re very kind, and I did indeed enjoy your article. Nicely done!
analyst1961 said:
Yeah, thanks ackbarsays… Ahem!
Chip Bennett said:
Or, as the 5th DCA (Stinson v State) put it: That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook.
ackbarsays said:
The pro-prosecution commenters are hammering me at Talkleft for an apparent breach of Jeralyn’s posted rule for the thread on the Zimmerman defense fund, claiming that by posting my “plea” to another commenter from Nettles’ blog, I was “debating the merits of the case,” which they then use as an excuse to debate the merits of the case with me.
jello333 said:
I read there sometimes, but rarely comment. Because I’m not always capable of being a good boy. Some of Jeralyn’s rules are understandable, considering what she wants her blog to be. But some seem kinda strange. Like the one (unless it has changed) that says nobody (incl. Crump, Bernie, etc.) can be called a “liar”. I mean come on! Even after a person HAS lied, and there’s solid proof of it, we can’t use that word? I don’t get it.
analyst1961 said:
Good thing you didn’t offer to make a donation to the defense fund – look what might have happened! :-)
jordan2222 said:
Well said, as usual and thanks. I do not have the space you have on your own blog but this is typical of my many comments about what George was doing that night:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
George was fulfilling his DUTY. It is that simple. His duty is to be able to anticipate a crime BEFORE it happens. For some folks, that is a “gift” but for others they actually train and LEARN how to be able to do it well. I am convinced that part of the problem here is that the average person cannot identify with that mind set. Sorry, but to be blunt, they DO NOT even try to put themselves in George’s shoes. That concept is foreign to them much as it is when cops APPEAR to behave badly. I will use an extreme example to make the point.
How many amongst us understood the position of LE in the Rodney King affair? A jury said they broke no laws. Racial politics arrived =- on the scene and forced the Feds to say “the hell with double jeopardy and the Constitution. We created some federal laws to SCREW anyone we want to. Nah, nah, na, nah, nah.”
I hope that my instincts would have been as good as George’s that night had I been in his predicament. That is why so many folks look up to, respect and admire him as well as his courage to “do the right thing.” He saved his own life by doing what many of us would not or could not have done. I will go further and say he did it perfectly… right by the book.
analyst1961 said:
I’m replying to a comment you made on another site (and begging Mike’s indulgence) but in re: this article as well. You and I have exchanged comments for quite a while about this case and I’m disappointed that you would question my motives. I’m only trying to help GZ (which, again, I already have in a smaller amount) and was (and am) open-minded about my moral quandary, i.e., my morals have evolved throughout life and they will likely continue to do so, because, as an intellectually honest human being, I question myself and my assumptions regarding personal philosophy as I continue to grow as a person. Hopefully we all do.
The amount of money I mentioned is not a big deal to me, relative to a few checks I’ve written to my ex-wife in a divorce settlement earlier this year. Am I naive to think that’s not a lot of money or that it’s ‘no big deal’ for me to have used that amount – perhaps so. I sincerely meant no offense. Thank you, Jordan…
Pugfrench said:
Why would you want to help GZ if you believe his moral failure resulted in the death of a teenage boy? I don’t get your reasoning.
analyst1961 said:
False dichotomy in your reasoning, firstly. Secondly, I’m willing to assess and even modify my moral compass on a continual basis. Part of being a sentient creature…
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear analyst1961:
You’re always welcome here, and you surely have my indulgence.
jordan2222 said:
I’m replying to a comment you made on another site
Please be specific, OK?
analyst1961 said:
Mike:
Thank you, sir. I was more than a little surprised to see a comment that I had made on anther site become part of your (continuing) thoughtful analysis and commentary on this case.
Someone replied to me elsewhere and asked this: If GZ got out of his truck with the gun, and returned safely – having never encountered TM – would it still be a moral failure? A great question. I would add that he did so with the knowledge that a suspicious or dangerous person might be close by, which changes the premise (in my opinion), but it’s a question worthy of consideration…
Thanks, again.
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear analyst1961:
Not at all. I always do my best to give credit where it is due.
jordan2222 said:
I have a question that, so far, remains unanswered after asking it a bazillion times. Did LE call George’s phone as he had asked them to do either on their way to the scene or at any time afterward? A call to George during the altercation might have scared the hell out of Martin. George most likely would have had it one since he was waiting for their calls.
I doubt they knew the person who was standing by Martin when they arrived was George until at least a few minutes later so how long did it take them to connect the dots?
It is one of those nagging questions I have like what happened to those blunts Martin got from the store.
Joel said:
I think the answer to that is the police had no problem finding the place and by that time the cops also knew shots or a gunshot was heard. I don’t think they were thinking about George but about a shooting.. Also, I believe George had already holstered his gun when the cops showed up. He notified them immediately that he was packing and handed over his gun. I don’t think there was a connect the dots time, just a dawning realization that George was the one who asked for police to go there through the NEN call. NEN calls can wait. A shooting takes precedent.
Put yourself in the place of the cops. You are dispatched to a NEN call. A few minutes later you get an emergency dispatch to the same address. A huge fight is going on. The update is a gun shot is heard. Are you going to stop and worry about the NEN call? For all you know, it might or might not be related.
Also I think George immediately told the first officer he shot the guy.
The blunts are bothering me too. I don’t think Martin had them on his person. He could have smoked them by the time he got to the gated community, but he also could have lost them running around.
jordan2 said:
OK thanks and I have considered all of that but you also said:
For all you know, it might or might not be related
Un;ess they knew with absolute certainty, someone had an obligation to call George’s cell to confirm it. I am surprised that others are more curious to know if the phone rang before they put two and two together.
Bottom line is we still do not know for sure.
I am not a pot smoker so could he smoke two cigars full of pot during that time? WOW!!!! Wouldn’t that show up in the ME or tax report as more than what we are told?
Joel said:
I am just throwing out possibilities. I don’t find it odd though about no follow up call on the NEN because they were already there talking to the guy who called it in. It could be easily answered by checking out who was the one assigned to the NEN call and then checking who was assigned to the 911 call reporting a fight and a shooting. Chances are they are the same people.
I don’t find it odd about the missing blunts, it just would be nice to find them. I didn’t know anything about Martin buying blunts until a few weeks ago. And there were no blunts found at the crime scene. Also, we don’t have definitive evidence that Martin did get a guy to buy some blunts for him. We suspect, but we don’t KNOW.
jordan2222 said:
OK…..
:D
RuleofOrder said:
” WOW!!!! Wouldn’t that show up in the ME or tax report as more than what we are told” — in a word, yes. Most employee required drug tests tests ‘trip’ at 50 ng/ml. The metabolyte (false positive) trips at 20, IIRC. Martin’s readings were 1.5 and 7.5 respectively.
Terry in GA said:
They ended up in … the toxicology report. :)
jordan2222 said:
Subscribed to comments
analyst1961 said:
The person who made the offer, and is the genesis of this post, didn’t say GZ was morally responsible for TM’s death, per se. That’s an innacurate description of said offer. The person, whomever that may be, said he would not have made the same choice as GZ and would have ended his involvement after the NEN call. That person felt because of his own moral judgment, it would be hard to donate to the defense fund for that reason only. Said person has also since made a donation to the defense fund, albeit smaller than the original ‘offer’.
jello333 said:
Very cool. (But not the “smaller” part ;) ) Really though, that person should definitely study everything they can about this case. Mike’s post here would be good for them to read. George really DID think he was following a request from Sean to keep an eye on Trayvon. And as for George “ending his involvement after the NEN call”? I think that’s exactly what George had in mind. After the call, he did nothing more than walked to the east end of the sidewalk looking at addresses, turn around, and was heading back to his truck. Had Trayvon not ambushed him, the only further involvement George would have had is when the cops arrived a few minutes later… probably to find him at his truck.
analyst1961 said:
Looks like GZ chose at odd place to look for addresses, didn’t he? On the backs of the houses / condos? House numbers are typically on the front of houses, not the back. I have read quite a bit about this case – perhaps way too much.
Look at the map again and tell me why GZ would be looking for a house number at the spot of the confrontation, especially considering the relative location of his truck. Emphasis on the imprecise ‘relative location’ – no one knows exactly where his truck was. That itself is a whole ‘nother issue…
jello333 said:
No, that’s not where he was looking for addresses. I’m assuming you mean near the ‘T’ in the sidewalks, between the rows of buildings. At that point, he was at the BACKS of the buildings, and you’re right… no addresses there. But that’s not where he says he was looking. He was heading all the way to the east end of that sidewalk, which ends on Retreat View Circle. And it’s THERE that the fronts of the houses are, and where he was gonna look for addresses. And if the question is, why didn’t he get an address from the front of one of the houses BEFORE going east on that sidewalk? In other words, why didn’t he get an address off the front of one of the houses on Twin Trees Lane? Well, George says he couldn’t remember the NAME of that street (and based on his attempts at giving directions on the NEN call, that seems to be true). So an address without a street name wouldn’t help much. On the other hand, he knew that the next street over was RVC, so that would work out.
analyst1961 said:
Couldn’t give an address on Twin Tree Lane (which is right in front of where his truck allegedly was and where the fronts of those houses were)? I have an extraordinarily hard time with that supposition…
jello333 said:
I know, it sounds kinda crazy. But consider this: George says he couldn’t remember the name of that street. Again, that sounds far-fetched… HOWEVER, listen to him on the NEN call. It’s obvious he really WAS having tons of trouble describing his location. He and Sean couldn’t get on the same wave-length. Seem like the easiest thing George could have done is just given an address for a house on Twin Trees. So why DIDN’T he? Seems to me that either he was plotting and scheming, and for some reason didn’t wanna give that address, or it was exactly as he said later: He couldn’t remember that street’s name. While he could have given them a number/address, that would have been useless without the name of the street. Listening to George on the tape, it seems to me he really DID forget the name…. otherwise why go to all the trouble of “No, you go straight, then you take a left, no don’t turn and then…” If he knew the street name, and had an address on that street… easy. So yeah, I believe him when he says he could not remember the name of the street.
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear analyst1961:
It has always been my impression that Zimmerman went east to the area of S. Oregon Ave. where there would be visible house numbers, in an attempt to orient himself and provide accurate information for the police. It was when he was walking back to the west, after realizing he had totally lost Martin, that he was accosted by Martin near the sidewalk “T.” I don’t know this with absolute certainty because I don’t have the complete investigative file, but it seems a reasonable possibility.
By the way, I’m not certain there aren’t house numbers facing the N/S sidewalk. That’s not uncommon in such developments and is a convenience for the homeowner’s association rather than for first responders.
SlingTrebuchet said:
“No, that’s not where he was looking for addresses. ”
You are correct Jello.
Although it seems odd that the NW-patrolling Zimmerman would not know the name of one of only three streets in the community, it seems clear from his attempts to describe his location that he did not know the name of Twin Trees. Accordingly, a house number on that road would not be helpful as an address.
It might be worth noting that the question of an address only arose after Zimmerman had left the truck and was already in the central walkway area. Nevertheless, Zimmerman claims that the reason he got out of the truck was to get an address.
In the circumstances that he describes, the sensible action would be to walk North between the houses to get a house number on RVC. He was aware (see the Walk Through) that he was at the back (South) of RVC houses.
Whatever….. if he went East to get a house number on RVC, then the only sensible action is to stay there until the cops arrive. This is because he clearly can not describe any alternative location to them.
If he actually went to RVC, why did he leave?
Why did he suddenly change the plan at the last moment of the NEN call?
jello333 said:
“If he actually went to RVC, why did he leave? Why did he suddenly change the plan at the last moment of the NEN call?”
Ok, here’s a thought. (And no, I don’t know if George has ever said exactly what he had planned if he had got back to his truck.):
Assuming he really walked over the RVC and got an address. Assuming he was then heading back to his truck as he says. One reason he might have done this is because he was getting sick of standing in the cold and rain, and so was gonna go get in his truck, and drive it around the block to the address he had just gotten. And then sit there, parked in his truck, until the cops called him, at that point giving them the address where he currently sat. All that — the walking to the truck, then driving around the block — wouldn’t have taken more than a minute or two. I know I’m only basing most of that on supposition, but I think it makes sense.
jordan2 said:
I am wondering if the defense has had the money to create a 3D reenactment of what happened. Maybe they will have a complete model made up of the scene with realistic looking people entering the picture on queue/
juggler523 said:
To Slingtrebuchet – Rhetorical question. WHY do you insist on remaining always partially uniformed?
You wrote: “In the circumstances that he describes, the sensible action would be to walk North between the houses to get a house number on RVC. He was aware (see the Walk Through) that he was at the back (South) of RVC houses.”
Once again, your premise is incorrect, rendering your conclusion incorrect in equal proportion. George Zimmerman has said that he exited his vehicle for TWO reasons – to keep an eye on Trayvon martin AND to get an address – on a street he was familiar with. Had he walked NORTH to RVC from his car, he would not have been in close proximity to where he had last seen Trayvon Martin, and he would have lost that ability in going north – cutting thru yards, rather than walking on a sidewalk. Besides, he had resigned himself to the fact that Martin had disappeared, so he wasn’t particularly interested, I am sure, in taking the shortest route for the shortest route’s sake.
You also wrote: “Whatever….. if he went East to get a house number on RVC, then the only sensible action is to stay there until the cops arrive. This is because he clearly can not describe any alternative location to them.”
NEWSFLASH!!! It was raining! He wasn’t carrying an umbrella. The cops were “on the way”, but how long would you suggest he stand in the rain and wait? And you are talking sensible?
You wrote: “If he actually went to RVC, why did he leave? Why did he suddenly change the plan at the last moment of the NEN call?”
What plan did he “change”?
Joel C said:
“Couldn’t give an address on Twin Tree Lane (which is right in front of where his truck allegedly was and where the fronts of those houses were)? I have an extraordinarily hard time with that supposition…”
I’m awfully glad for you, Analyst, that you’ve apparently never forgotten something you darn well knew at an awkward moment. Trust me though, it does happen to other people.
SlingTrebuchet said:
Juggler:
Analyse the content and the unimpeachable timing of the NEN.
Assume Zimmerman is telling the truth. Run that against the NEN.
At 2:14 in the NEN, we hear Zimmerman get out and we hear the door slam.
He says that he walked at a normal pace to RVC.
That’s a distance of 250 feet.
At a normal walking pace, that would take him about about one minute.
He therefore arrives at RVC about 50 seconds before the call ends.
This is in fact what he describes in his Walk Through the next day. He describes completeing the call at RVC and then immediately turning back for his truck.
He would arrive at RVC at around 3:00 in the call – allowing for a slow pace.
The NEN:
1 minute 25 seconds after the door slams, the dispatcher has failed to get an address (for a meeting with the officer) from Zimmerman and so the dispatcher suggests that they meet at the mailboxes.
At that stage, Zimmerman would have been standing on RVC for about half a minute.
What if Zimmerman actually walked slower than a normal pace?
Say Zimmerman had just arrived at RVC when the question was asked….
He would have covered the 250 feet at 3 feet per second. That’s not even a slow walk. That’s a crawling pace.
So…
If Zimmerman is telling the truth
1) He walked through to RVC in order to get a house number. This is for a meeting with the cops.
2) At the time he agreed to meet at the mailboxes, he was already standing on RVC and looking at housenumbers.
For an idea of the visibility of house numbers in the complex, view the early part of the Walk Through video. The camera is in a car parked on the side of the street. The housenumbers on the other side of the street are clearly visible. That’s in daylight. Night-time photographs of houses in the complex show that the housenumber signs are internally lit. They all seem to be lit.
He says that he walked to RVC ( just happening to be going “in the same direction” ) in order to get a house number for a meeting.
He’s been already standing in the rain for up to 30 seconds
( Your: “NEWSFLASH!!! It was raining! He wasn’t carrying an umbrella.” ) with a clear view of house numbers.
For whatever reason, he doesn’t give a house number to the dispatcher. He agrees to the dispatcher’s suggestion that he meet the cops at the mailboxes.
Great!
He doesn’t have to stand in the rain any longer. He can walk back to his truck and the mailboxes just beyond it.
Good plan!
Scrub the meeting at a house number on RVC. Too wet. So head back.
And then he suddenly breaks in over the dispatcher’s voice to say:
OK. Scrub the plan to meet at the mailboxes.
Zimmerman is not going to the truck/mailboxes.
Also…he’s not going to be at a house number on RVC.
He’s going to be somewhere else.
The cops will ring him and he will tell him where he’s at.
aka..
“When you come to the clubhouse you come straight in and make a left. Actually you would go past the clubhouse. No. You go in straight through the entrance and then you make a left, uh, you go straight in, don’t turn, and make a left. ”
or
“come in through the, uh, gate, go straight past the club house, and uh, straight past the club house and make a left, and then go past the mailboxes, that’s my truck”.
Ookaayyy!
“NEWSFLASH!!! It was raining! He wasn’t carrying an umbrella.”
So he is actually going to head for truck/mailboxes. He wants the cops to ring him on arrival just in case he has not made it back the the mailboxes by then. RIght? Sensible!
So he ends the call standing at RVC and heads for his truck – just as he describes in the Walk Through.
He heads for his truck. He’s not dawdling. He’s not rushing either. It’s just a normal walking pace.
20 seconds after ending the call and setting off, he arrives at the ‘attack point’ just beyond the T-junction. Martin jumps him and starts beating him.
2 minutes and 10 seconds after Martin starts to beat him, the first 911 call connects.
Right?
.
Alternatively, he notices something right at the end of the call and goes to investigate. 2 minutes 30 seconds later, the first 911 connects.
analyst1961 said:
In order to keep Martin in sight, as he had been asked to do by the dispatcher, it was necessary for Zimmerman to follow Martin on foot.
Are you suggesting that Sean had the legal (or moral) authority to possibly put GZ in harm’s way? To follow a suspicious person? Am I misreading your comment?
And the person offering the $25k was some ding-dong named analyst1961…
ackbarsays said:
Analyst, I don’t think that Sean thought that George was going to get out of the car. That said, it was a perfectly normal response for George to get out of the car and follow Trayvon, since George had been asked to let Sean know if the guy did anything else, and then Sean asked which way Trayvon ran. Sean waited a full 15 seconds after it was obvious that George had exited his vehicle before he asked George if he was following Trayvon. Even then, Sean didn’t say anything like “please, go back to your vehicle and wait for the police to arrive, because this guy might be dangerous.” Notice that George DID seem to become a bit concerned at around that point, because he told Sean that he didn’t want to give his address because he wasn’t sure where Trayvon was.
What’s not normal is for someone who was followed for a short distance to circle back and attack the guy who followed him the way Trayvon apparently did. That was the great moral choice that was made here that resulted in Trayvon’s death, and it was totally Trayvon’s choice. He was about 200-300 feet from the back door of the condo where he was staying when he rounded the corner at the T in the sidewalk, and he was well ahead of Zimmerman at that point. He had plenty of time to get to the condo and get inside without Zimmerman ever seeing him again, yet he chose to lay in waiting and then confront and attack Zimmerman as GZ returned to his vehicle.
analyst1961 said:
I must say, this is pretty bizarre. I think they shelves have been emptied on the false dichotomy aisle, huh?
Sean doesn’t have the legal authority to tell George anything. You can check with the SPD Chief on that one. I know where GZ ended up, I know TM could have made it to BG’s; I’m not taking up for TM at all – I really think (my opinion) that TM wanted GZ to come after him. I think DeeDee egged-on TM for a fight. I really do.
I unfortunately, however, have nothing factual to base those theories upon. If I did, my donation (to date) would be much larger. And if something surfaces in the next discovery package, perhaps it will be then. Cheers.
jello333 said:
I don’t agree with Mike that Sean INTENTIONALLY asked George to get out of his truck and “follow” Trayvon. I think from the tone of Sean’s voice when he asks, “Are you following him?” it’s pretty clear that he did NOT really intend that. But it’s perfectly reasonable that George ASSUMED that’s what Sean was implying when he said certain things to George. I’m sure if Sean listened to the tape now, he would admit that it was easy for George to misunderstand. If you haven’t seen it yet, you might wanna check out my comment I posted down below, with the link to the Treehouse. It takes you to a post I made a year ago about this very thing.
(And by the way, MAJOR respect for donating to the Defense… I’ve only been able to do $20 here and there, but I’d do lots more if I could. Thanks!)
analyst1961 said:
I don’t want major respect, or anything else, for donating to GZ’s legal fund. I unintentionally opened up a can of worms by asking for help calibrating my thoughts vis-a-vis the moral versus legal. I appreciate your ability to discuss this without displaying envy or assigning malice to my query. I didn’t, in any way, intend to start a class-war or draw attention to myself – its sure as heck ain’t about me. Again, thanks, jello333…
jello333 said:
Until reading this post, I hadn’t heard a thing about whatever went down about that. Actually I still don’t know exactly what it was about. And until you said so, I had no idea that you were the person being talked about. So I sure wasn’t trying to give my opinion on the matter… other than just (as I did in my first comment) trying to make it clear that I thought George wasn’t morally culpable. I don’t post a whole lot here. A little here, a VERY little at TalkLeft, and a bit more often at DMan’s site. Mostly I’m at the Treehouse… which I never could have predicted a year ago (seeing I’m an old-fashioned liberal ;) ).
analyst1961 said:
Didn’t mean for my reply to seem as I was picking on you, Jethro! Nothing further – you’ve been very reasonable…
jello333 said:
;)
analyst1961 said:
What is the obligation of any citizen when they may be witnessing a criminal act? What should they do when they see a suspicious person in their neighborhood? Is calling the police and keeping that suspicious person in sight while trying to direct the police to them an immoral act, or does immorality lie in doing nothing for oneself and for the community?
Isn’t calling the police good enough? Serious question. If TM were witnessed raping someone, in my humble opinion, calling the police would not be enough. Seeing someone merely acting suspiciously doesn’t rise to the same level, does it?
As I’ve said before, thank you for your thoughtful blog, sir.
ackbarsays said:
I’ll throw that back at you. Suppose that in Boston, someone had noticed that there were two men walking in the direction of the marathon finish line with unusually large backpacks, and these men just gave the person a bad vibe because they did not appear to be paying attention to the race. Because of his suspicions, he began to follow the men, while he dialed the police on his cell phone to report them.
A few minutes later, he observed one of the men setting his backpack on the ground, and then reaching into it and making some adjustments to some wires that were attached to something inside.
Now, up to this point, the man had nothing but suspicions about these men. By your logic, he should merely have called the police and described the men and the direction they were traveling. By George Zimmerman’s logic, the man would have been in the right place and at the right time to see one of the men preparing a bomb for detonation, and he could have alerted the authorities and perhaps prevented mass carnage.
Was the man justified in following the suspicious men?
(I’m certainly not trying to imply that Trayvon Martin was a terrorist, just using an easy example that shows the flaw in your argument)
analyst1961 said:
In your example, what you describe (reaching into a backpack and adjusting some wires) is a heck of a lot more than what GZ saw on Feb. 26th – a heck of a lot more. Please, let’s compare apples-to-apples…
ackbarsays said:
No, no, you’re wrong. I described a scenario where the man saw the wires BECAUSE he followed the two men that he was suspicious of.
analyst1961 said:
Sorry, you’re right about the wires. Mea culpa.
But even seeing the unusually large backpacks is, nonetheless, more of a specific threat than GZ saw that evening, do you agree? I’m not quibbling…
You’ve been very courteous and rational in your debates and that’s much appreciated. And I am headed to the bed, and I’ll check in tomorrow evening for any further debate. Thanks again.
nivico said:
Ackbar… somebody over at nettle’s farm aptly stated that ‘the law does not like heroes’…
Case in point, Richard Jewell did pretty much what you describe here during the Atlanta Olympics; saw a suspicious backpack, alerted the police, and what did he get in return for doing his moral and civic duty… the media crucified the man and claimed he was the bomber.
The horrible things that were said about that poor man are eerily similar to the same things being said about GZ… a failed cop-wannabe who could only get works as a security guard.
By the time the real bomber, Eric Rudolph, was identified… Jewell had already been thoroughly flogged and humiliated by the public and the press.
I see the same thing happening to GZ… he did his moral and civic duty and now he’s being punished for it.
People actually blame him for not looking the other way and minding his own business…
nivico said:
It is officially now a crime to care… shoulda just stayed in his car and gone on to Target.
jello333 said:
This is to Analyst, but I don’t have a “Reply” button under your comment. This is the one I’m replying to:
“In your example, what you describe (reaching into a backpack and adjusting some wires) is a heck of a lot more than what GZ saw on Feb. 26th – a heck of a lot more. Please, let’s compare apples-to-apples…”
I’ve always had a theory about why George was concerned enough to be clearly frustrated (his “they always get away” comment), and so intent on trying to see which way Trayvon went. Because, as you say, at the beginning of the NEN call, it was borderline. Trayvon was acting pretty weird, and MAYBE looking at/into houses, but other than that, hard to say. I think what convinced George that this guy really WAS a potential mugger/burglar/whatever is what happened next. That being what I believe was the circling of his car, and the attempts at intimidating George. You can hear in George’s voice at that point that he is now more certain that Trayvon IS “up to no good”… and actually Sean’s voice sounds a little more concerned too. So anyway, no, I don’t think AT FIRST George was certain this was a really bad dude… it was more of a better safe than sorry thing. It was only later that he became far more suspicious of Trayvon.
Joel C said:
Hi Analyst,
I want to respond to this: “But even seeing the unusually large backpacks is, nonetheless, more of a specific threat than GZ saw that evening, do you agree? I’m not quibbling…”
I believe you aren’t intending to quibble, just trying to sort it all out, yeah? That’s cool. But no, I do not agree.
Intrinsically, a large back back is not threatening at all. In an alternate timeline, perhaps, Ackbar’s scenario might as easily have revealed that the person was collecting refundable cans and bottles, or something equally innocuous. One doesn’t know or find out without first observing. Is that person suspicious though? Sure, until you find out whether suspicion is justified or not.
With Ackbar’s back back scenario, the time, place and circumstances give one cause to wonder.
It is the same in Zimmerman’s neighborhood. Time, place, and circumstances, all of which have been hashed to a pulp online.
You may argue that the perceived threat in the bag, a possible bomb, is deadlier than the threat George Zimmerman appeared to expect, a probable thief, and this would be an inherently correct statement. Of course, in the end, Zimmerman encountered a much more personal and deadly threat than he expected, didn’t he?
analyst1961 said:
Joel C: You may argue that the perceived threat in the bag, a possible bomb, is deadlier than the threat George Zimmerman appeared to expect, a probable thief, and this would be an inherently correct statement.
Thanks for agreeing, Joel. After the personal attacks I enjoyed last night, many derived from thin-air and nothing else, it’s refreshing to see someone say that they concur with at least something I’ve said.
Ackbar: I stand by my assessment that seeing someone with the unusually large backpacks is more than GZ saw. GZ saw someone acting suspiciously – nothing more, nothing less – no acts upon person nor property, or even carrying a large backpack.
Joel C said:
Yeah, and no. Again, a backback is just a backback, and suspicion is just suspicion. In viewing the back pack as a “greater threat” I think we may be relying too heavily on our knowledge of the outcome, as much in this theoretical scenario as in it’s past real world equivalents, especially the most recent one. Be careful of that.
The justification to observe and investigate (in this case, simply to follow) is no greater or lesser in either event, because at the point of “suspicion” we cannot yet know the outcome.
Now if you saw somebody carrying a knife in his hand and moving both quickly and stealthily toward an unsuspecting third party, THAT would raise the kind of alarms you seem to be implying when we talk about threat levels perceived from thin air. A back back does not rise to that level.
That said, and where I certainly do agree with you, a bomber is (usually) more threatening than a thief. It goes no further than that. I certainly do not support:
“Ackbar: I stand by my assessment that seeing someone with the unusually large backpacks is more than GZ saw. GZ saw someone acting suspiciously – nothing more, nothing less – no acts upon person nor property, or even carrying a large backpack.”
And Ackbar’s hypothetical good citizen saw someone with a backpack, acting vaguely suspiciously – nothing more, nothing less – no acts upon person nor property, until he did.
Joel said:
Here is a thought and a question. The people who lived in that gated community. The ones who called 911 to report a fight. Why didn’t they come out to stop it? I mean a bucket of cold water thrown on the two might have stopped it. Also tackling Martin might have stopped it. Why were they so passive?
I mean, if there was a fight going on in front of me, I would do my level best to stop it. I would call 911, but I would leave the comfort of my home and I have left it before to stop a fight.
RuleofOrder said:
Dude! I am glad some one else brought that up, given my current apparent rep here, I didn’t wanna ask that about the guy that told Martin he was calling 911! Get a hose, push him off, etc.
libby said:
Ironically, the cops came close to arresting folks who hadn’t come out to help George, but stopped short of that cuz to do so would admit that citizens both have a right AND a responsibility to support the actions of the cops.
.
in feralpeopleville, it is illegal to stop a burglar in progress or to ‘snitch’ on them (‘ruleoforder’ went out of his way to move to feralpeopleville). in feralpeopleville, you aren’t supposed to alert the police to illegal actions taken by suspicious strangers and you definitely don’t have any right to protect your neighbors or their belongings.
Joel C said:
Yeah, Joel, that’s always bugged me too. Welcome to America late 20th, and 21st century. Even in a crowd, you’re on your own. Unless you aren’t.
Only thing we can be sure of is to never expect any help, no matter how many people are around. If you get some, it’s a bonus. Actually, there are psychological reasons why people are less likely to intervene in a large group, or neighborhood. I don’t want to go into it here, but you can probably find some stuff on that yourself. It’s interesting reading.
Roo, how pleasant and novel to find something we agree on. Have a great day!
RuleofOrder said:
Joel C, same to you.
I think were you and I to have some beer ‘n wings, we might see eye to eye on a lot of stuff. Not agree 100%, of course. Just in general take away a different view than some words on a screen.
Ta for now. :)
coreshift said:
Excellent post. Following.
Terry in GA said:
With an economic climate such as that we are in and the magnitude of financial limitations to all of the people, those who have a propensity for illegal or immoral acts will increase their wrongdoing. It seems George’s community had been swarming with burglaries and attempts, so rather than ignore the warning signs, George was proactive by keeping a watchful eye and reporting suspicions to the police (with which he had been building a working relationship).
George just happens to be one of those responsible citizens who have taken steps to become permitted to carry a weapon, purchased and trained to proper use of that weapon, and carried with him at all times. He is not alone. I am a 53 yr “old white woman” who conceal carries every time I leave my home. I bought my first two handguns at age 18, and now I have a carry gun and a home defense gun (my BO special). In all those years, I have never even removed the weapon from it’s holster and never needed to other than for practice and cleaning. But this I assure you — if should ever find myself in the same position George faced, I will do exactly as George did. I negotiate with my voice. If those negotiations fail, Plan B is the gun.
Aussie said:
Reblogged this on A world at war and commented:
Mike has answered a major question about the morality of the actions of George Zimmerman on the night that Trayvon bashed his head in.
RuleofOrder said:
:from vehicle:
“Hey man, the rain is gonna get heavier, might wanna get inside. Do you live around here?”
Simpler still
“Do you live around here?”
“Are you okay, you look sort of out of it.”
“Hey I’m part of the NW, and I haven’t seen you before, do you live around here?”
“Looks like you are lost, do you need help finding an address?”
When in front of Martin:
“Just part of the NW, I didn’t know if you live here or not”
“Oh, so you are a resident? I haven’t seen you here before.”
“Are you lost?”
You will notice all these statements turn the tables, inquire about Martin, and are not pointed regarding whatever suspicious acts Martin may be involved in. While not perfect in their creation, they all work better than lying in response to the question of “You gotta problem”, especially if delivered from the ton and a half+ piece of machinery that George used.
“Let me know if he does anything else”. This is open to interpretation, obviously, but I am not sure how “Follow him” was taken away from it. George was telling the NEO what he saw, followed up by Trayvon running. Considering what George had described thus far, I would assume” anything else” to be something criminal, since he currently is just describing a person walking down the street, albeit possibly impaired.
The one thing I do have a bit of issue with, though, is “Never seeing Zimmerman again”. What a hoot it would have been should George not have left the car (as I have asserted, that struck me as a poor choice), the cops show, Trayvon is not found, then two days later, Zimmerman sees the same hoodie with the same pin on it walking down the street.
Joel said:
Martin didn’t stop moving long enough for a conversation to occur.
RuleofOrder said:
But he was just pausing long enough to case houses. I was under the impression that Martin approached and/or circled his vehicle. He couldn’t have been interupted during those times?
jello333 said:
“Considering what George had described thus far, I would assume ‘anything else’ to be something criminal, since he currently is just describing a person walking down the street, albeit possibly impaired.”
No, by the point Sean said “Let me know if this guy does anything else”, Trayvon was doing a lot more than just “walking down the street”. By that point, Trayvon was (by the sounds of George’s voice and what he said later in statements) walking around the truck, in a clear attempt to threaten, or at least intimidate, him.
jello333 said:
And by the way, while Trayvon was near the truck, and IMO trying to intimidate George, ain’t no way would or should George have “introduced” himself to Trayvon. I suspect had he done that, it would have been THERE that Trayvon went postal on him.
RuleofOrder said:
“walking around the truck, in a clear attempt to threaten, or at least intimidate, him.” — IIRC, George was parked at the top of the T. Quite literally, on his way back to BG’s house, he in some fashion would have had to go by the vehicle. In any case, George didnt metion circling, threaten, or intimidating. His exact words were “checking me out”. Fitting, since George was doing the same in kind.
“Trayvon was near the truck, and IMO trying to intimidate George”– this doesn’t paint stayin in the truck as a bad idea, Jello.
libby said:
NO_LIMIT_GANGSTA (kicked out of his house cuz he threatened to kill his own mommy-and yeah, that is relevant, arright), enjoyed videotaping beat downs of homeless guys, has kiddie porn on his fone and he might be a rapist (or merely a sexual harasser and kidnapper)…..
Joel C said:
Huh, twice in one day. To the extent, that is, that I agree with you that those are all reasonable and intelligent things to say, if there is sufficient opportunity to do so.
Hindsight is always 20/20, and armchair quarterbacks usually play really good games.
RuleofOrder said:
“Hindsight is always 20/20, and armchair quarterbacks usually play really good games.”
Touche.
AghastInFL said:
” since he currently is just describing a person walking down the street, albeit possibly impaired.”- Always conveniently ignored by the apologist is the fact TM trespassed onto the private property of others in entering the neighborhood, compounding that reason for suspicion was the act of “looking at/into the houses” in the rain. George had ample cause to suspect the individual did not belong in the neighborhood and was likely to commit further nefarious acts without observation. Conversely ignored by apologist is the fact the individual driving in a vehicle in the gated, private community obviously belonged there; IMO Trayvon knew from the moment they locked gazes that George represented a watch group and the entire incident was bourne from resentment of such authority.
RuleofOrder said:
Another OS transplant. And no, its not forgotten. It was dismissed by a resident as a common occurrence (using the cut through).
AghastInFL said:
Common occurrence or not the area is posted “No Trespassing” an unfamiliar individual entering the community is automatically suspect, compounded by “looking at/into the houses”.
ItsMichaelNotMike said:
This all makes for great discussion, but for trial it is irrelevant. By now MOM West are working on an opening statement. (IMO cases can be won with an effective, passionate, well-delivered opening statement.) I assume MOM will do the opening statement, West the closing argument.
Anyway, I have written an opening statement for Zimmerman, it really helps to put the case together. You might want to do that yourself, it is kind of fun if you are into this kind of thing, trials.
Bonus Tip: Skilled trial counsel also write the opposing party’s opening statement, to have a complete understanding of the opposition’s trial strategy.
In fact, after Judge Nelson’s rulings on May 28 I reflected on how Bernie’s opening statement might be composed, since the Judge said NO! to the bullsheet he was going to try an pull, and to the chagrin Bernie, Crump, Parks, and Jackson, the Judge did NOT rule inadmissible the little cherub’s curriculum vitæ (aka dirty secrets).
Note: anyone who doubts how devastated Crump, Parks, et al. were after the hearing, compare their demeanor at their presser on May 28 with the attitude displayed over the past 14 months. These people look like someone just took a weed whacker to their private parts. I guess in a way the Judge did. I envisioned them sitting there in stunned, shamed silence as MOM described Trayvon Martin’s achievements, that he Trayvon fondly memorialized on his cell phone. (Guess it was pretty difficult for the State to say “OBJECTION! to material it turned over to defense.)
Well I’m just chit chatting. Here, check out Crump, et al.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjHmBuDIoQc
jello333 said:
And if you listen closely, after they walk away, you can hear a couple reporters still trying to ask them questions. And at least one of those questions is about the video of Trayvon’s buddies beating a homeless man. I think that’s important that a reporter actually did that.
nivico said:
The reporter asks: “Did Trayvon tape two people beating up a homeless man?
Parks replies: “We don’t think that’s relevant, blah, blah, blah…”
Reporter: “Did he do it?”
NatJack: “yadda yadda We have the same information you have. Do you know? yadda”
….
What I want to know is why were Crump et al so confident that this information would never see the light of day, and does it have anything to do with what the SAO’s IT guy is coming forward with?
The fact that they’ve only just ~now~ advised their clients to stop talking after 15 months of speaking out every chance they could, Crump either didn’t know about this or had very good reason to believe it would never become an issue.
analyst1961 said:
nivico: Hadn’t seen that exchange with the media, Parks and NatJack. I guess I’d be asking the SAO about that crime video, as well. Oh, and I’m sure that will be the headline news across this country any moment now, right? Horrible stuff beating up (two-on-one, no less) on a homeless person.
Of course, sadly, I’m being facetious – doesn’t fit the narrative. I’m sure, like the photos of the gun, pot plants, underage girls; it’s just all a little teenage fun! Everybody does it! Not a big deal! (dripping with sarcasm like a ‘little bit water’)
jello333 said:
My wife hasn’t followed the twists and turns of this case as closely as I have. And even though she’s 100% in George’s corner, she still would occasionally say she felt bad for Trayvon, even if he started the “fight”. But as soon as I told her about the purported video of Trayvon participating in the beating of a homeless guy, all that changed. Yeah, and I think the same can be said for most decent people around this country. Any sympathy one might have had for Trayvon probably will go right out the window as soon as proof is presented. Beating up a homeless person? A HOMELESS person?! For fun… and filming it?! Seriously? You really really can’t go much lower than that.
analyst1961 said:
I have no sympathy for TM. At all…
ItsMichaelNotMike said:
I have labored all day to write an opening statement for Bernie, in line with what I said in my comment above. So here you are Bernie, no charge.
Ladies and gentleman of the jury, I want to first thank you for agreeing to sit for this case. I know your time is valuable. So I promise you I will not waste it.
This case is a tragedy for all involved and I want you to know we regret just as much as anyone that we have to meet here under these circumstances.
(Counsel leans toward the jury and whispers) Hey, between you and I we would have liked that fat boy taken out back and dispatched in short order, but what ya gonna do, there’s cameras everywhere.
West: Objection Your Honor.
Bernie: What, what, is it something I said? Excuse me. (Counsel observed winking to juror # 4).
So this all started on February 26, 2012. The evidence will show it twas brillig that night, and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe at the Retreat at Twin Lakes.
It was dark that night, but all mimsy were the borogoves, the mome raths outgrabe and tucked in for the night.
The events that night involve a now-angel named Trayvon Martin. You may have seen him flapping his angel wings across your computer monitor or on TV.
Now lets get one thing out of the way. Counsel O’Mara over there, who when in a drunken stupor told me he is Atticus Finch reincarnate, will refer to Trayvon as ‘the suspect,’ but you don’t pay him any mind because I rented To Kill A Mockingbird, Mark O’Mara ain’t no Atticus Finch. He doesn’t look like Gregory Peck either, even with those fake prescription glasses. That’s right ladies and gentlemen, those glasses he’s wearing are fake. He bought them on eBay for $20. I saw him bidding on them, then he used Buy-It-Now because the Court asked for his response to one of my brilliant arguments.
I digress Your Honor, I apologize. Hey O’Mara, can you see me now? (Counsel ducks under counsel table.)
Anyway, back to the suspect, I mean Trayvon Angel First Class Martin. The evidence will show that Trayvon called his dad to ask for permission to go to 7-Eleven for a beverage.
The evidence will show that Tracy Martin left a voice mail that said ‘sure you can go to the store, but beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! And also beware the Jubjub bird, and especially shun the frumious Bandersnatch! that is known to hang at 7-Eleven parking lots’
Trayvon wasn’t afraid because he was a fighter. The evidence will show he took his vorpal sword in hand: and on the way to 7-Eleven long time the manxome foe he sought.
On the way back from 7-Eleven Trayvon realized he was tired from the days festivities, so rested he by the Tumtum tree, all the while talking with his friend Dee Dee.
The evidence will show that once inside the complex, Trayvon paused and stood awhile in thought.
As Trayvon stood and pondered which university he would attend — Harvard, Yale, Stanford, they all sent him solicitation letters — unbeknownst to him in uffish thought he stood, the Jabberwock, with eyes of flame (aka that fat guy over there, named George).
George came whiffling through the tulgey wood, and burbled on his cell phone as he came!
But Trayvon Martin had no fear. Remember, he was a fighter. His cell phone data will prove that.
(Counsel O’Mara: Your Honor the State has opened the door to that evidence coming in.)
(The Court: Indeed, indeed.)
Your Honor I move to strike what I just said. In the alternative I move for a mistrial.
(Court: Denied. Continue).
One, two! One, two! and through and through Trayvon Martin’s vorpal blade went snicker-snack! Actually ladies and gentlemen it was his fists, but a little dramatic flourish to keep things interesting, eh.
Alas, long story short, for Trayvon it was not a frabjous day, and here we are today. There was no Callooh! Callay! no chortling in his joy.
If you have any questions, I’ll be sitting right over there. Thank you.
jello333 said:
I knew it! All this time, we thought it was the cockatoo, only to now discover it was the Jabberwock! Makes perfect sense, now that I think about it.
Dangermauz said:
Hahaha, well done Michael!!!
jordan2 said:
Now that is funny.
When I was in high school I “inadvertently” memorized the entire Prologue to the Canterbury Tales in Middle English. Later I had occasion to recite it at Chaucer’s famous burial place in Poet’s Corner in St. Paul’s Cathedral when a snobbish, very rude. English tour guide mockingly asked a group of Americans had they ever even read it in Middle or Old English. On queue, I I began my dissertation and the clearly shaken guide hustled his little brood out. You would have had to been there to appreciate what happened.
The fact is that prior to that, I had never done such a thing and do not recall ever memorizing it which is why I said “inadvertently” so maybe I did it in subconsciously just to later put a British a.. hole in his place. I love most Brits but some of them are as bad as the leftist French who reside on the “other side” of the Seine.
How about MOM”s opening statement?
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear ItsMichaelNotMike:
Nice!
jello333 said:
This is excellent. Several points that can’t really be disputed… at least not honestly.
Hey, here’s something you might be interested in, at least those of you who weren’t yet following this case a year ago. Back then, I had just started reading at the Treehouse, and posted a comment that they made into a separate post (sharing one with Alan Dershowitz, no less! ;) ) The whole “shouldn’t have gotten out of his truck” meme had just begun, and I was worried it would become a big deal. (UNDERSTATEMENT, eh?) So this was my take on it. It’s kinda fun to look back at something written a full year ago and realize how OUR facts (as opposed to those of the Trayvonites) haven’t changed a bit:
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/05/18/megyn-kelly-interviews-alan-dershowitz-bernie-goldberg-is-there-such-a-thing-as-a-but-if-clause-video/
cassandra said:
yeah, great insights in that thread last year. I was using my real name at the time.
Diwataman made an observation about the distinction between following and positioning to locate TM
“Thanks and thanks. That is upsetting to hear. Without his statement the timeline will remain a mystery as to when and where he first spotted Trayvon, where he was parked, all kinds of stuff. What I really want to know is did he actually loose sight of Trayvon before he got out of his truck? It seems to me he did given the fact that from the time he states Trayvon is running to the time the door shuts eight seconds have past in which Trayvon, depending on where he started running from, could have easily made it out of sight of George, down the NS sidewalk between the townhouses, before he got out. If that is the case when did George ever even follow Trayvon?”
is minpin pinecone?
cassandra said:
answer to my own ?
yes pinecone is the same insightful aware poster known as minpin at CTH.
Vermont View said:
Please do not state as fact that Trayvon Martin “doubled back”. The prosecution can not prove the frightened hooded person who ran and disappeared (wearing stone washed blue jeans) was the same person (wearing tan pants) who came back and viciously attacked George Zimmerman. Also please note that the Prosecution has not shared Trayvon Martin’s phone GPS and cell tower information OR have they offered any security camera footage documenting where he was after he was videotaped leaving the 7/11.
All we do know is that: someone told Tracy Martin that his son came in the back gate, was on Brandy’s porch and had 22 dollars in his (not at the crime scene) wallet. So. let’s wait and see why the Defense has released Trayvon’s cell phone pictures of his look-alike cousin … who could have been the only one at the scene that Trayvon’s father called.
styrgwillidar said:
Mike, have followed with interest all of your postings on the case. I agree the scenario you describe is the most likely but… it is not a certainty. You state about Trayvon- “He decided to assault him.” I only see evidence that Trayvon initiated the confrontation and conversation by asking George why he was following him, not who threw the first blow/push/physical contact.
We really only have George’s word as to who started the physical conflict. No evidence contradicts anything George has said, but in trying to be totally objective I don’t see where there is evidence as to who actually shifted this to an assault.
Getting the upper hand in a fight and using it to your advantage when you believe your life is in danger is prudent and what I would expect my own kid to do. Having the advantage in a fight is transitory and can easily be lost with disastrous consequences. Yes, you lose the right to self-defense when your opponent is no longer a threat- but when have you reached that point? How do you know your opponent doesn’t have a weapon they can pull if you stop/ease up?
If Trayvon had killed Zimmeran with the bashes to his head, I think the roles would be reversed and it would be Trayvon arguing self-defens with no evidence to contradict it.
Chip Bennett said:
I’ll go with preponderance of the evidence.
There is ample evidence that Martin was a physical aggressor against Zimmerman.
There is zero evidence that Zimmerman was a physical aggressor against Martin.
In order for Zimmerman to be the initial physical aggressor, he had to have been a physical aggressor. If he was not a physical aggressor, then logically, he could not have been the initial physical aggressor.
The preponderance of evidence, including disparity of signs of physical aggression, and eye-witness accounts, indicate that this physical altercation was not one of mutual aggression, but rather one of one-sided aggression. In other words: this was not a fight with two willing participants, but rather an assault with an assailant and a victim.
styrgwillidar said:
Eyewitness accounts are of events after the key initial moments. Nobody saw who pushed who, who may have taken a swing at the other. While I agree with you that it is most likely that Trayvon did, based on personality, prior events, and the fact that there has been no evedince contradicting Zimmerman’s consistent story etc. It is an unknown.
It’s not a crime to be good at fighting. It’s not a crime to get the upper-hand, you don’t have to let yourself get hit first, or suffer serious injury. One blow can kill (Mike referred to the soccer ref in an earlier post). It is a crime to continue when there is no longer a threat.
George Zimmerman should be free and no charges should have been filed because of the distinct lack of evidence on that point alone. There is no evidence to contradict his claim of self-defense.
I do assert that the situation would be the same if Trayvon had prevailed and told a consistent story. There would be no evidence contradicting his claim to self-defense as well. (Unless there was a witness(es) who could assert credibly that George had clearly given up and was no longer a threat.
jordan2222 said:
You said: It is a crime to continue when there is no longer a threat.
When did you EVER hear the state or any of the other side acknowledge that Martin had a duty retreat once his opponent had been subdued?
Excellent point that I have not heard discussed before so thanks for that.
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear styrgwillidar:
Interesting points. Understand, please, that I write from the perspective of an experienced investigator. I know that in most cases, there will be matters that cannot be proved or known beyond any doubt whatsoever. Actions won’t be filmed by conveniently placed security cameras; eyewitnesses won’t be around; memories will be faulty, and as in this case, one person will be dead. In such cases, we must rely upon our experience and knowledge of human nature, as well as the known evidence. If we had to have perfection, such as a busload of nuns who happened to see Martin break Zimmerman’s nose with the first punch, no one would ever be convicted of a crime.
At some point in an investigation–and that point was reached long ago by the Sanford police and the local prosecutor, Norm Wolfinger, the police and prosecutors have to come to an understanding about the truth of the matter, and in that understanding, proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard. In this case, the assault began the moment Martin broke Zimmerman’s nose with a single punch. Do we know beyond a reasonable doubt that occurred? Yes we do. All of the evidence, including Zimmerman’s statements, supports that conclusion. That there is no directly opposing body of evidence does not invalidate the body of evidence supporting Zimmerman’s account.
When I played cops and robbers, I loved to have absolute certainty, and upon rare occasions, that was possible. For the most part, it was not.
Thank God we need not have absolute certainty to support our innocence or to convict criminals. In this case, the Sanford Police and the local prosecutor were right. The rest is racial politics and pandering.
styrgwillidar said:
Mike, I’ve enjoyed your posts on the incident, and unlike some others, you have been careful to separate fact from supposition, the known from the likely.
I’m well aware that we can not have certainty and don’t expect it. But that’s really the point with the weakness in the prosecution’s case– they have nothing to contradict Zimmerman’s story. Which is why the local police and DA declined to press charges. Nothing to indicate that Zimmerman was not in fear for his life when having his head bashed in by Martin. Regardless of how he arrived in that position, or who struck the first blow. Which is why I think it’s interesting to consider what would have happened if Trayvon had killed Zimmerman vice the other way around.
Joel C said:
Hi Styrgwillidar,
You wrote, “…I think it’s interesting to consider what would have happened if Trayvon had killed Zimmerman vice the other way around.”
Hell with it, I’ll play, briefly. Of course, doing so requires a good deal of speculation, so I’m not sure there will be much to talk about afterwords, but here’s my take.
In an alternate timeline: the situation ends with George Zimmerman dead and, I’ll stipulate, with his pistol is still in it’s holster. Trayvon has just beaten him to death, and George never accessed his weapon.
I think Trayvon’s going to have a harder time claiming self defense than you think. I’m not convinced that the presence of a pistol in a concealed holster is going to boost a claim of self defense very much. I’ve been in close quarters pistol combat training, and when we practiced “jamming a draw” in real time, again and again I saw it devolve into a wrestling match for the rubber gun. This seems to frequently replicate in real life situations as well, but Martin and George did not wrestle for a gun. Trayvon gave George a beatdown. Again, in real life, when people try do defend from a gun with only their fists, they very often get shot. To do it successfully you have to incapacitate your opponent very quickly, almost instantly. Neither in real life nor in this speculation did he accomplish that.
The lack of injuries on Trayvon is not going to help his case. The physical evidence, showing that he had the upper hand, probably throughout the fight, (grass stains, and again, injuries) is not going to help him. Eyewitness accounts are not probably gong to be favorable to Martin, since George looked very much like a victim until he got a shot off, and in our scenario he never did that.
If anything, death by beating might have taken significantly longer, though it need not necessarily have, and there might very likely be more eyewitness accounts, probably unfavorable to Martin, than fewer.
George will have been the one who called the police first, and he’ll be the one who wound up dead.
Even if we change the scenario and say that George did draw his weapon, but never got a shot off or missed, it still doesn’t look peachy for Trayvon. George is the dead guy with a bunch of injuries which had to have been rendered either before he drew the gun (calling Travon’s claim of self defense into question) or after he was disarmed. Cut and dried? No. But not so hot for Trayvon.
No, I think Martin would have a slightly harder case to prove, even with a preponderance of evidence, the problem being the preponderance seems to ponder against him. The good news for him? Nowhere near the same political sledgehammer would have dropped on his head, not that that would necessarily save him from court or a conviction. He might get a “free Martin” movement out of it, though. Then again, he might get away with it, but I don’t think it’d necessarily be easy.
sunnydaze77 said:
we may not have actual evidence of who started the assault besides Georges testimony, but we do know who was seen assaulting and when prompted to stop did not…..Tray continued his beatdown on George, the scared chile could have ran to witness #6 to safety,,,,, but imo he was in a rage and didnt care. Putting the evidence we do have together with law this case is common sense……but you know the famous quote, Common sense is not so common–Voltaire(sp)?
styrgwillidar said:
See, that’s my point. We don’t know who started the assault. The prosection doesn’t know who started the assualt. The defense, has Zimmerman’s story and no one has anything to contradict it.
The rest is irrelevant because it’s a claim to self defense and even the prosecution’s investigator admitted they have no evidence to contradict that claim. And there is evidence supporting Zimmerman’s account of how the fight went, him on the ground being dominated and having his head pounded. But, that still isn’t proof of how it started.
The personalities, motives, prior conduct of the two provide no evidence to contradict Zimmerman’s claim to self-defense.
The case should never have been filed. And it would be the same if Trayvon had won and told a consistent story. I
cazinger said:
I completely agree. In trying to be objective, as well as trying to reconcile some of the discrepencies in George Zimmerman’s account of what happened (mainly the difference between where he told the police the confrontation took place and where Trayvon’s body was found), I think a likely scenario is that after Z got off the phone with the NEN, he spotted T down that path a little ways. He walked/jogged down there, perhaps even confronted T by asking T what he was doing (this would explain Witness #8’s account of what she heard on the phone). T, being scared, immature, and unsure of who this person was, lashed out physically and the altercation proceeded from there (with TM getting the early upper hand). Even in this scenario, though (which fits virtually all of the evidence, except for GZ’s account – which, if you are going to side with the prosecution, you are going to give zero weight or credibility to the accused’s version) I still don’t see how that translates into a guilty verdict for any kind of culpable homicide.
SlingTrebuchet said:
To anyone wavering – and particularly people like analyst1961, who might be waving (dollars) as well as wavering – the blindingly obvious course is to look for themselves at the primary sources.
Mike’s post here is not objective. It is a case for the defence. It is, accordingly, partisan.
More specifically, it contains errors of fact and also fails to join some dots.
Facts are thin on the ground in this case.
It is clear to me that very many people of both sides of the argument have made up their minds along prejudicial/tribal lines – without analysing the primary sources.
My own first port of call was the recording of the NEN. This is absolute. It is a contemporary narrative in Zimmerman’s voice, and it is timed to the second. It is important to listen to the recording, and not just read a transcript.
Next look at the Walk Through and various stories given by Zimmerman after the event.
Then look at the map. Work out times and distance. What stories work? What can’t possibly work?
In my opinions, Zimmerman is seriously damaged by three major factors.
1. The recording of his NEN call
2. The timings of that call and the timing of the first 911
3. His interview on the Hannity show
Looking at Mike’s post above:
Wrong. This never happened. Listen to the NEN.
The closest we get is the part where Zimmerman is describing Martin approaching.
That’s it!
Zimmerman tells the dispatcher that Martin is approaching him – hand in waistband – something in his hand.
“Just let me know if he does anything, ok?” The context is clear. Let my know if he does something like pulling a weapon, trying to get into or damage the car, etc.
Listen to what happens after Martin disappears down the central path and Zimmerman gets out of the car.
Why would the dispatcher not be interested in having ‘the suspect’ trailed?
1. Because Zimmerman had just told him where Martin was headed.
The dispatcher has a map. He can direct a patrol to the back entrance.
2. Because following-in-the-dark of suspicious guys who might be on drugs or something and have their hands in the waistbands and/or something in their hands is not at all advisable. Neighborhood Watch advises against risking contact. The guide is to call the cops and let them deal with any situation.
.
Back to Mike’s post
Listen to the NEN.
Zimmerman describes Martin appearing, and then “Now he’s just staring at me.”
Zimmerman then describes Martin approaching him.
The dispatcher says “Just let me know if he does anything, ok”
Listen to the NEN. Just after the dispatcher says that, it is clear that Martin is at his closest. Note the tone of Zimmerman’s voice. If circling (with confrontational body language) happened then, it would have been appropriate for Zimmerman to say something like “HE’S CIRCLING MY FREAKING TRUCK!!” – particularly as he had just be asked to report on anything that Martin did.
Zimmerman doesn’t even report “staring” at that stage, and certainly not “stared at him threateningly”
Listen to the NEN. Can you believe that any circling and confrontational body language heppened there?
It is clear from the time of Martin passing the truck to the “He’s running” that Martin is walking, and that the time is appropriate for a walk from the truck (or where people assume the truck was) to the T-junction.
And incidentally, by the time of the Hannity interview, Martin isn’t running when he disappears down the central path. He’s maybe a bit faster than a normal walk – sort of skipping. – and – “not in fear”. Even Hannity is moved to ask “You could tell that?”
.
More Mike:
Where does this “less than a minute” come from? It’s fantasy.
But…let’s run with it.
It is an objective fact that 2.5 minutes elapsed between the NEN call ending and the first 911 call connecting. Timing were logged automatically.
If Martin confronted Zimmerman less than a minute after the call ended, then we can be assured that the fight had been in progress for more than 1.5 minutes before the 911 call connected.
That’s more than 1.5 minutes of ‘straddling, punching and pounding’.
How long between noises of a struggle being noticed and a call connecting?
30 seconds? – That would mean one whole minute of silent fighting.
It gets worse! Add 42 seconds between the 911 call starting and the sound of the shot.
That’s a minimum of two whole minutes of ‘straddling, punching and pounding’.
Zimmerman has been violently assaulted for 2 minutes continuously. What the hell was Martin doing? Taking breaks?
A reasonable person would deduce that about 2 minutes elapsed between the call ending and the fight breaking out.
Zimmerman would have been at the “attack point” 20 seconds after the call ended.
What did he do after the call? Why did he suddenly decide to be ‘somewhere’ so tha the patrol would have to ring him? If going to RVC for a house number was the only way that he could supply a location, why did he ever leave there?
.
Whatever about the advisability of Zimmerman following ( aka “going in the same direction to get an address” ), that gap of 2.5 minutes after the call ended is a big problem for Zimmerman.
This is particularly so as the call ended with Zimmerman very suddenly changing from an agreement to meet back at the mailboxes to one of the incoming patrol ringing him to find out where he was at.
Any reasonable jury will wonder:
1. What he was doing during the gap. He says that he ended the call on Retreat View circle and head back to his truck. The walk to where he says he was attacked would have taken him 20 seconds.
2. If he did actually go to Retreat View Circle to get an address (this being the only way in which he could direct the patrol to him) – why did he leave? If he leaves RVC, he has no way of directing the patrol to him. That why he says he went there – and that it just happened to be “in the same direction” in which Martin had disappeared.
If you don’t think that the defence see that 2.5 minute gap as a major problem, look at Zimmerman on the Hannity show.
His account is outrageous when stacked up against the timing of the calls.
He tried to give to impression that he was attacked “less than 30 seconds” after “We don’t need you to do that.”. At best interpretation, he tries to give the impression that he was attacked “less than 30 seconds” after the NEN call ended.
The proposition that the jury walk the ground was interesting. As I understand it, they would simply look at the ground, and neither prosecution or defence would be allowed to address them while on site.
That would be high-risk for the defence as soon as the prosecution illustrated what the timelines menat. What the hell was Zimmerman doing for 2.5 minutes after the call ended? 20 seconds would have taken him to where he says he was attacked. Under a minute would have him sitting in his truck.
.
More Mike
He had NOT been asked to keep Martin in sight.
He HAD been told that “we don’t need you to do that”.
He had already reported that Martin was headed to the back entrance – and at a run.
The reasonable thing to do would have been to drive down Twin Trees, left at the junction and stop near the back entrance – with a view of the entrance and also right up the central pathway between the rows of houses.
.
I came to this party with an open mind.
I analysed the original evidence for myself rather than simply accept anyone’s second-hand assertions of what happened.
Zimmerman’s accounts to conflict with themselves, the NEN, geography and the clock.
His story about going to RVC for an address and then leaving conflicts with sanity.
His story about simply returning to his truck conflicts with the time gap.
Zimmerman on the stand would be a disaster for the defence. It’s not going to happen. They can’t do an affirmative defence.
Overall, I see a clear case for Manslaughter. I don’t know what the prosecution has that would make M2 stand up.
.
What of Martin?
Which Martin?
Are we talking about the athlete who could have sprinted home in seconds?
Are we talking about the guy who might have appeared stoned in the 7-11 and might have smoked two blunts on his way home?
It’s make up your mind time folks. Reality isn’t a careful cherry-picked selection of independent points. It’s all the points – that have to be joined up in a consistent manner within an overall known timeline and upon a known patch of ground.
Some say the athlete sprinted back the house and hid the blunts there. For some reason, he doesn’t leave the heavy drinks can there. He sprints back to attack Zimmerman.
No wait!
If we believe Zimmerman’s account of walking to RVC for an address, he would only have been visible (if at all in the dark) for 20 seconds or so to anyone down the pathway. That’s the time it would have taken him to cross the open area and disappear.
How does Martin even know that Zimmerman got out of the truck?
Maybe on his run down the path, he looked over his shoulder and just happened to catch the only 20 seconds during which Zimmerman could have been visible to him?
If Martin was “impaired” (and for some, this means “Pot makes people violent”), what condition was he in?
Whatever his pace from the 7-11 to the NW corner of the Retreat, he would have to run from Taffee’s house to the Clubhouse in order for Zimmerman’s Walk Through account of events to work. He would have to stop running as before Zimmerman saw him again at the Clubhouse front. He would have to walk past the truck there (although Zimmerman, who was by then on the NEN call, does not mention this in the call. He does however mention it in the Walk Through.
Martin would have to break into a run as soon as he had walked out of Zimmerman’s sight and down Twin Trees. He would then have to resume a walk just as Zimmerman drove into Twin Trees to see Martin up at the Eastern. Zimmerman’s reversing, turning and driving is particularly smooth during all of this. There isn’t a sound in the recording.
So Martin is impaired and he’s been running. Maybe he’s tired? Maybe once he gets off the street and into the dark pathway area, he takes a break? He thinks he lost the guy in the truck who stopped to look at him near Taaffe’s place – was waiting for him at the Clubhouse front – and then drove into Twin Trees after him?
So he’s resting and on the phone.
Then the guy appears on foot.
Staying very still in the dark would be the sensible option.
We don’t know what happened until they were actually seen on the grass behind ‘John’s house.
We don’t know that Zimmerman went to RVC. We don’t know where Martin was.
We do know that at the end of the NEN, Zimmerman suddenly changed the plan. He was now going to be ‘somewhere’ and the patrol was to call him to find out where he was. Listening to his voice, it seems that he noticed something just then – and changed the plan.
We do know that Martin’s phone was active at that time.
My reading is that Zimmerman went looking.
I know that Mike loves me to bang on about picky detail. :)
To spare him further pain, have a look at http://zimmermanscall.blogspot.com
….. because I can go on and on………. Zimmerman’s accounts are way too easy to pick apart.
boricuafudd said:
To channel Joe Pesci in the My cousin Vinny;
” Everything that guy said is Bull excrement!”
Joel said:
You forgot to say, “Thank you.”
boricuafudd said:
I stand corrected. Thank You.
SlingTrebuchet said:
Boricuafudd,
While Mike does make some statements that are clearly at odds with the facts, it is perhaps a bit unkind to describe his postings as bull excrement.
On the other hand, if you were referring to Zimmerman’s stories, the same description would be kind.
This is why he can’t go on the stand.
I laughed out loud at part of the Fox followup on the Hannity Interview:
“But you what you got there was George Zimmerman on the stand …….. and that’s why the prosecutor ran to the courtroom to enter this into discovery into evidence.”
Yes indeed!
Because the Hannity interview is trivially proven as a pack of lies. Show that to a jury alongside the NEN and timelines – add forensics. He has a major credibility problem. Hannity was a big mistake.
boricuafudd said:
I ran this rodeo with you months ago, not going to do it again, you have your assumptions as is your right, you disagree with MIke, again your right, I have my right to give you my thoughts on the matter. So bless you child.
SlingTrebuchet said:
Nevermind assumptions or opinions.
What about the clear factual errors in Mike’s post?
How does the Hannity interview – given with a totally sincere face- “Yes Sir” – stack up against absolute known objective fact. Hint: It’s “bull excrement”.
Thank you for your blessing, Father. :)
boricuafudd said:
What you call factual errors are based on your impressions or your understanding of the facts, without your interpretations then they are not errors at all. As I said before, we did this before, bless you child, have a good day.
SlingTrebuchet said:
OK
What about:
“We know that the dispatcher asked Zimmerman to keep Martin in sight so that he could direct responding officers to him. “
and
“In order to keep Martin in sight, as he had been asked to do by the dispatcher, it was necessary for Zimmerman to follow Martin on foot”
That never happened.
Can you point to any evidence that it happened?
Zimmerman says it happened. Look at the video of the Walk Through. He says it a number of times. He even says that the dispatcher asked if he could get to a place where he could regain visual. Listen to the NEN. It never happened.
This is not an opinion or an impression. The NEN is just about your only chance to hear Zimmerman’s voice when he is not making stuff up. THe NEN is also timestamped.
What does “We don’t need you to do that” mean?
Does it mean “Keep him in sight”?
What about:
“Remember that Zimmerman was on the phone with the dispatcher until less than a minute before Martin confronted him. ”
That’s crazy.
It’s almost as crazy as Zimmerman on Hannity saying that he was attacked “less than thirty seconds” after “We don’t need you to do that.”
It sounds OK in a vacuum – when it doesn’t have to be evaluated against objectively recorded times.
It sounds like Zimmerman went in there during the call and then turned straight back after the call ended. This is in fact his story.
His story does not work against objective fact. The discrepancies are to great to be put down to bad memory.
In addition the RVC logic does not work.
I have seen people argue that he must have just stod there for over a minute waiting for the cops and then decided to head for his truck. Nope. That does not work – because at the very end of the call -when he was standing at RVC (he says) and therefore able to give an address at last – he suddenly changes to a plan of being ‘somewhere’ – rather than at a house number on RVC. The logic is that he didnt just stand there. He moved. Two and half minutes later, the first 911 connected.
That gap without explanation is hugely damaging to the defence.
The performance on Hannity, brazenly asserting that any gap was at most “less than 30 seconds” illustrates the proble it is for the defence.
boricuafudd said:
Sling,
As always you forget one very important thing, GZ is not the only player involved. The second thing you never consider is that GZ actions are irrelevant had TM gone home. Simple as that, GZ could have been dancing a jig for the whole time but if TM had decided to go home, that is all GZ would have done danced. Bless you child.
SlingTrebuchet said:
That works both ways.
The second … you never consider is that TM actions are irrelevant had GZ not followed him on foot.
Simple as that, TM could have been dancing a jig for the whole time but if GZ had not decided to follow, that is all TM would have done danced. Bless you Father for blessing me.
boricuafudd said:
Sling dear
The second … you never consider is that TM actions are irrelevant had GZ not followed him on foot.
Are you acknowledging that TM was dangerous, thus GZ was right in calling the po-po?
With my blessings as always.
SlingTrebuchet said:
“Are you acknowledging that TM was dangerous, thus GZ was right in calling the po-po?”
What I am saying is that Zimmerman thought that TM was dangerous.
In the NEN:
“On drugs or something” “Somethings 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.” “When can you get an officer over here?”
Not in the NEN, which is strange considering that the dispatcher had just asked Zimmerman to tell him if Martin did anything else:
Circling the truck with confrontational body language.
This sounds like a dangerous person – by Zimmerman’s description.
This apparently very dangerous person then walks away, and disappears around a corner. By Zimmerman’s most recent report (on Hannity a few months later), this very dangerous and threatening person was definitely not running. He just sort of skipped and “not in fear”.
Whoa! The threatening person wasn’t fleeing, and was “not in fear”.
So Zimmerman gets out of the truck and heads straight at the corner around which this dangerous person who has just threatened him has just passed out of sight, skipping and not running. He’s walking blindly into the dark. He has no guarantee that he is not going to come face to face with the threatening person.
That’s reckless. It’s very reckless.
Whether or not his perception of Martin being dangerous is accurate or not is not relevant.
What makes it reckless is Zimmerman’s perception that Martin was dangerous.
boricuafudd said:
Wow, we have grown, so now it accepted that TM was a dangerous person. Your argument fails because, GZ did not blind run after TM. Instead while still talking to the dispatcher he approached the corner TM had turn on. At which point the it was up to that dangerous your word, GZ used the words suspicious, person to escalate it or act as the dangerous person he was. And he was dangerous what to stop from attacking you in the car.
Bottomline if the dangerous person does not attack, GZ would need to defend himself.
As always, bless you child.
SlingTrebuchet said:
Oops! Sorry.
I omitted the thank you for your blessings Father.
SlingTrebuchet said:
” …so now it accepted that TM was a dangerous person. Your argument fails because, GZ did not blind run after TM.”
You are not reading are you?
I did not say that TM was dangerous.
I said that what Zimmerman describes is a dangerous person. He described him initially as “suspicious”. Then when Martin approaches he describes ‘dangerous’ and threatening.
In the NEN he mentions “hand in his waistband” (as significant) and “something in his hand”.
Later (not in the NEN) he describes a circling with confrontational body language. He describes rolling up his window,
He describes a threatening situation.
He then walks to and past the corner where the person whose behaviour he has described has passed out of view. He’s going in blind. He has not knowledge of where the person is exactly. The person that he describes as threatening him might be just around that corner.
Was TM actually threatening?
We don’t know.
There are strong indications that the circling as described by Zimmerman did not happen.
1) He does not mention it in the NEN.
2) He says that TM passed him at the clubhouse during the NEN and that he then reversed out and drove into Twin Trees – to see TM up near the T-junction and then approaching from that direction to circle the truck.
However…. the timeline of the NEN and the logic of his Walk Through narrative does not work with a passing at the Clubhouse during the NEN.
3) Clubhouse CCTV indicates the lights of a vehicle entering Twin Trees, pausing by the mailboxes, proceeding into the East-West stretch and making a U-turn to park facing the clubhouse – just at the time the NEN starts.
4) Frank Taaffe said that Zimmerman told him that the NEN began with Zimmerman already in Twin Trees and parked facing the clubhouse – with Martin approaching from the direction of the clubhouse. The timeline of the NEN fits perfectly with this.
Martin has to walk past the truck to make his way home.
Chip Bennett said:
“Errors of fact”, “factual errors”: you keep using these terms. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.
You have yet to prove a “factual error”, though you incessantly assert factual errors regarding relative movements and timeline. However, assertion of one possible scenario does not negate another equally plausible scenario.*
You make certain assumptions regarding Zimmerman’s locations, movements, and speed at various points along the timeline, but assumptions are not statements of fact. In fact, you cannot prove that your assumptions hold true, nor can you disprove that Zimmerman’s statements regarding his location and movements are untrue.
* The Florida judicial system explicitly accounts for just such a scenario. I direct you to Stieh v State (PDF), which states in part:
If you have actual evidence to prove Zimmerman’s movements, speed, and locations throughout the relevant timeline, please present it. Otherwise, you merely demonstrate that reasonable doubt exists, and that therefore Zimmerman must be acquitted.
SlingTrebuchet said:
No I don’t make such assumptions.
You are not paying attention.
What I do is establish an objective timeline from the timestamps of the calls and the timing of events within them.
I then take Zimmerman’s various stories and run them against the timeline.
For example, I take Zimmerman’s assertions that the walked to RVC, ended the call there and then set off for his truck. My only assumption is to take Zimmerman’s claim as a working assumption. I then find that this assumption does not stand up.
I do appreciate your argument that the state must prove before a jury that Zimmerman was in the wrong. I’ll leave such activity to the state.
The defence will not be an affirmative self-defence case. It will be strictly a “prove me guilty” case.
This is not the court. I am not the prosecutor.
What I am doing is to demonstrate that Zimmerman’s stories are essentially “bull excrement”. This does not prove his guilt. It simply proves that he is lying about the events.
Zimmerman should never have opened his mouth.
.
Separately from that, it is my opinion (just my opinion) that Zimmerman’s action in following in the circumstances that he himself describes was reckless in the extreme. A death resulted. In my opinion, this amounts to manslaughter.
You can see in Hannity that he is walking a tightrope regarding any dangers involved in following. He asserts that he was not particularly alarmed by Martin’s actions. At the same time he asserts circling and confrontational body-language. “hand in his waistband” is played down.
He needs to talk about Martin as a threatening thug. At the same time he needs to assert that he didn’t feel threatened. He needs to do this in order to avoid being thought of as reckless.
He also needs to assert that his actions could not have made Martin feel threatened. So on Hannity, Martin is no longer running – and “not in fear”.
The problem there is…
If Martin was merely sort of skipping and not running when he went down the path, then given that he is said by Zimmerman to have just circled the truck in a threatening manner ….Any reasonable person would say that it would be absolutely reckless to follow in there.
Again,
Zimmerman should never have opened his mouth.
Chip Bennett said:
Zimmerman didn’t claim that. (If you want to challenge the point, please use actual quotes from the Sean Hannity interview or the police reports.)
Even if he had claimed that, it would have been an entirely plausible claim, and you don’t have any evidence to refute it.
Your reading comprehension deficiencies are not Zimmerman’s problem. You’re trying to paint Zimmerman into a corner that is clearly not intended by the interview. The interview questions and answers about what happened during that time was not a point-by-point, second-by-second account – and that is obvious, when reading the transcript.
Zimmerman never said that he was attacked less than 30 seconds after “we don’t need you to do that.” Here’s the actual exchange:
HANNITY: Why did you want them at that point to call you?
ZIMMERMAN: I hadn’t given them a correct address. I gave them a — the clubhouse vicinity. However, I was walking through to my street, Retreat View Circle, and I was going to give them the actual street number and name.
HANNITY: How long was it, George, after that, that you saw Trayvon again? Because you said you stopped, that you did not continue pursuing him. When did you next see Trayvon Martin?
ZIMMERMAN: Less than 30 seconds.
Hannity refers back to the NEN call, and Zimmerman is answering questions about his state of mind, and why he did certain things.
And the “after that”, after which Zimmerman says he saw Martin “less than 30 seconds” after, was his time on RVC.
As far as the accuracy of “less than 30 seconds”: it could very well be literally accurate. Nobody has any evidence to refute it. But even if it isn’t, we do know this for certain: it was no more than 150 seconds, since at 150 seconds after ending the NEN call, the first 911 call came in. Further: given the effects of head trauma and life-threatening trauma on time perception and short-term recall, it is entirely plausible that, even if 30 seconds isn’t literally accurate, it is perfectly reasonable for Zimmerman honestly to remember it as such.
You don’t have any real evidence to refute any of Zimmerman’s claims. You can’t show that any inconsistencies in his statements are in any way material. You have only your opinion.
The scariest part about that? You would see a man convicted for manslaughter (at a minimum) based on nothing more than your own opinion.
SlingTrebuchet said:
Zimmerman did claim that. (If you want to challenge the point, please view the video of his statements in Walk Through and come back with actual quotes showing otherwise.)
Your comprehension deficiencies are your problem.
My perception of the meaning of the Hannity “less than 30 seconds” is not based on the selection quoted above. It is based on the whole of the thing.
This extract is the context of the “less than 30 seconds”.
What’s going on here?
Somebody has given Hannity the notion that there is a one minute gap before the shooting – and that this one minute gap began at “We don’t need you to do that”.
This is a nonsense, but it’s great for poisoning a jury pool with totally false preconceptions.
MOM sits there po-faced.
Zimmerman comes out with walk to RVC to get an address and then seeing Martin in “less than 30 seconds”.
This had been headlined by Hannity as Zimmerman explaining the “one minute gap” between the “We don’t need you to do that” and the shooting.
What else?
Zimmerman never went more than 100 feet from his truck. This sounds wise. From his description, he is aware that Martin might be nearby in the darkness – so it’s wise not to go wandering any distance.
The fact that he went at least 250 feet isn’t really a big deal. Although – this is almost 6 months after the event. He and MOM must have been over every inch and second of the night many times. If MOM had not done that, then is would be grossly failing in his duty to his client.
What else?
Hannity had asked the question:
He wanted an actual address.
Why?
So he could meet the cops. “where I thought I would meet a police officer that I had called.”
Having got there – as he says he was and at the end of the call – why did he leave? If he leaves, he won’t be able to tell the cops where he is. That’s why he says he went to RVC.
.
Zimmerman is never going to be on the stand.
The Hannity appearance is all about misleading people and getting donations.
It’s about poisoning the jury pool. It’s Zimmerman on the stand but not cross-examined.
It’s full of blatant lies.
Why? What are they afraid of?
What will the jury think when they realise the 2.5 minute gap that began at the end of the call and Zimmerman claiming in his recorded statements that he then started for his truck – for a walk that would take 20 seconds to the ‘attack point’?
Chip Bennett said:
The way you had to cherry-pick the parts to highlight exemplifies the way you’re picking and choosing Zimmerman’s statements. You’re not taking the “whole of the thing”; you’re taking select statements out of the whole, and attempting to make them say something that Zimmerman never intended to say.
SlingTrebuchet said:
I quoted the *entirety* of the section of the interview that dealt with “the gap”.
The emphasis calls attention to some specifics, but is is done in the context of quoting “the whole of it”.
The segment was very clearly and explicity introduced by Hannity as “...just what happened during that fateful missing minute just before the shooting. George Zimmerman, he will tell us coming up next.”
and
“Because this is where we get into this minute gap in this case, you know, and what did you do from that minute forward when the dispatch said “we don’t need you to follow him?”
In that context, Zimmerman describes seeing Martin in “less than 30 seconds”.
Note that “seeing” involves Zimmerman turning to see Martin only feet away and approaching him. The fight starts immediately.
Work it back from the 911 connection time in the direction of the time the NEN call ended.
The fight is said by Zimmerman to have started just West of the T-junction.
The only conversation he describes is a short exchange at the very outset.
How long to you think might have passed between the 911 caller hearing voices arguing outside her window (she estimates it started there). Listen to her recorded statements. She appears to have been quick on the draw.
If it took her say 30 seconds to react and dial, that means a 2 minute gap between the NEN ending and Zimmerman being jumped just beyond the T – which is a 20-second walk from RVC.
So you think Zimmerman just stood at RVC for over 1.5 minutes and then decided to head back? That’s a lot of time and frustration to forget about.
However…… He says he started straight back at the end of the NEN. (See the Walk Through video).
He says that he completed the call while standing on RVC. If he was standing there at the time, he had a choice of house numbers that he could have given there and then.
If it was his original intention to go to and remain at RVC in order to meet the cops, why when he was then standing on RVC did he then agree to meet at the mailboxes?
Why did he suddenly change that plan right at the end of the NEN?
If he was there, why did he leave? If he leaves, he can no longer direct the cops to his location.
His stories simply do not make sense.
Additionally they don’t fit the objectively recorded timeline.
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear Chip Bennett:
What you said. Thanks!
pinecone (minpin) said:
It is absolute insanity when it takes you an hour to sroll past the same old same lunacy posted again and again by the same person.
pinecone (minpin) said:
Sorry- my post was for slinging buckets.
SlingTrebuchet said:
I feel your pain :)
boricuafudd said:
Sling the two statements that you make so much hay on are not mutually exclusive as you are trying so hard to make them to be. When TM approach it was in a threatening manner, but minutes laters he hop, skip, jump away, in a non-threatening manner, two separate occasions, with 2 separate reactions. The last which was non-threatening, why would I assume that after he hopped away, he would be threatening, that he would be dangerous, oh that right because he was.
You have a warp sense of morality if you feel that because GZ did not pre-judged TM to be more dangerous, hence I have to stay in the truck for protection, then he should be guilty. Strange thing is that GZ should have pre-judged TM as a danger, and taken precautions. but we know who the better person is, don’t we?
cazinger said:
Sling, I agree that George Zimmerman’s accounts have to be discounted because they do contain a lot of discrepancies. However, in looking at the rest of the evidence, the contents of the NEN call, the mere fact that GZ MADE a call to the SPD (criminals usually do not call the police to report the locations and timing of their upcoming crimes – so at the very least this goes to GZ’s state of mind), the bloody and broken nose of GZ, the lacerations to the back of the head of GZ, the scrape on the knuckle of TM, the eyewitness accounts (even though some have wavered on some details, the details they have not wavered on show TM to be getting the best of GZ in a physical altercation), the forensic evidence that the gunshot was likely fired upwards into TM’s chest, heck, even throw in there the account of witness #8 (DeeDee) who described TM as frightened, yet unwilling to go back to his own home. All of that STILL points to GZ acting in self-defense.
The worst that can be said is that GZ is an unreliable witness in his own defense. But any decent lawyer is going to be able to easily explain that away, considering the adrenaline that would have naturally been flowing through his veins at the time, and considering the emotional impact of taking someone’s life. Even if you want to make the case that GZ is out and out lying, that STILL doesn’t show him guilty of any kind of culpable homicide beyond a reasonable doubt. Remember, the prosecution doesn’t just need to show that GZ’s version of events is incorrect for whatever reason, they need to show a version of events that makes GZ guilty of murder – AND they need to show that version of events happened beyond a reasonable doubt.
Frankly, I don’t think you even get to manslaughter simply based upon George Zimmerman following, or even verbally confronting what he considered a suspicious character in his neighborhood – EVEN if those actions were in direct contravention to instructions provided by the NEN dispatcher (which said actions would not have been, considering the exact wording from the NEN dispatcher).
SlingTrebuchet said:
cazinger,
There are “discrepancies” and there are “wild fantasies”. Some of Zimmerman’s stories tend to the latter when stood up against observable facts. He appears to be making stuff up in order to justify what happened.
But you are correct.
Zimmerman is an incredibly bad witness. He can’t go on the stand. Period.
It’s not alone the stresses of the moment. He also has a condition and is taking meds. Meds are not magic pills that fix things. They help to moderate – and also can have undesirable side-effects.
People mention “impaired” in relation to Martin and pot. Try “impaired” for Zimmerman.
The fact that he made the NEN call is not significant as to his later actions.
I don’t buy the premeditated racist conspiracy thing.
As far as I see, he was doing a quite normal NW procedure right up to the time that he got out of the truck and followed into the dark.
People point out that in previous calls to the cops, Zimmerman always kept a distance – although he did pursue.
There is however a very significant difference with this call.
In this call, the suspect walks right up at him!! This has never happened before. In previous calls, the suspect is gone or is going away. They always get away.
If we are to believe Zimmerman, the suspect not alone walks right up to him but also circles him with confrontational body language.
In any normal person, this would be a definite “DANGER, WILL ROBINSON” moment.
The natural result would be an intense adrenaline surge and a triggering of the “fight or flight” instinct.
Then the suspect just walks away.
Wut?
A normal person would be left with all of that adreneline and no outlet for it. What does that do to a person? Look it up.
Zimmerman’s head was already in a state due to his condition and the meds.
That’s quite a cocktail.
My theory is that he snapped.
It’s just a theory, but it would explain his actions.
It would also explain why he really can’t remember what happened. On top of his condition, that’s one of the side effects of that sort of adreneline rush. Another side effect is aggression. Zimmerman has his history in that regard.
To be sure, he ended up with an injured nose and two cuts to the back of his head.
It is difficult to accept that this level of injury could be caused by a continuous fight that lasted…
Absolute minimum of 42 seconds from 911 to shot – but add the caller reacton time.
Over two minutes and 42 seconds if the fight started “less than 30 seconds” after the NEN.
Over two minutes if … as Mike suggests: “Remember that Zimmerman was on the phone with the dispatcher until less than a minute before Martin confronted him.”
Additionally, the first whole minute or so of the fight would have been inaudible to the 911 caller.
It does not stack up.
It can’t have happened the way Zimmerman describes it.
His only hope is to sit silent and see if the prosecution can prove a case.
His stories are fantasy, but that in itself does not necessarily mean that he’s guilty of M2.
We await the trial.
jello333 said:
A lot of good points there. It’s clear the State has a HUGE mountain to climb to reach “beyond reasonable doubt” on ANY charge against George.
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear Slingtrebuchet:
Love you madly, but you sometimes make me crazy (figuratively speaking, of course)!
I know–the world knows–that the dispatcher said “just let me know if he does anything, OK?” However, we must consider the context. The dispatcher knew Zimmerman was watching Martin. Any competent dispatcher would want Zimmerman to keep watching Martin until the police could arrive and to keep feeding them undated information on his actions, movement and location. To obtain this, they need not say “I charge you to continually watch the movements of the suspicious person, and to report continually on said movements.” Saying: “just let me know if he does anything,” or “tell me what the guy is doing,” or anything similar would suffice because the dispatcher and Zimmerman understood the reason for the call–the context–and in order to do that, again, considering the context, Zimmerman would have to keep Martin in sight! Therefore, unsurprisingly, that is what Zimmerman tried to do.
Sorry, but I haven’t the heart to delve into the rest. I trust in my gentle and wise readers to understand such things.
SlingTrebuchet said:
Hi Mike
I have a great regard for you too – although “love you madly” might be stretching it ;)
The usual standard of commenting here is mutually respectful (mostly) despite differences in opinion. I seem to be the object of some minor ad hominem currently, but I don’t respond in kind. This isn’t the norm here, or the norm for me.
It’s good to entertain alternative views.
Without that any forum becomes what I would politely term “a mutual reassurance circle”.
My comments to tend to be long. That is because I prefer to support my position with source material.
We don’t really know what happened. The NEN call is an absolute. We have what is described in it – and it’s timed.
You do indeed have your experience in LE, and have an opinion of what any competent dispatcher might be doing/thinking in co-operation with a person on the ground.
That experience and opinion is actually a distraction. It’s not helpful in this particular case.
In the NEN recording, we have what actually happened. Opinions about what should or might have happened are irrelevant.
In the tradition of not-short comments, I quote the entire relevant section of the NEN and interlace my reading in relation to this question of keeping Martin in sight. ( i.e. looooooooooong – sorree :)
.
Zimmerman describes Martin approaching. After he passes, Zimmerman begins an attempt to describe his location. It is clear that he does not know the name of the street. He has no reason not to name the street if he knew it.
That’s a definite ‘We don’t need you to follow him’.
What has the dispatcher got at this stage?
He has a map in front of him. Back a bit in the NEN, Zimmerman had given the address of the Clubhouse as “111 Retreat View Circle”. The dispatcher queried that. He sees 1111 in the numbering structure. Later, with Zimmerman unable to specify an address, he will suggest a meet at the mailboxes. That’s the first mention of mailboxes by anybody.
The dispatcher is looking at a map. Zimmerman has told him that Martin is running down towards the back entrance.
The dispatcher is filling out the Event Log.
19:11:59 SUBJ NOW RUNNING TOWARDS BACK ENTRANCE OF COMPLEX
That’s it. Any patrol will head for the back entrance in the hope of locating this running subject. Zimmerman has accomplished the NW “Be the eyes and ears” objective. Job done. The dispatcher settles down to routine.
Very Important To Note:- The dispatcher never ever asks about the subject/suspect again. Never!
Yes. “He ran”. Can’t see him. He’s gone. That’s fine. The dispatcher has recorded in the Event Log where Martin is headed. The suspicious subject is fleeing the scene via the back entrance. Thank you and good night.
This is where the questions about location/address start. The questions are related solely to where the officer will meet Zimmerman. They are not related to Martin’s location. “Subj is running towards back entrance”. Yes, we got that. The cops will now take over. Thank you for being our eyes and ears tonight. Where do you want to meet the officer?
.
This is why my comments are long.
I find myself dealing with people who would appear have never attentively listened to or viewed the primary sources.
The NEN is what actually happened. It’s not what should/might have happened.
Whereas e.g. the next day in the Walk Through, Zimmerman will describe the dispatcher as nagging him and more than once to get to somewhere so he can “regain visual”, the unimpeachable NEN tells us the truth.
The dispatcher expressed absolutely zero interest in the whereabouts and activity of Martin from the moment that Zimmerman told him of the running towards the back entrance.
“We don’t need you to do that.” “Do you want to meet with the officer” You do. “OK. Where are you going to meet them at?”
.
While I’m on a roll here, and to put a bunch of bandwidth in a single easy-to-scroll-past package (WOOT! ;) ….
There is a related aspect.
There has been some discussion of what NW standards/procedures/guidance might be – in general.
Again, I look for primary sources on any question. I look for the particular.
I find Wendy Dorival. I really don’t know why the discussion in this thread of NW as related to Zimmerman has not mentioned her affidavit. She is trivially discoverable in a Google/whatever search.
She was the police NW group co-ordinator who dealt with the RVC/Zimmerman group. She gave a presentation to Zimmerman and others. She says that she has a special slide that she cannot emphasise enough – to do with safety.
The flavor is: Ring from the safety of your home or vehicle. Do not approach. You have a constitutional right to carry. We can’t tell you not to. We would prefer you did not.
What NW try to dissuade is any hint of vigilante.
That is echoed/reinforced in the “Are you following him?” “We don’t need you to do that.”
And ….. to repeat in order to drive the message home….
The dispatcher expressed absolutely zero interest in the whereabouts and activity of Martin from the moment that Zimmerman told him of the running towards the back entrance.
juggler523 said:
Sling – While I can commend you for your accuracy, there is little utility in overstating the obvious and/or focusing on the irrelevant.
You wrote: “The dispatcher expressed absolutely zero interest in the whereabouts and activity of Martin from the moment that Zimmerman told him of the running towards the back entrance. ‘We don’t need you to do that.’ ‘Do you want to meet with the officer’ You do. ‘OK. Where are you going to meet them at?'”
Yes, this probably very true. And so what? The dispatcher had done his job. He received all the pertinent information about George, to include his home address, his phone number, what to tell the cops so that they could locate the caller (George), etc. And almost simultaneously, the very same NEN call that you refer to as the “known” shows George Zimmerman AGREEING with the dispatcher concerning continuing to follow Martin, and from that point on (Zimmerman’s “OK”, he too showed no interest in the whereabouts of Trayvon Martin (EXCEPT that he was apprehensive about saying his home address out loud, not knowing for certain where Trayvon might be.
You also wrote: “While I’m on a roll here, and to put a bunch of bandwidth in a single easy-to-scroll-past package (WOOT! ;) ….There is a related aspect.
– WHAT “roll”? A roll of the monumentally trivial and mundane? I’ll agree with you, if you stipulate that!
You then focus on Officer Dorival’s guidance to NW – that the Sanford PD discourages carrying firearms, and to stay in the vehicle.
First, Zimmerman did not leave his home to conduct NW patrol. He was nothing more than a normal guy on his way to the grocery store.
Second, as Officer Dorival’s own words indicate, the Sanford PD couldn’t tell Zimmerman not to carry his weapon even if he WAS on NW patrol – meaning it was not illegal, unconstitutional, etc.
Third, GZ DID call from inside his car, and he REMAINED inside his car until he (from experience) deduced that Trayvon Martin was more than likely gone. He believed the chances of seeing Martin again were equal to the chances of the survival of an ice cube in hell. He only left his vehicle when Martin disappeared some 125-150ft east of his location.
Fourth, when he DID leave his vehicle and walked east on the cut-thru sidewalk, he acknowledged the dispatcher’s cautions, and even KNOWING the direction he had seen Martin go, there is ZERO evidence he ventured south of the cut-thru, instead continuing east to RVC to retrieve an address. His walk toward the “T” was done to satisfy the second purpose of confirming whether Martin would be visible or not. As Zimmerman suspected (again from experience- “these a**holes, they always get away), Martin was by all observation – gone. Hen’ce, Zimmerman’s comment “He ran.”
This “roll” you think you are on is mindbogglingly unstimulating.
SlingTrebuchet said:
Juggler,
Short answer is https://statelymcdanielmanor.wordpress.com/2013/05/30/the-trayvon-martin-case-update-29-3-morality-and-inaction/#comment-11618
Plus:
There was no remaining in the truck until anything.
You hear him move to get out immediately on “Sh*t, he’s running.”
He says later (e.g. in the Walk Thought on the following day) that his walk to RVC was done solely for the purposes of getting a house number.
jello333 said:
George’s initial reason for getting out of the truck just after saying “He’s running” WAS partly to “follow” Trayvon… as he stated on the tape. But “follow” meant only (as he also said later) go in the same direction. It did NOT mean “chase” or “pursue” or, least of all, “attempt to catch”. It was all about trying to get in a position where he could maybe see where Trayvon had gone, possibly getting a glimpse of him as he disappeared down at the south end of the sidewalk. I suspect George hadn’t really stopped to think how unlikely that was, considering the dark, distance, and weather. When he resignedly says, “He ran”, it’s almost like he’s slapping himself for having such a “dumb” idea. “What made you think you were gonna be able to see him?”
And then I think George just stood basically right there, right near the “doggy station” during most of the rest of the call. Probably peering southward down the sidewalk into the gloom, just shaking his head. Then, after standing there for awhile, and still not having much luck describing to Sean where his truck is, it’s at THAT point that he thinks, “Well, since I’m already here, why not go on over to the street and see if I can get an address.” I think that’s pretty much what he’s in the process of doing as he gets to the end of the call. And it would also explain why he suddenly changed from meeting at the mailboxes, to “call me when they get here and I’ll tell them where I’m at.” And by the time he hung up with Sean, he had NOT YET gotten the address.
So then (which accounts for some of the “missing time”), George stands on RVC for a little bit, getting an address and maybe even looking southward down the street just in the slight chance he might still see something. Maybe he at first plans to stand right there and wait for the cops. But then he starts to head back to his truck. You’re gonna ask, “So why was he walking back to his truck rather than staying on RVC where he had just gotten an address?” As someone else said, it was cold and raining. He really didn’t know how long it would be before the cops arrived. So why not walk back to the truck, jump in, drive around the block and park on RVC in front of the address you had just gotten, and which you intended to give the cops when they called you?
I think that scenario pretty much explains all of George’s actions, and fits well with the timeline and distances involved.
juggler523 said:
Oh, Sling –
Once again, you err.
Yes, Zimmerman said, “Sh*t, he’s running.” But your fallacy is in assuming that everything Zimmerman said was in real-time, like a sports announcer describing everything exactly as it happens. The first 30 seconds of the phone call were descriptions of what Zimmerman had just SEEN (near real time), and not what he was observing real time. Likewise, when Zimmerman said “Sh*t, he’s running”, he was describing what he had JUST seen, because by the time he said it, Martin was already out of sight, having turned the corner to the south. THAT is when Zimmerman exited his vehicle. You have misinterpreted my words, regardless. Because you tend to interpret words in the manner most suitable to YOUR needs, rather than in a reasonable manner, here is what I meant when I said,
“…he REMAINED inside his car until he (from experience) deduced that Trayvon Martin was more than likely gone. He believed the chances of seeing Martin again were equal to the chances of the survival of an ice cube in hell. He only left his vehicle when Martin disappeared some 125-150ft east of his location.”
He did INDEED remain inside his vehicle until the point at which Martin had disappeared to the south. When he exited his vehicle, Martin was no longer in sight, so what I said is entirely accurate. And it is also entirely accurate that Zimmerman was aware that “these a**holes, they always GET AWAY’ [my stress of the words]. So, YES, Zimmerman can argue and you have ZERO to contradict him, that he remained IN his vehicle until Martin ran to the south, which with Zimmerman can EASILY be argue was the point at which Zimmerman deduced Martin was history. And when he reached the “T” and looked south, his tone of oice was one of resignation that indeed, Martin WAS gone – merely a confirmation of his earlier expressed frustration – or so he thought. But we know differently, because a few minutes later – despite having PLENTY of time to get home, Martin was still at the “T”.
Again, your style of debate is merely scenario-building, which is all the defense needs to do. The prosecution has to raise ITS arguments to a virtually unassailable (beyond a reasonable doubt) level. This, they simply cannot do, and you have fallen EXTREMELY short of the mark in doing yourself..
juggler523 said:
Oh, sling sling sling….your “analysis” reminds me of the professional bowler whose thesis for a masters degree focused on the description of the perfect “strike” ball. He accounted for the weight and circumference of the ball, the forward thrust of the ball, the distance to the pins, their geometric configuration, etc. etc. And when all conditions could be controlled, he could say with certainty that his analysis was accurate.
Oh, but like you, sling, he had failed to consider the variables that would render his analysis far from perfect – in fact relatively useless in arriving at a verifiable conclusion (things the particular oil pattern, the viscosity of the oil used, it’s absorbance into the wood of the lanes, whether the lanes were wood OR synthetic, the disruption of the oil pattern and the requirement to adjust accordingly, etc. etc.) He received a less than stellar grade because his analysis could not fit any given situation for its failure (nay, its INABILITY) to factor in multiple variables that could not be considered to be absolute.
YOUR variables cannot be considered to be absolute, either. You suggest that normal walking speed would be approximately 5ft per second, and you apply that as a near absolute in analyzing Zimmerman’s progress east to RVC. You establish a distance that can neither be confirmed or denied (250ft). You fail to account for a slower pace or for momentary hesitations that Zimmerman may have made (like to try and get his flashlight working or when he looked south to confirm Trayvon Martin’s absence). You also take every thing Zimmerman says as literal and in exact sequence – a bad strategy considering his re-enactment was conducted when he was still under great emotional distress, almost CERTAINLY a lack of sleep (the re-enactment was less than 24hr after the shooting), compounded by the fact that he suffers from an attention disorder that renders him relatively incapable of recalling and categorizing thoughts, events and ideas in the logical sequence that you or I may be capable of. He also clearly has mental processing issues that have him saying he said things that he almost certainly thought but didn’t actually verbalize.
In short, you present merely a POSSIBLE scenario. In American jurisprudence, that is the tactic of a successful defense when showing a jury that the prosecution’s scenario is not without opposition.
You have described things here and there as inexplicable – for example, you seem to have expressed in the past that the 2:34 “gap” from the end of the NEN call to the beginning of the first 911 call is an insurmountable obstacle for the defense to explain. I can easily fill that 2:34 with reasonable explanation for George Zimmerman’s actions.
You have presented nothing in your posts that incriminates George Zimmerman in an actual murder of Trayvon Martin. Sure, he might have been better served to have remained in his car. Sure, maybe he DID have fantasies of being a cop, and maybe NW was best thing he could do. Sure to that and many MORE things. But you cannot show any evidence that he confronted Trayvon Martin. You cannot show that he ever struck Trayvon Martin. You cannot show beyond a reasonable doubt that under Florida law, George Zimmerman is guilty of all three elements of second degree murder. On the contrary there ARE witness statements and an evidence trail and a forensics inventory that corroborate Zimmerman’s account. Sure, some of the evidence seems contradictory, but that works for the defense far more than it does for the prosecution. The prosecution needs a virtually unassailable case. They are operating on the fuel from racial pressure to arrest and convict, and thank GOD that is not the foundation of American justice.
You give quite easily assailable scenarios based on equally assailable variables that you mistakenly treat as absolute.
jello333 said:
“you seem to have expressed in the past that the 2:34 “gap” from the end of the NEN call to the beginning of the first 911 call is an insurmountable obstacle for the defense to explain. I can easily fill that 2:34 with reasonable explanation for George Zimmerman’s actions.”
Absolutely. That two and a half minutes can EASILY be accounted for. (I won’t itemize it again… I’ve already given some possibilities in a couple other comments, as have others.)
juggler523 said:
I have a plausible detailed step-by-step of the 2:34 as well. It is the weak Trayvonite mind that believes this particular issue is a major hurdle to the defense.
AghastInFL said:
@catapult you have repeated a factually incorrect statement multiple times and even accuse your host of doing the same when in fact it is YOU that is misrepresenting the content of the NEN call.
Sling writes:
“We know that the dispatcher asked Zimmerman to keep Martin in sight so that he could direct responding officers to him. “
and
“In order to keep Martin in sight, as he had been asked to do by the dispatcher, it was necessary for Zimmerman to follow Martin on foot”
That never happened.
Can you point to any evidence that it happened?”
Twice prior to the context you provide the NEO specifically stated and I quote “1:27:41- Okay. Just let me know if he does anything, okay? ” again
“1:29:89 – … Just let me know if this guy does anything else.”
It is physically impossible to fulfill this request without maintaing surveillance on the subject. So there are a minimum of three instances wherein the NEO requested George keep a visual all prior to the single instance of the ambiguous ” we don’t need you to do that” which you take as a divine proclamation of sort.
SlingTrebuchet said:
@AghastInFL,
I took issue with the following assertions:
“We know that the dispatcher asked Zimmerman to keep Martin in sight so that he could direct responding officers to him. “
and
“In order to keep Martin in sight, as he had been asked to do by the dispatcher, it was necessary for Zimmerman to follow Martin on foot”
I quote the NEN, emphasing the relevant sentences from the dispatcher:
What’s happenening here?
Zimmerman sounds concerned.
“Somethings 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.”
Dispatcher has got that. This sounds like trouble on the way. “Just let me know if he does anything, ok?” Keep me updated. This could be an attack.
It is important to listen to the NEN. Don’t depend on a transcript.
The dispatcher has only got as far as “Just le..” when Zimmerman breaks in over him, sounding very concerned.
“(unclear) you can get an officer over here.”
You can hear that Zimmerman’s voice has gone up in pitch.
So the operator repeats his soothing, and says “Yeah we’ve got someone on the way, just let me know if this guy does anything else.”
What happened there?
The dispatcher had started the first “Let me know” when Zimmerman broke in over him. So he repeats. He wants to know what is going on. ‘Don’t ask me about when an officer will arive. Tell me what is happening.’
What you have there is actually one occasion where the dispatcher is asking Zimmerman to tell him what the subject is doing right now as he approaches – with his hand in his waistband and something in hand. It’s really very simple.
Technically – working from the transcript alone and ignoring the timing – one could argue for two completely separate instructions. Three? no.
The dispatcher has said much the same thing twice in quick sucession – and it’s about the potential attack. He repeated *because* instead of telling him what the guy was doing, Zimmerman has interrupted the (first) request and is freaking out and asking about when an officer will arrive.
.
And *still* Zimmerman has not told the dispatcher what Martin is doing.
He says later that Martin circled the truck, but he does not say this to the dispatcher.
Martin is walking away, but Zimmerman still does not report this.
Instead he comments on people always getting away, and starts an attempt at directions to his location. The dispatcher, without being explicitly told, seems to understand that any immediate possibility of an incident is over. He doesn’t press Zimmerman for a report on what the subject is doing.
The “running” is the first report of what Martin is doing. It comes some 30 seconds after Zimmerman seems calmer. We can take it as a real-time report as he breaks off from giving directions.
.
Then we (and the dispatcher) hear Zimmerman get out.
Background noises indicate that Zimmerman is moving – and not slowly. He also swears.
“Are you following him”
“Yeah”
“We don’t need you to do that.”
What is “ambiguous” about “We don’t need you to do that.”?
Have you read the written statement that Zimmerman wrote in his own fair hand some hours later?
“The dispatch told me not to follow the suspect & that an officer was in route”.
The suspect had disappeared – said to be running towards the back entrance.
Do not follow.
Unambiguous.
AghastInFL said:
“one could argue for two completely separate instructions. Three? no.” – the third arises after the words you choose to highlight… ” he’s running? which way is he running” there once again NEO Sean places George with a question which can only be fulfilled by observation.
The statement “we don’t need for you to do that” is ambiguous because it is not a directive, he does not say what you infer ‘Do not follow’ or even easier ‘Stop’, instead he uses the same phrase many grandmothers use after a family dinner when some choose to help clean up… a phrase meant to be ignored by those that care and are willing to render able assistance.
The point is moot because at the moment Zimmerman heard “we don’t need for you to do that”, he answered “Okay” and continued East rather than follow Martin South.
SlingTrebuchet said:
Aghast: “The statement “we don’t need for you to do that” is ambiguous because it is not a directive,..”
It is not a directive because the dispatcher is not permitted to give directives,
Check his testimony at the trial:
““We’re directly liable if we give a direct order,” he explained. “We always try to give general basic …. not commands, just suggestions.” So, “We don’t need you to do that” is different than a more direct “Don’t do that.”
…..
“It’s best to avoid any kind of confrontation, to just get away from the situation,”
That last bit echoes the content of the formal NW presentation advice to Zimmerman as recounted by Wendy Dorival: “Call from the safety of your home or vehicle”.
Just as for dispatchers, NW can not order volunteers to do or not do certain things. They can only indicate sensible/reasonable actions.
Aghast: “The point is moot because at the moment Zimmerman heard “we don’t need for you to do that”, he answered “Okay” and continued East rather than follow Martin South.”
You perhaps have not checked out the map and timings. At the time that Zimmerman said “OK”, he was still in Twin Trees. He was not in a position to follow Martin South (or not). He was still heading for the dark corner around which Martin had disappeared. He would have to continue East for another 10 to 12 seconds before he would be able to do anything about following South – when he would arrive into the dark central area. He kept on going after “OK”. He was most certainly not doing what Noffke testified as “best to..”.
“Are you following him?” – “Yeah.”
Joel C said:
H’lo Mike,
Enjoyed your post, as I usually do. I have here just a few somewhat random thoughts.
First, it was a delightful surprise to see you reference Snyder’s “Nation of Cowards.” That book has graced my shelves since the late 90’s, except for a year when I let it out to an anti-gun relative, and I have read it more than once. Time, I think, to bring it down and dust it off for another look. Snyder’s writings deeply informed my philosophies back then and continue to do into the present.
I can understand some people’s skepticism regarding the marihuana influence Martin is supposed to have been under, even if most it comes from the anti-zimmerites. I am old enough to remember when the BAC for DUI was X, seen it lowered to Y, and nowadays they’re talking in my home state about bringing it down to Z. (Sorry, I can’t remember any of the actual numbers off the top of my head right now.) It’s enough to convince me that, legally, intoxication is a matter of decree. Very likely the same with other mind altering substances as well, then.
Of course, I’d expect if it comes up, it will fly just fine in court. Personally, I’d be more impressed if a toxicologist would explain in what ways this amount of “impairment” would most likely affect and influence a young man of Martin’s height and weight, and how he knows that to be true. Otherwise, there seems to be a degree of arbitrariness there which I find unsettling.
About neighborhood watch. While you did not address this, one or two persons who post ’round here have argued that Neighborhood Watch admonishes its members against carrying firearms and/or, I suppose, perhaps most any other weapon. The espoused reason why is the belief that someone who is armed will feel empowered to . . . let’s just say to behave stupidly. This is a common argument from the anti-gun crowd which plays out in reality only rarely, and that because stupid people can have guns too.
My fey thought on that matter, never regarding whether NW actually does this or not, but supposing that they do, is that a goodly number of the people today who are game to involve themselves in a neighborhood watch program are likely the same sorts to take seriously their personal responsibility to protect themselves and their family from from predatory harm. In short, though this is only a guess, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to find a significantly large number of neighborhood watch types who, provided they live where they can get it,will also have CCW permits.
If so, this begs some questions. Given that NW cannot legally prevent their members from legally carrying firearms, but just playing with the implications of that policy, if it exists, then when can a NW person with a CCW be a NW person? Must they disarm, then, when they go “game on” and commit to the civic duty which they have accepted? If they strap on when they go shopping and see something reportable, must they turn their head and walk away because they are armed? Should only people who do not own and do not want any gun be the only ones to join neighborhood watch, then? The implications are preposterous.
In an America in which CCW has become increasingly common, and if my hypothesis about NW volunteers is correct, than it seems that such a policy would be dismally behind the times.
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear Joel C:
Thanks for your interesting points. Regarding the marijuana issue, where Martin is concerned, its a problem under any circumstance as any amount of marijuana in his–or anyone’s–system is illegal. Under the law, we must make presumptions of impairment based upon accepted scientific criteria, such as body weight, age, etc. I’ve no doubt the state toxicologist will be able to quote those findings if required. One need not be so stoned as to be obviously falling down and stupid for their judgment to be substantially impaired by drugs. I’ve seen it thousands of times, and still see it among some of my students in school.
Regarding Neighborhood Watch, I can only say I would not place myself in that position, where criminals might know of me, and/or see me watching them, without being armed. Would that make me more likely to be aggressive? Absolutely not, quite the opposite. As you say, where such policies are in effect, they are indeed behind the times, and considering the budget crunches every law enforcement agency is facing, foolish. The police desperately need concerned, involved citizens. We all do.
RuleofOrder said:
“Thanks for your interesting points. Regarding the marijuana issue, where Martin is concerned, its a problem under any circumstance as any amount of marijuana in his–or anyone’s–system is illegal. ” — excepting of course those few states that in recent past have adopted that EM-Jay is A-oh-kay. If Martin was under the effect of something else, I would love to see it. I think we would all love to see it for various reasons. The amount of THC found in Trayvon’s system, though, is by no means enough to hinge impairment on. I checked out NMS’s tox screening, lab standards for what typifies a “positive” THC result, what typifies a “positive” false positive exclusion… Martin’s levels fall beneath each of those. WELL beneath each of those. You are going to have a hard time being take seriously getting on the stand and stating that the levels found in Martin’s system were enough to impair his judgement, but not enough to exclude him from getting a job at any place that does a drug screening. It makes said drug screening sound compulsory if it can’t even detect some one who is high at the time they took the test!
NWC wise- hm. Tough one to chew on. By and large, the populace of folks that CC know the rules, and won’t have a problem. Ever. But, that percentage, just by the nature of being on a NW starts to shrink. It exposes a CCer to risk, voluntarily, that while not illegal, start moving outside the scope of the intention of a CWP, which is for -YOUR- protection, not the defense of you while you defend the neighborhood. I do think, though, a NW member should have some variety of “teeth”, and a phone tree doesn’t cut it. Hm. I am gonna have to mull over how you use a personal permit to defend an entire residence.
Joel C said:
“Hm. I am gonna have to mull over how you use a personal permit to defend an entire residence.”
Whoops! Gee, Roo, you seemed to be doing so good there too. ; ) Then you either strayed from the thread or got snarky without provocation.
When I carry a gun, or any kind of force multiplier (read, weapon), it is to protect myself, just as you say. That can extend to people in my immediate vicinity of course, particularly thinking of family here, but no way did Mike or I even imply that carrying a gun on neighborhood watch is about using it to protect the whole neighborhood. (I believe that’s what you meant by “entire residence”, anyway. If you only meant one home, even though that is what “residence” means, it was quite a non sequitur.)
In other words, carrying while on NW doesn’t change the nature of anything. When you suggest that it does, you are suggesting some psychological patterns which may or may not exist from one individual to the next. Simply asserting something like that proves nothing and convinces me of nothing, particularly when I see that it would not apply to me personally.
Go back to “a phone tree doesn’t cut it” when the proverbial sh*t hits the fan, and work from there, brother. Observe and report is neighborhood watch stuff, so far as I understand it, and Shoot the Guy Who’s Trying To Kill Me is personal defense. One stops when the other starts, and my point is: if I’m not looking for a fight just cause I carry while shopping for groceries, how do you show that I’m looking for a fight just cause I have it while watching suspicious activity and reporting it to the police?
.
juggler523 said:
RuleoOrder: You wrote: “NWC wise- hm. Tough one to chew on. By and large, the populace of folks that CC know the rules, and won’t have a problem. Ever. But, that percentage, just by the nature of being on a NW starts to shrink.”
First, what do you describe as “a problem”?? Because I can cite for you MANY MANY instances when a member of the “populace” has shot and killed an attacker.
The fact that Zimmerman was a member of NW is virtually irrelevant. Let’s imagine for one moment that he never WAS, and that he simply was a regular member of the “populace” who happened to observe Trayvon Martin, called NEN and then followed hi Martin – and everything that happened was exactly the same as it was on February 26th, 2012.
Zimmerman was not out patrolling in his “duties as a neighborhood watch coordinator. He was on his way to the grocery store- period. He did not place himself at higher risk because of his NW duties, so you have no argument. You also provide no data to support your argument that NW places anyone at greater risk if they CC their personal weapon. So strike two on your argument.
RuleofOrder said:
““Hm. I am gonna have to mull over how you use a personal permit to defend an entire residence.”
Whoops! Gee, Roo, you seemed to be doing so good there too. ; ) Then you either strayed from the thread or got snarky without provocation.” — no, I mean that literally though. How to reconcile public image without attaching a possible stigma. Granted, some one will always want to see a bad guy where there isn’t, CCers and anti gun activists alike, I am referring to a general way that a CC while on NW rule/guideline won’t clash.
“First, what do you describe as “a problem”??” — an instance in which they will need to use their weapon. Comparatively speaking, the number of carryers vs number of folks that actually need their weapon is rather small.
“He did not place himself at higher risk because of his NW duties, so you have no argument. You also provide no data to support your argument that NW places anyone at greater risk if they CC their personal weapon. So strike two on your argument.” —- Are you genuinely trying to state that some one whom does go out patrolling and looking for possible illegal activities is NOT going to place some one in more risk that some one whom doesn’t? Weapon wouldn’t have anything to do with that, and I don’t believe I asserted that, either. If some one is a CC while on patrol, that inherently exposes them to more risk for needing their weapon.
juggler523 said:
RuleofOrder:
Sorry, but many CC’ers are not going to agree with your definitions of “problem” and “need”.
You wrote: “Comparatively speaking, the number of carryers [sic] vs number of folks that actually need their weapon is rather small.”
Well, if by “need” you mean the “need” to use the weapon in self-defense. DUH! The same can be said of pretty much ANYone carrying a weapon in their line of work. The overwhelming majority of the military have never fired their weapon at a live enemy. Most security guards never have the need to even un-holster their weapons. And police officers RARELY use their firearms in arrests. Were you aware that when one looks at ALL the police officers in the US – tens of thousands,the LEAST used weapon used by police in an arrest is their firearm (about 0.2% of the time). But this does not diminish their “need” to actually possess a firearm and be prepared to use it in self-defense. Life is risky and people ought to be able to live free of attack.
You also wrote: “Are you genuinely trying to state that some one whom does go out patrolling and looking for possible illegal activities is NOT going to place some one in more risk that some one whom doesn’t? Weapon wouldn’t have anything to do with that, and I don’t believe I asserted that, either. If some one is a CC while on patrol, that inherently exposes them to more risk for needing their weapon.”
You have presented a hypothetical for which you provide merely an unsubstantiated opinion. You cannot say that NW people who are armed “go out patrolling and looking for possible illegal activities” any more than they would if they are unarmed. That is merely an assumption on your part. And that assumption has no basis.
In Zimmerman’s case, you couldn’t be MORE wrong, as everyone who knew him said he was non-confrontational – even the ex-fiancee who 8 years ago filed a restraining order against him. And ESPECIALLY taking into account HIS weapon was concealed. How can a concealed weapon INCREASE risk absent ANY evidence that the carrier behaves any differently than he would unarmed? Having a weapon concealed on one’s person does NOT increase risk.
Trayvon Martin had NO reason to believe Zimmerman was carrying a firearm, yet the evidence CLEARLY shows he attacked Zimmerman, or at the VERY least engaged in a physical altercation with him – an altercation SOME say we are unable to ascertain the initiator of. And there is no evidence Zimmeman was placing trayvon Martin in any type of situation where Trayvon would feel threatened.
Had Zimmerman been UN-armed, he would likely have suffered far more injury – possibly death. All it takes is one good strike to the head to cause death – as was evidenced last month with the death of the Utah soccer official who was punched once by a 17yr old player who took exception to his call.
I think the OPPOSITE of your premise is true. By CARRYING his weapon Zimmerman actually eliminated risk (of serious injury or death), not increased it.
Your argument is irrelevant anyway for several reasons. As I said – Zimmerman was NOT going out to conduct a NW patrol. He was on his way to the grocery store. Also, you assume that which you cannot substantiate. Finally, Zimmerman broke no law by carrying his firearm in a concealed manner. You can dwell on irrelevancies, but it’s pretty much just a waste of intellect.
RuleofOrder said:
“Your argument is irrelevant anyway for several reasons.” —- that is because you don’t know what my argument is, as evidenced by me having to state something, twice, for which you just say “DUH!”, and then explain why what I stated was true.
“As I said – Zimmerman was NOT going out to conduct a NW patrol. He was on his way to the grocery store. Also, you assume that which you cannot substantiate. Finally, Zimmerman broke no law by carrying his firearm in a concealed manner. You can dwell on irrelevancies, but it’s pretty much just a waste of intellect.” —- Please, find any place where I have stated Zimmerman broke the law by carrying, and why Zimmerman became relevant to my argument. By which I mean my ACTUAL argument, and not the argument that you think I am making.
I haven’t said a gun increases the risk of needing it. I stated that being on a NWC vs not being on one increases the risk in which one might need their weapon, if they have one. I person patrolling looking for suspicious characters/illegal activities vs a person NOT doing that inherently adds to the probability they will need to use their weapon, should they have one. That isn’t an assumption, Juggler, that’s basic fact.
Chip Bennett said:
But, what is the point you’re trying to make by stating the “basic fact” that participating in NHW is inherently less safe than not participating in NHW, and thus that someone participating in NHW is inherently more likely to need to use one’s weapon in self defense than someone not participating in NHW?
RuleofOrder said:
“But, what is the point you’re trying to make by stating the “basic fact” that participating in NHW is inherently less safe than not participating in NHW, and thus that someone participating in NHW is inherently more likely to need to use one’s weapon in self defense than someone not participating in NHW?” — because you are knowingly putting yourself in a position in which has a higher risk in which you might need to make use of your concealed weapon (which is for YOUR protection) while on patrol in looking out after other people’s property.
Armed civilians, on patrol for illegal and suspicious activity, as part of committee with no authority or formal training.
If that is cool with you, excelsior to you. I am not a fan. I would like to think there would be a better solution that would include staying armed while on patrol.
Chip Bennett said:
No authority?
The second and fourth amendments are all the authority community members need to patrol (does anyone actually patrol? seriously) – or, more correctly – to bear arms while maintaining vigilant observation of – their community.
No formal training?
In most places, CCW permits require classroom, if not range, training. Even where they don’t, CCW permit holders are statistically far more likely to take firearms training of their own volition, to spend more time practicing on the range, and by orders of magnitude are less likely to commit a crime of any kind, especially a crime using a firearm.
No formal training?
In most places, NHW groups have handbooks and/or training sessions.
I consider such feigned concern to be nothing more than navel-gazing. Would that navel-gazers were more concerned with the criminals invading communities of law-abiding citizens, than they were with what those law-abiding citizens choose to do in order to protect themselves and their communities.
I was trying to avoid assuming that you were going there; unfortunately, that’s exactly where you were going.
So, based on the assumption that NHW is needed, and beneficial, and, most importantly, an inherent right of a community to ensure the general welfare of its members, your position is disturbing.
You state the “basic fact” that participating in NHW activities is inherently less safe than not engaging in NHW activities. Thus, you would have law-abiding community members, doing nothing worse than attempting to protect one another, to make themselves less able to defend themselves, in the very situation that exposes them to the most danger from criminals who have ill intent.
RuleofOrder said:
“Thus, you would have law-abiding community members, doing nothing worse than attempting to protect one another, to make themselves less able to defend themselves, in the very situation that exposes them to the most danger from criminals who have ill intent.”
Which comes after: “I would like to think there would be a better solution that would include staying armed while on patrol.”.
o.O I am gonna chalk this one up as missing an important word some place, because I am not seeing how “to make themselves less able to defend” can spring from “… better solution that would include staying armed while on patrol…”
This is gonna fall back to “Its legal in its current manifestation, ergo its perfect” rebuttals, isn’t it?
Chip Bennett said:
Admittedly, I read that as than.
But, correcting for that mis-read: it seems like you’re creating a false premise. CCW permit holders are trained. NHW volunteers are trained. And simply put: neither CCW permit holders nor NHW volunteers are the problem; criminals are the problem.
Ultimately? Yes. But not merely legal; rather, it represents the exercise of rights.
How do you find a “more perfect” solution to a problem based on a false premise?
Pingback: The $25,000 Challenge | DiwataMan
ItsMichaelNotMike said:
How special. Crump has been appearing on various pro Trayvon media and reshaping the meaning of Judge Nelson’s rulings. THAT is how you can tell even Crump and crew know the gig is up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd0VvOCoe3c
Note: Crump’s tactic is common, when you don’t want to talk about the message, attack the messenger. E.g., he keeps saying how mean and evil MOM West are for releasing the information to the public.
Of course he does not mention the really bad stuff (that proves Crump’s fraudulent conduct, and that his clients have been lying for 14 months): 1) Was data on Trayvon Martin’s cell phone; and 2) Was material found by prosecutors and (eventually) that they turned over to the defense, as the State is obligated to do.
Bottom line: This never works. The American public is smarter than that. How many times have we seen an accused politician, with rock solid evidence in the backdrop, say “this is a witch hunt.” Eventually the politician is hauled off to prison. Jesse Jackson, Jr. is a recent example. And there’s Tom DeLay and Rod Blagojevich to name a few.
Sidenote: Where these revelations really hurt Crump is in the civil arena. It gets down to zero the damage calculations. But that’s a discussion for another day.
pinecone (minpin) said:
Analyst- No area to reply on your comments above. I see you are still trying to throw your money at a problem that only you can resolve, in your own mind, which so far displays nothing more than your usual come on. You really need to get out more, make some friends, step away from your gated, 24/7 guarded by securitu compund. I just loved how you confronted that dishelved and wobbly guy that made it into your fortess, and who had the temirity to ask you for money. You really need a life dude. Throwing around large dollar figures isn’t going to win you many friends or supporters. Perhaps that’s why you are anonmously hitting the internet. You are to be pitied.
pinecone (minpin) said:
This is not my site, and I have no say in who or what is posted here. I do have one request. Can those who want to display their debating skills to use that skill on someone you have at least an inkling of reaching? Debating societies usually involve those that have a chance at reaching the other side, or changing their opinions. Chip, you have been wonderful with your debating skills but, do you understand that you are taking up a whole lot of bandwith while you practice your skills with Sling Bucket? I know you do. Do you know that Sling Bucket has been posting on this site sice the first Trayvon articles came on board? Mike can correct me but, I think Sling Bucket was eliminated as a part of the conversation before others believed that could turn her corner. It’s never happened.
JB from SoCal said:
minpin my friend and veteran of many different battlefields — CTH, Nettles,DWM, etc. — i agree with you in principle, but am all for whatever it takes to be able to read the insightful posts of Chip Bennett, John Galt, ItsMichaelNotMike and other deep thinkers anywhere they happen to be posting.
Most of the time I don’t even bother to read the words of the provocateur AKA whoever is the stiff of the day, and instead go straight to read those who have the most insightful and best thought out analyses.
Besides, what’s a little bandwidth among friends?
boricuafudd said:
JB, but not only that Ms. Sling, bless that child, has modified her position, whether she realizes or not. Her stand that GZ was reckless for following someone who was dangerous is far departure from her earlier stands. It still an indefensible position, as it actually says more about TM actions as it does any GZ. This is a variation of the girl was asking to be raped since she went out on date with the predator.
So progress has been made.
pinecone (minpin) said:
JB- I have no problem with Chip’s very well reasoned and logical posts. My point is that Sling Bucket has been posting pretty much the same thing, over and over, and is incapable of being convinced otherwise. I didn’t mean that Chip is wasting bandwith on his arguments, in my opinion he is fighting a losing battle with Sling Bucket. Chip’s posts can stand on their own even when not replying to anyone. There are some that seem to be wavering on a few points, and Chip has the ability to turn those into believers for sure. That was my point.
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear pinecone:
I appreciate your concerns and welcome your insights. I trust in my readers to determine who is convincing and who is not. I have no doubt that many readers simply stop engaging with those they consider to be insincere or too caught up in diversions and non-relevant minutia. This is at is should be and for the sake of robust debate, I am comfortable with it.
Thanks again!
pinecone (minpin) said:
Message received Mike. I love reading robust debates and agree they are healthy and necessary. Not many can debate like Chip Bennett. Not many can bring it home like It’sMichaelnotMike. That is not to knock anyone else. Yes, you are right, some begin to see that some are insincere and get caught up in diversions and minutia.
Joel said:
Chip may have been taking up bandwidth, but in reality, he has been providing logical and factual information with which to defend George Zimmerman from all comers. How? By actually taking on and defeating every argument from Sling. Also, Chip has been and probably will continue to fight the good fight. You can’t stop the signal and you can’t stop Chip.
There are times when it is preferable to ignore someone. This isn’t one of those times.
ItsMichaelNotMike said:
styrgwillidar said: May 31, 2013 We really only have George’s word as to who started the physical conflict. No evidence contradicts anything George has said, but in trying to be totally objective I don’t see where there is evidence as to who actually shifted this to an assault.”
____________________
I disagree styrgwillidar. Preliminarily, understand that in self-defense situations where there’s a homicide, rarely is there direct evidence to show who was the iniator or aggressor. We have to rely on circumstantial evidence to prevail on the affirmative defense of self defense.
Sidenote: That’s why in situations like Zimmerman’s the burden of proof to prevail on the defense is “by a preponderance” (what lawyers and Judges sometimes call “51% of the evidence has be weighted in the defendant’s favor.”)
And that’s also why Judge Nelson ruled (may have been “dicta,” a passing comment) that evidence of Trayvon Martin being a fighter more likely would be admissible than anything else (aka “the dirt”).
Anyway it is late, again, so I’ll just lazily paste from my archives an e-mail I sent defense counsel almost a year ago, about there being circumstantial evidence showing Trayvon Martin PLANNED to assault Zimmerman, that is, BEFORE he confronted him.
Good night all.
P.s. Mike if this is inappropriate to post these loooooooooooooooooooong comments, is there a “click here to read” ability in WordPress so my comments can be reduced?
I am posting the entire comment from back then because it is interesting how much I said back then turned out to be accurate. This confirmed I should trust my initial instincts.
____________________
2012-07-13 12:44:19
ITEM IS IN NORMAL/MAIN GROUP
LIBRARY KEY = 13618; LIST POSITION = 12293
I read a LOT of the released disclosures. While the media has said there were no earth shaking revelations, I totally disagree. I have things to do but I make a few quick comments:
1. It is interesting that to have a complete picture of Trayvon Martin that night and the situation before the altercation, we have to look at different witness statements, in the discovery just handed over to the defense.
– On page 35 the medical examiner on scene reported seeing the Skittles in Trayvon Martin’s hoodie top front pocket. She does NOT recall seeing the beverage Martin also bought at 7/11.
– On page 81 a paramedic/firefighter reports that he lifted Martin’s hoodie and saw the beverage in Trayvon Martin’s shirt pocket.
– The brown plastic bag that the 7/11 clerk had placed the Watermelon beverage (it was not “ice tea”) and Skittles, was found on the ground where the shooting occurred.
– Zimmerman has said that when he saw Trayvon Martin approaching that Trayvon reached into his waist area. Trayvon Martin’s T-Mobile cell phone was found laying on the grass where the shooting occurred. (Was Trayvon on the phone with DeeDee and Zimmerman saw Trayvon hanging up the phone, or adjusting the volume?)
Here’s what I am getting at: Why did Trayvon Martin walk all he way back to the Retreat with the beverage and Skittles in the 7/11 plastic bag, but apparently remove both items from the bag, put the Skittles into his hoodie pouch, and the heavier canned beverage into his inner shirt pocket?
It is my contention that Trayvon Martin’s actions in this regard are evidence of preparing to assault Zimmerman. How so?
IMO Trayvon Martin wanted his hands free. The bag filled with items was a hindrance so he quickly puts the Skittles into the hoodie pouch, places the can (that is heavier) into his shirt pocket, where it would be more secure, and either tossed the bag aside or put it into the hoodie pocket also (where during the assault it fell out of the pocket and on to the ground).
While this kind of analysis may seem absurd, remember, the prosecutor and Team Crump are analyzing every aspect of Zimmerman’s actions, in the hopes of finding something to prove Zimmerman intended to gun down a black man, any black man.
So IMO all this is relevant to proving Trayvon Martin was the aggressor. I welcome an alternative explanation on why Trayvon Martin accepted the 7/11 clerk’s offer for a bag (see video), the items were placed in a bag, then Trayvon Martin walks home, and a few yards from the town home he removes the items from the bag and puts them into his pockets.
Try to picture yourself doing something similar. I can recall the few times I have done that, it was because I needed both hands free, so I fill one pocket with an item, another pocket with something else, then I crush the bag and put that in a pocket too.
If you want, you can reenact Trayvon Martin’s actions. Put two items in a plastic bag, pretend you have walked and are almost to your front door, then remove the items from plastic bag and put them into your pockets. IMO this is not something casually done and without intention.
This evidence IMO goes to proving correct Zimmerman’s version of events. Zimmerman says that Trayvon Martin ambushed him, then there was an exchange of words after which Trayvon Martin swung and broke Zimmerman’s nose. Trayvon Martin securing the Skittles and beverage in his pockets was the first step Trayvon Martin took to assault Zimmerman.
(And perhaps it proves that Trayvon Martin intended to give only a beatdown to Zimmerman. Moreover, it corroborates Zimmerman’s account of what Trayvon Martin said: Only after feeling or seeing the gun did Trayvon say “You are gonna die tonight” or something like that.) Note: I am really speculating on this part :)
Some other things I noticed in my brief look at the first few pages of material:
– There’s multiple witnesses who confirmed Trayvon Martin was on top of George Zimmerman.
– There’s multiple witnesses who confirmed George Zimmerman’s injuries. (Remember when the PD video aired and attorneys Crump, Jackson, and ALL of MSNBC talent went ballistic for four days (including a weekend) saying how the video PROVED George Zimmerman was a liar because the video showed he was uninjured.) This discovery proves George was telling the truth and MSNBC are in league with Crump.
– There’s multiple witnesses who confirmed that prior to the shooting there has been lots of trouble (aka crime) at The Retreat.
– There’s confirmation that George was NOT a wannabe cop or hero. With all the trouble his neighborhood was experiencing he contacted the SPD and asked about setting up a Neighborhood Watch program. And he worked with the SPD officer assigned to coordinate and administrate the department’s NW program.
And I leave best for last, which of course is back#sswards on how one is supposed to do things.
1. There is NOT a witness or piece of evidence that hints, implies, much less PROVES, the SOLE BASIS for the State’s 2nd degree murder charge, specifically: George Zimmerman is a racist and that his hatred of blacks is what motivated George Zimmerman to profile, stalk, assault and ultimately kill Trayvon Martin.
In other words, Corey does not have, nor did she ever, any evidence to prove 2nd degree murder, nor a motive for it.
And of course, the same goes for federal hate crime charges (albeit I have always said that there’s no way the Justice Dept. will file hate crime charges against Zimmerman).
2. The prosecutor’s file contains overwhelming material indicating exculpatory evidence.
(By the way, “exculpatory evidence” is a legal term. It means evidence that indicates or clears someone of guilt or blame.)
3. The files indicate that Corey was in possession of “reams” of exculpatory evidence BEFORE she charged Zimmerman with murder.
4. The evidence shows that Corey IGNORED the exculpatory evidence and charged Zimmerman anyway. (In part because the Governor appointed her so that she would charge Zimmerman with murder, quell riots, and make things happen in a way that tourism was not negatively impacted. I was not privy to those meetings so this is super spec on my part :)
5. The files and evidence revealed so far PROVE Corey’s conduct constitutes a crime, and that she has violated her oath of office, attorney, and as an officer of the court. She should be prosecuted the same as Mike Nifong, disbarred, and kicked out of office.
6. The evidence and recent events prove that Corey’s crimes continue. Rather than dismiss the case, which she knows lacks merit and that she cannot prove, she criminally connives and schemes to force Zimmerman to plead guilty. (She moved to revoke bail, charged Shellie Zimmerman with perjury, misrepresented the case to the public, tried to cut off donations to Zimmerman, and conspired with attorneys Crump, et al. on the case.)
7. The evidence has disclosed and confirmed what I have been saying since day one. Attorney Crump, Jackson and others have tampered with witnesses, are guilty of obstruction of justice, and since February 28 have been conspiring to defraud insurance carriers, government entities and taxpayers (who often end up being the ones who pay settlements).
8. Think about it. Why did Tracy Martin retain a lawyer (Crump) less than 48 hours after the shooting. And what is a family’s motive when BEFORE a son is buried they have two law firms and a PR outfit lined up. And why was Crump so quick to sign up Tracy Martin? Obviously this is all about money to them, and nothing else.
9. As this and other evidence reveals, after convincing Tracy Martin there was big money in this case, and that he needed to immediately retain his services to get it, Crump then set about conspiring to defraud.
10. This round of evidence disclosures further indicates the extent and breadth of Crump, et al. conspiracy. To protect his investment and nest egg, Crump made sure to get involved with every aspect of the criminal case.
– On behalf of the supposed bereaved, Crump, et al. arranged meetings, media appearances, travel around the globe with tin cup in hand (even to the UK), issued press releases, established himself as someone to go to for an opinion on all developments, told attorneys, police that everything was to go through him, and even convinced witnesses to let him be the intermediary between them and the police investigators.
– Also notice that this new round of evidence once again shows that Crump was present whenever the police talked to now-Crump-represented witnesses, when they conducted interviews, and talked to Martin/Fulton family members.
– When Tracy Martin supposedly put two and two together on the purported T-Mobile calls, he gave the online printouts to Crump rather than contacting the police. In fact, Tracy Martin refused to cooperate with the police on getting Trayvon Martin’s call records.
– When Tracy Martin discovered the purported significance of DeeDee (she was on the phone with him that night, so Trayvon’s phone records would reveal that ), Martin again went to Crump, not law enforcement. IMO Crump then hurried over or talked to DeeDee and her parents to keep control of the situation, tamper with the witness, and to go over what she would say to the police. Only after all this did Crump contact law enforcement to offer up DeeDee as a witness. And of course, when the police talked to supposed girlfriend DeeDee Crump was there.
(You have to be asking yourself, why did Tracy Martin lawyer up less than two days after the shooting and why is Crump involved in every aspect of a police investigation. Why are some witnesses changing aspects of what they said earlier to police, but only AFTER being contacted by Crump, and/or Crump representing these witnesses. Why do all these witnesses need lawyers, and all of them have the same lawyer, Benjamin Crump. By my count there’s about five now, some who have gone in front of the media, with Crump present of course, to badmouth Zimmerman or the police. It is all about the money. Remember, follow the money, follow the motive.)
– Crump even convinced funeral guy Richard Kurtz to go on worldwide media to opine that Zimmerman was a liar about being injured and to badmouth the police. Of course Kurtz is black and apparently simpatico with Crump and his agenda.
Recall when Kurtz said:
“As for (Trayvon’s) hands and knuckles, I didn’t see any evidence he had been fighting anybody.”
And for good measure Crump had him say:
“That while he (Kurtz) is not a forensics expert, he has handled the bodies of many homicide victims in his career. This case in particular affected him as he learned more about what happened to Trayvon Martin and how the case was handled. ‘I think the police investigation was the most unprofessional one I’ve ever seen in my lifetime.'”
– Crump and his co-conspirators should be prosecuted under federal and state law for fraud. IMO Martin/Fulton have been traveling around the world collecting “donations” under false pretenses. Crump, Martin, Fulton knew long ago (almost to a day four months ago) that this case had nothing to do with race.
They should face charges for obstruction of justice, impeding a lawful investigation, and witness tampering. And the big one, Crump, et al. should be nailed under criminal and civil RICO.
styrgwillidar said:
ItsMichaelNotMike, thanks. I agree that the preponderance of the evidence supports Zimmerman’s story. Also, thanks for the reminder that since self-defense is an affirmative defense the burden on the defense to prove that case- fear of imminent bodily harm/death justifying the use of lethal force. So, I do understand that in court the defense will have to show how those circumstances existed- and I think a young fit man on top of someone, slamming their had against the pavement, fits the bill.
I guess my initial comment was based on Mike being very careful in stating what is proven fact and what is circumstantial. While I see it as highly likely that Trayvon started the fight, I don’t think it is indisputable. I also wonder if in the end it is relevant- even if Trayvon had not started the fight, had he reached the point that Zimmerman was no longer a threat? In reality, even if Zimmerman stopped struggling or clearly stated he’d given up- he still had a gun on him. So, if Trayvon lets up this unknown victim, he may be exposing himself to getting shot. Give up his advantage too early.
Although this case kind of proves my Dad’s point to me about fighting. You never know what the other guy has on him and how far he’s willing to take it. Avoid it, but fight like your life is at stake when forced into one.
Chip Bennett said:
Actually, in Florida, a defendant need only present a modicum – a bare minimum, no matter how flimsy – of evidence to support a self-defense claim, and the defendant will receive the self-defense jury instruction. With only that modicum of evidence, the burden of proof shifts entirely back to the prosecution, to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
The only time the defendant bears more than a bare-minimum burden of proof is in a 776.032 self-defense immunity hearing, in which the defendant must prove, with a preponderance of evidence, that the use of deadly force was justified in self-defense.
styrgwillidar said:
Thank you for the clarification, it is appreciated.
jordan2222 said:
It’s just nuts that after all of this, there are so many that remain uninformed insofar who has the burden of proof.
How did this come about that folks think that George must be the one providing all of the damn proof at the trial itself not a pretrial immunity hearing where even then only the preponderance of the evidence must favor George.
So damn many falsehoods arose and still abound about SYG, that it has screwed them into believing that this case is so different that the prosecution no longer has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Of course, it is true that this case defies “normal” logic. Everything is backassward and that old adage about ties go to the defendant when the call is close in interpreting a law is only so much more BS.
So what the hell is really going on here?
My friend, Fred Reed, said it best back in April of last year, “We must lynch Zimmerman.”
http://www.fredoneverything.net/Zimmerman.shtml
ItsMichaelNotMike said:
styrgwillidar… I was simply pointing out that IMO there’s circumstantial evidence that Trayvon Martin PLANNED the assault.
However, for purposes of trial within the restriction (correct) limitations Judge Nelson placed on the State none of this will matter because the prosecutors have absolutely no case. IMO the State won’t survive a motion to dismiss after it rests on its case-in-chief. My faux opening statement was jest to dramatize and register that opinion.
styrgwillidar said:
I found your take on why Judge Nelson ruled the way she did very enlightening. The concept that she’s streamlining the case don’t do it’s basics and eliminating distractions.
nomorebsplease said:
George Zimmerman is the first man in history to accept a reality where, in the future, the person he ‘wants to kill’ is still alive. By accept, I mean to understand it is meant to be and he would have to adapt to it. Now, you must be wondering “What in the hell doest THAT mean?” Consider this.
When he leaves the car, he is asked for his address. He had already given his cell # and was certainly not using a pseudonym. So why fear giving out his address? Well, he says why “oh, crap. I don’t want to give that out now I don’t know where that kid is”
This means he doesn’t want retaliation. He’s always in a defensive state of mind. Never offensive. From being scared when Trayvon approached his car, to making sure police offers would come to making sure to not give away where he LIVES. Because, to him, Trayvon may live there too. He doesn’t now he would leave the next day to go back to bangazcrackaville.
So you may wonder “What is the POINT?” Well. Consider, the narrative that LED to this CASE is that he wanted to kill him (either by hunting him down) or having no value for his life – it was all about the offensive. But George, if he wanted to murder somebody, would not think of a reality where his victim is alive. He’d only want to think of one where he did not. So why would he not just hang up the phone, or not even call in the first place, and just hunt him down?
Killers, people of depraved mind, don’t fear their victim existing in the future to harm them. They are the ones who do the harming. They are not defensive, there is no need to be. They are too busy hunting their pray. The only person who hunted their pray, or circled them, was Trayvon.
I challenge anybody to prove, when Trayvon was creating the grass stains on the front of his pants, and the only bloody face among both of them before the gunshot (George’s) that he came to accept a reality, a future, with george alive.
Good luck on that. George at least did it. To me, it shows he didn’t act in malice. But rather instinct, and out of being naive, rather than act with the idea of harming.
A hunter doesn’t think “Oh, crap, they might know where I live. I am scared”. There is no such thought. There is “I want to make sure you don’t exist, can’t snitch/etc”. Which is what George’s face, and Trayvon’s past (his texts about wanting to hug and kiss snitches – not) led to – a bangaz on a cracka. One scared for his life, one who only acted when HE was in danger.
He was stupid, but not acting in malice. Because he was able to accept a reality where trayvon was alive. It didn’t anger him or upset him. It scared him. And people who are scared, who call the 911 NEN in cars and want police to go there, don’t plan murders. Unless you can show me 5 cases where that happened. IN the meantime I’ll find 445 where drug dealers wanted to hurt a cop or a snitch. One of which has the texts to prove it.
Pay no mind to those who refuse to see the human behavior and only the narrative that fits their personal belief system. Rather, convince the public of the human element and raise $250,000.
nomorebsplease said:
One note. One may read the comment “One scared for his life, one who only acted when HE was in danger.” and wonder what I meant. Sometimes, people who are scared, don’t think logically in a fight or flight scenario. If you have ever been attacked or mugged or threatened in any way, your instincts are not always to retreat.
He may have felt safer, after Trayvon circled his car, to see him for sure so the cops can bust him rather than “I’m a good ‘ol boy going to hunt you down”. People might ask “Why do that?” They don’t understand that when you are scared, or have your heart racing, you may mistakenly do something you think is logical. There is a line being between naive and making a mistake and acting with the goal to harm – to know one’s actions clearly break the moral code we all should live by.
And do not forget, this entire case exists only because of the lie that TrEyvon, as spelled by the 16 year old 18 year old grass whisperer, was on his way home – after watching an NBA all star game that aired when he was dead.
So the fact that we have to judge moral character, when Trayvon intentionally went up to his car, instead of running home or, as george did, contact the police – well. We now have the only ‘small child’ in history with no parents who wasn’t screaming for them and wasn’t calling the police.
Just as we have the only 16 year old 18 year old of 2012 as his witness
Just as we have the only kid who went to the candy store during the halftime of a game he was dead when it was airing.
Just as we have the only father who drives his son to sanford by transforming into a bus.
Yeah. This is our country folks. Let’s ignore the flies that land on our noses and, instead, pay attention to the scud misles landing in our backyard.
Ty for your time.
jordan2222 said:
u be as nutty as me sometimes.
jordan2222 said:
Does a detailed simulation of what happened….. second by second with maps, phone calls and players inserted appropriately as they appear, exist anywhere?
I sure hope the defense has created an easy to follow reenactment, maybe in 3D, since visiting the scene is off the table.
IIRC, they have been used in court before both successfully and not so successfully. Weren’t they used in the cases of OJ and Blakely? Or did the judges disallow them? I am sure I saw one of OJ killing Nicole and Ron.
nomorebsplease said:
Judge Cousin It would not allow it unless it shows Martin on a tricycle eating ice cream and saying “Chad, I am on my way! OH NO A SCARY WHITE MAN WITH A CHAINSAW. HELP ME MOMMA!”
ItsMichaelNotMike said:
In criminal trials simulations, reenactments, or demonstrations are never ordered by the court.
It would be up to the lawyers to stipulate (agree) to allow such, and one side or the other will usually object to it.
In civil court they are more common, such as to show how a vehicle strayed over a dividing line and into oncoming traffic.
Note: Interesting about this case, in comparison to many cases there’s a lot of audio evidence, and as predicted, there was the 7-Eleven surveillance video.
jordan2 said:
Are you saying that neither side can present any type of replica of the crime scene and/or simulation of what happened?
DIdn’t they use one in the OJ trial?
ItsMichaelNotMike said:
I’ll post over the weekend my thoughts on Mike’s article. For now:
SlingTrebuchet said: May 31, 2013 at 11:28: “Mike’s post here is not objective. It is a case for the defence. It is, accordingly, partisan. More specifically, it contains errors of fact and also fails to join some dots.”
I read the article and I consider it totally objective, non-partisan, if you will.
The issue I have with your characterization of Mike’s commentary as partisan and subjective is that you appear to be advancing a carved-in-stone syllogism, if a discussion of facts, interpretation of law, or application of facts to the law favors one side or the other, that means the critical thinker has lost objectivity, taken sides and the analysis flawed.
I totally agree that on the Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman controversy the Net is replete with ostensible critical thinkers. Those people exhibit all that I detest. They are stupid, mental slobs, hypocrites, or rotten to the core. On this case they lack objectivity, insight, grasp of the facts, and many the inability to write basic English (the horrific aspect of all this is many exhibiting some or all of these characteristics is that they are college graduates, or old enough to know better).
Anyway, I have read quite a bit about this case. I have examined the discovery, digested the case law, and read up on the law. I have read thousands of blog, web and media pages.
I mention this as a foundation to “testify” that Mike’s blog is the most objective material I have read on the Net. Probably at the same level would be Talk Left. Those two people are the most open-minded, fair, neutral, and common sense authors discussing Trayvon Martin / George Zimmerman.
OK, end of my remarks about THAT.
Tomorrow I intend to discuss how everything Mike says in this article ties in with the case, specifically, why Bernie will lose the case, and fall hard, very hard.
Bonus Comment: On the eve of trial our classifying Mike’s article as objective, subjective, or partisan, is of no moment. You alluded why this is so when you remarked:
“Facts are thin on the ground in this case….”
If I’m George Zimmerman I’m loving your conclusion because when the facts are thin THE STATE LOSES (since it has the burden of proof). Note: The facts such as they are favor Zimmerman. Moreover, common sense favors Zimmerman too. In contrast, Trayvon supporters think that when there’s a gap in the facts, they get to fill them in with their version of events (aka speculation, conjecture, skewing). They, along with Crump, think Bernie at trial can echo their bullsheet to the jury. Those with a modicum of intellect know that ain’t gonna happen.
Every fact that Mike discusses is why the State is going to lose. Later today I will discuss the Information, Affidavit, admissible evidence and connect the dots (your words) to Mike’s presentation in his recent articles. (Subject to my not wanting to reveal strategy to Crump and the Berangela de la Nifongs.)
It is late so I’m going to be lazy and not proof this comment. My usual admonition, if you find poor grammar or misspellings, take the pain.
I am posting test links here, on one of my server folders.
Click to access InformationChargeCorey.pdf
Click to access affidavitwithmynotes.pdf
Click to access Murder2JuryInst.pdf
Click to access BassalloInstructionInjuryMMEdit.pdf
Click to access TallySDefenseStanJuryInstFErrorMMEdit.pdf
ItsMichaelNotMike said:
Oh man, my poorly written comment that was awaiting moderation got posted.
Oh well, I dare not read it because… I can’t take the pain.
Angel said:
“I mention this as a foundation to “testify” that Mike’s blog is the most objective material I have read on the Net. Probably at the same level would be Talk Left. Those two people are the most open-minded, fair, neutral, and common sense authors discussing Trayvon Martin / George Zimmerman.”
I second that!!! I need to drop in more often.
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear Angel:
That’s very kind.
jordan2222 said:
How have you been, Angel, and where have you been? Good to hear from you.
SlingTrebuchet said:
juggler523 said:
Sling Sling Sling –
Your intellectual “appeasement” is reminiscent of Neville Chamberlain’s attitude toward Hitler, when he returned from Germany waving a piece of paper and declaring “peace in our time”. He was as naive as you. You see a case for manslaughter??? Because Murder 2 is too harsh? Such a conclusion (that manslaughter is appropriate) is simply intellectual surrender – meaning you simply don’t give a darn about accuracy.
According to Florida Statutes,
“The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.”
You do not have a case for culpable negligence. You do not have a case that negates “excusable homicide” (a la self-defense). You cannot out-argue “legal justification”.
What it seems is that you are on the steamboat to nowhere…and fast….along with so many brainless TRAYTARDS who can’t allow themselves to admit that their initial conclusions concerning Zimmerman’s guilt or innocence were WRONG!
You won’t admit that the evidence that has been trickling out contains no smoking gun…no compelling argument that points to Zimmerman being guilty of ANYthing, let ALONE of homicide in ANY form.
Yours is a bit more of a sophisticated approach, but your logic is no less flawed than those who early on argued Zimmerman wasn’t even INJURED – relying on a fuzzy garage security camera that wasn’t even designed for high quality resolution.
When the arguments are shot down, people like you jump from branch to branch on the issues, not unlike a monkey in a shooting gallery. But you get nowhere.
You attach guilt to a 2:34 gap that CAN be reasonably explained…or to the fact that a person who COULD be legally carrying a firearm…WAS carrying one – as if that is somehow an indictment. You attach guilt to the exit from a vehicle no less than 125ft away from the spot where someone HAD been.
Yes you do it all with eloquence and verbosity (in a written sense), but you do it nonetheless.
jello333 said:
Excellent point. You know, in some ways it bothers me MORE when a person talks about manslaughter than when they talk about murder 2. Like, “I don’t know if it was murder, but it was SOMETHING. Manslaughter sounds about right.” WRONG. There is no more justification for charging George with manslaughter than there is for murder… NONE.
jordan2222 said:
Not much difference in the penalty either since Martin was a baby.
juggler523 said:
Sling –
You wrote: “Whatever I might or might not know about law is irrelevant. I won’t be in the court – even as an observer.”
EXACTLY!! Yet you have in the past attached so much value to legally irrelevant topics…and NOW you say this?
SlingTrebuchet said:
You say they are “legally irrelvant”.
I say they speak to credibility. Expect to see them brought up at trial.
What I meant by the comment that you respond to is something I have said before here.
This is not the courtroom. I am not the prosecution.
I am not role-playing a member of the Florida bar here.
ItsMichaelNotMike said:
“Neville Chamberlain’s attitude toward Hitler, when he returned from Germany waving a piece of paper and declaring ‘peace in our time’”.
Now that’s a world class slight.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FO725Hbzfls
everlastingphelps said:
This weekend, I was thinking of trial themes for Zimmerman’s defense, and one clear one stood out:
What sense does it make to call the police as the first step of your depraved murder plan? Who decides to murder someone by asking the police to arrive as quickly as possible?
SlingTrebuchet said:
Short comment opportunity. Yay!
“depraved murder plan” would be M1 – premeditated.
That’s not the charge.
State says M2 – which is not premeditaded, but seems to call for something like a depraved disregard for life.
Racist hunting and killing of a black guy ( M1) – is only the theory of a fringe group.
Cliff notes:
Zimmerman was doing standard safe NW sort of stuff.
*Then* Martin passed him – on his route home as it happens, but Zimmerman didn’t know that. He thought “He’s coming to check me out”. Wow! Always up to now, they ran away.
Zimmerman freaked and then screwed up bigtime. He head was messed up to begin with.
Mutual misunderstanding.
Martin just sees someone who shadows him in a truck and then follows him on foot.
Zimmerman thinks he dealing with a burglar.
Calling NEN is not relevant to the particular charge.
Burnt Toast said:
*Then* Martin passed him – on his route home as it happens…
It’s a long walk to Miami from Sanford.
Chip Bennett said:
5th DCA: Writ of Certiorari granted
The defense can depose Crump.
ItsMichaelNotMike said:
Yes Chip… HA HA HA to Crump.
This is BIG news. As I said on sites where they are trying to downplay the significance of this ruling:
Judge Nelson was deemed wrong.
She got reversed.
Crump must be deposed.
(And I predict) he will Take the Fifth.
ItsMichaelNotMike said:
On the Crump depo, I suspect this news helps take some of the sting MOM is feeling after having to admit he got it wrong on characterizing the video on Trayvon Martin’s phone.
(It was apparently a video that Trayvon Martin took of two homeless men fighting over a bicycle.)
I am curious how MOM got that twisted in his mind, to go from what it was to a “video of Trayvon Martin filming his two friends beating up a homeless man.”
All that aside, I don’t think Crump gives a rat’s pitoot about MOM’s mischaracterization, he is sweating bullets over his depo. Even if it is limited to an inquiry about DeeDee, that was the whole point of deposing him. Asking him about other things would have been icing on the cake, it is still yummy cake without the icing.
ItsMichaelNotMike said:
For lack of a better spot to place it, here is the opinion, with my highlights.
IMO the appeals court came down really hard on Judge Nelson.
Now she is really going to be pi$$ed off at defense counsel. Trial Judges aspiring for the appellate bench do not want to be reversed. It is like getting a traffic ticket when you intend to get your commercial driver’s license, get too many tickets, no license for you. So getting reversed, in HARSH terms, that’s not good for Judge Nelson.
But at least she knows that MOM West will not hesitate to go to the appeals court, and from this ruling, that the 5th DCA is watching.
Bonus Comment: By my count that’s twice MOM West have gone to the C of A, and that’s two wins. Yee haw!!
Click to access 5thDCACrumpDepoAllowedMMHighlights.pdf
Joel said:
Michael,
Not only that, she was reversed on another self-defense case. One where she failed to instruct the jurors about self-defense. That conviction was thrown out.
Click to access 5D12-796.op.pdf
This has huge implications.
ItsMichaelNotMike said:
Interesting. I never researched her judicial profile, which typically includes how lawyers in her jurisdiction rate her (performance, ethics, fairness, competence, demeanor).
I had only read that she aspired to the appellate court. I’m not sure if Florida has elected appellate justices (some states have both appointed and elected justices). If by appointment, maybe Judge Nelson was the only one thinking about her ascendency to the appellate court.
Another way to think of reversals, it would be like you or I trying to get into a top grad school, that requires a minimum 3.5 GPA to even apply, but we end up getting a few C’s Getting reversed is like getting those C’s.
Joel said:
” Getting reversed is like getting those C’s.” Probably, but the reasoning why this particular case was reversed is more like losing a required class because of cheating. I mean, when a defendant asserts self-defense, even if the judge does not believe it, the judge should still give the instructions about self-defense to the jury.
In this situation, a man wanted to leave a hospital. They restrained him against his will. He spat on one of the people restraining him. That is the battery. There is no information about why he was being held other than he was drunk.
2nd foot note
The record reflects Spurgeon voluntarily sought treatment at South Seminole
Hospital. However, no evidence was introduced to establish the nature of the medical
hold.
The exact nature of the medical hold is important because then it would either justify physically restraining the guy or not. Why did the hospital want to keep this guy there?
Also, wrong charges filed. This guy spat on the security woman. He did not spit on hospital personnel. He was charged with assault (spit) of an emergency medical provider. Something that is similar with the Zimmerman case. Zimmerman is charged with second degree murder. A charge that the evidence doesn’t even remotely support.
The DCA said,
… the State failed to introduce legally sufficient evidence to show that
DenDekker was an employee or agent of a hospital,…
It wasn’t established that DenDekker is an emergency medical provider.
It is huge because it shows that Nelson misses some key ingredients. Failure to properly show that the charges are correct and a further failure to properly instruct the jury.
First she should have told the prosecutor to come up with charges that match the facts or prove that DenDekker is an emergency medical provider. Second, she should have told the jurors about self-defense requirements. She did neither. Now she embroiled in a case that is all about self-defense. Will she also fail to instruct Zimmerman’s jury?
ItsMichaelNotMike said:
I posted this on YouTube. The Oct 19, 2012, discovery hearing where Crump LIED to Judge Nelson that he would sit for his deposition. Hard to believe that was 8 months ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iaglKokMVM
jack203 said:
Sling, blah blah blah, what a windbag.
1) Don’t cherry pick the NEN conversation. Nobody is bound to do exactly what the NEN says anyway.
2) Police were going to arrive any minute, GZ got out for a visual of TM (and possibly an address too). Every red blooded American male I know would have done the exact same thing.
I know GZ talked up the address part more during the police interview. The guy had a chance of being arrested for manslaughter. It is only logical to be very cautious to what you admit too. Again, GZ is doing the expected behavior both times.
You write 15 paragraphs basically boiling down to how you don’t think it’s possible that the fight was 2 minutes long. WTF? Seriously. Get a clue.
Just answer this one question. Who do you think was the one screaming for 45 seconds? That’s all that matters. Even with your hairbrained ridiculous scenarios of a crazed psychotic George Zimmerman charging TM with gun in hand. (After calmly talking with NEN for the previous two minutes) And then Trayvon Martin with superhero powers completely beats the living cr@p out of the beserker George Zimmerman with Trayvon not even taking a single scratch in the hand to hand battle (besides the finger injury).
Even if your crazed scenario is the truth which I think can be proven false beyond a reasonable double.
If GZ was the one screaming, it was still self defense.
So I ask you again. Do you really, deep down, think it was Trayvon screaming for help?
SlingTrebuchet said:
The NEN is a contemporaneous recording of what was said , with background sounds. THe only cariable would be an innacuracy in Zimmerma’s narration of what he is seeing.
.
I don’t think that you quite grasp the approach that the defence has been taking.
.
You assertion that I ever asserted such a thing can be described as “hairbrained ridiculous”.
.
I have absolutely no idea which of them was screaming for help.
Mike outlined the problems very well in his “Reasonable Doubt and Flying Monkeys” post.
I’ve mentioned the problems a number of times.
The phone handset inside a room. It’s not a high-fi microphone. The back door of the room is open, but there are real heavy external blinds separating the porch from the outside. Certainly by the time of the shot, the voice(s?) making the sounds are about 40′ from the porch plus whatever distance from handset to porch.
The pair are surrounded by flat vertical concrete surfaces on all but one side – which is going to add problems with echoes.
There is conversation in the call and background sounds in the room.
I can understand that both “sides” want “their guy” to be the one shouting – for very obvious reasons.
But seriously Shirley ….. c’mon.
It could have been either of them. Maybe some expert could actually demonstrate (as opposed to simply assert) that more than one voice was involved. I have no idea.
I’ve just got crap PC speakers and a raw version of the 911.
There is something however.
The screams get cut short right at the shot.
This could be Martin ceasing to scream on being shot.
This could be Zimmerman ceasing to scream due to shock or possibly to being hit on his nose by the recoil action. “It’s a jumper alright”.
It’s can’t be Zimmerman ceasing to scream due to assuming that the danger was over and that therefore he no longer needed help. He says that that he did not realise that he had actually hit Martin – and that he lunged to get on top of him.
But…… having been “windy” ;)
…. I’ll say again in brief….
I have absolutely no idea which of them was screaming for help.
Chip Bennett said:
The suggestion that Zimmerman’s Kel-Tec PF9 pistol recoiled and hit him in the nose has to be one of the most absurd, ignorant things ever uttered about this case, and I have to wonder if anyone who utters it has ever even held a handgun before.
Long guns have been known to cause facial injuries due to recoil, largely because of the larger caliber and – more importantly – because they’re held near (or against) the face when shot.
Handguns have almost no chance of causing facial injury due to recoil, simply due to the physics involved. Handguns don’t recoil backward, they recoil up. (Think of it as the barrel “jumping”.) which would mean that Zimmerman would have had to have been holding the gun at approximately mouth-level in order for the gun to recoil into his nose.
If you’re suggesting instead that the slide action could have hit him in the nose or face, that’s equally improbable. Even given the nearly physically impossible manner in which he would have had to have been holding the gun to cause the slide to hit his face, if that had happened, the end result would almost assuredly have been a failure-to-feed. And yet the next round was properly chambered – implying that the slide traveled normally during discharge of the one round that was fired.
But, I suppose these are the absurd lengths to which one must go, if one wishes to remain willfully blinded to the single, most obvious reason that the screaming stopped when the gun was fired: because the person being assaulted ended the assault with the gunshot.
SlingTrebuchet said:
I have handled and fired a variety of weapons – including handguns.
At no time was I in the slightest danger of a handgun recoil getting anywhere near my nose. Not a chance! No way!
The reason for this is that I had a proper grip and stance.
Just like Chad and Ryan in this YouTube video
youtube dot com/watch?v=98U1c5tJzqg
They happen to be testing a Kel-Tec PF-9
It’s a very neat and light gun. Only 18 ounces when fully loaded. Equal and opposite reaction and firing 9mm.
It’s got a kick. “Yup. It’s a jumper” they say.
Look at their hands after firing. Hear their comments. See the slo-mo of the recoil action.
However…
At no time are they in any danger of their noses getting injured. The idea is ridiculous.
Two-handed grip, straight-armed stance.
.
Now consider Zimmerman’s posture and grip.
One handed – arm bent sharply at the elbow – wrist bent sharply to aim at the guy he says was sitting on his hips/stomac and bending in over him.
That’s the worst kind of grip with any handgun, nevermind a ‘kicker’.
He’s got that gun right in front of his face.
It’s at the end of two weak pivot points. Where’s it going to go?
jack203 said:
“It’s can’t be Zimmerman ceasing to scream due to assuming that the danger was over and that therefore he no longer needed help. He says that that he did not realise that he had actually hit Martin – and that he lunged to get on top of him.”
What a load of dung. GZ just SHOT him. Of course GZ would stop screaming. What frigging planet do you live in??!?
I don’t give a flying f&^k if GZ phrased it wrong in the police interview. Maybe for a split second he wasn’t sure if he shot him. But once TM stopped the assault GZ stopped screaming.
jello333 said:
“I have absolutely no idea which of them was screaming for help….. It could have been either of them….”
Of course you know that I disagree with most of your conclusions. But none of them surprise me more than that. Seriously? You “have absolutely no idea” who was screaming? As closely as you’ve obviously examined things, I just can’t believe YOU really believe that. Just simple common sense will tell you who was screaming. The evidence and witness statements will tell you who was screaming. And just LISTEN to the “scream tape”, LISTEN to any of George’s voice recordings, LISTEN to Trayvon’s voice when he’s getting off on the “bum fight”. Even though “technology” apparently can’t prove who was screaming, to the human ear (mine at least), the screams sound FAR more like George than Trayvon.
You really think it’s a toss-up of who’s screaming?
jordan2222 said:
Jello: Who has the best minute by minute common sense commentary on the NEN tape?
SlingTrebuchet said:
Juggler,
The 2.5 minute gap – Is it a problem for the defence?
Explain the bit of the Hannity Interview dealing with the timeline of what happened as Zimmerman approached and entered the central pathway area.
Someone has fed Hannity the ludicrous notion that there was a ‘gap’ (that people probably heard talk of) but ….
1)This was only a one-minute gap ….
2) It began at “We don’t need you to do that” and ended at the shot.
Then Zimmerman answers “less than 30 seconds” to “When did you next see Trayvon Martin?”
The very clear message is that there was absolutely no hanging about. Zimmerman barely had to catch his breath after saying “OK” to “We don’t need you to that” before Martin jumped him.
Right?
What’s all that about?
The defence doesn’t want to talk about a 2.5 minute gap. It’s a problem.
.
What led up to the gap is also a problem.
We see this clearly in the Hannity Interview – which took place after the defence had over 5 months to analyse and plan.
Martin isn’t running.
Martin running – given that it turned out that he wasn’t a would-be burglar fleeing – would indicate that Zimmerman’s activity had caused him alarm. So – not only is he now not running – he’s “not in fear”.
Zimmerman did not feel threatened by Martin.
“No, not particularly”
“Hand in his waistband”? – Just a bluff.
Martin isn’t circling the truck any more. That would reasonably contradict an assertion that Zimmerman did not feel particularly threatened.
At the same time he still has to assert “thug” on the part of Martin, so he says “And his demeanor, his body language, was confrontational”
Why should Zimmerman assert that he did not feel particularly threatened?
If he did perceive a threat, then it would be reckless to “go in the same direction” blindly – particularly when this confrontational person had not actually run, but sort of skipped.
.
Speaking of danger ….. and looking back at the reluctance to admit to a 2.5 minute gap…
This is 40 seconds before the call ends.
Although “He ran” …. It hits Zimmerman that Martin might be close enough in the dark to have overheard his home address. He is assuming that Martin is a member of one of the local gangs. Retribution on his home might follow.
Given that this gang member has – most unusually and remarkably in Zimmerman’s experience – had the balls to walk right up to his truck and circle it with “his hand in his waistband” and “confrontational body language” and that this apparently threatening person might be close by in the darkness …… this would be an excellent time to head back to his truck – like right now.
It would have been the reasonable thing to do in the circumstances. And that is to accept that it would have been reasonable to have walked into this danger in the first place.
He does not do so. He’s still in this dangerous (from his perception of Martin) area 3 minutes later.
.
Going by Hannity, after they had 5 months+ to think about things:
The defence do not like the 2.5 minute gap.
The defence do not like implications that Martin saw Zimmerman as a threat.
The defence do not like implications that Zimmerman felt threatened and that he was therefore reckless in going blind at that corner around which Martin had sort of skipped.
.
If anyone wants to argue that the 2.5 minute gap is not a problem for the defence, don’t argue the toss with me.
Contact MOM and reassure him. He clearly needs to be reassured about this.
Although MOM could come up with ‘an explanation’ of the gap when faced with it in court, the explanation won’t be a reasonable one – as I will explain in the next comment.
His additional problem is that Zimmerman is highly unlikely to take the stand.
Any explanation will have to depend on MOM asserting an explanation.
Up against that, the prosecution will have the Hannity interview – with its blatant compression of time.
It’s not going to look good to a jury.
jack203 said:
Sling…. Your posts are unreadable.
A neverending string of nonsensical gibberish.
SlingTrebuchet said:
Juggler,
The 2.5 minute gap – what are the explanations?
Of course you can easily fill it. Anyone could – provided they treat the activity as unrelated to what led up to it – if they explain the 2:34 in a relative vacuum.
.
Let’s take two scenarios
1. The NEN call ends near the T-Junction
2. The NEN call ends at RVC – as Zimmerman says in the Walk Through
For either case, the dismissal of the importance of the 2.5 minute gap depends on Zimmerman going to RVC to get a house number and then becoming tired of waiting in the cold and rain for long enough that the 2:34 is explained.
This sounds plausible on the face of it.
There is a problem however: When the NEN ended, Zimmerman had already been out in the cold and rain for 2 minutes. Martin had been out of his sight and presumably well gone for those 2 minutes.
Some assert that the word that followed the “f*cking” said seconds after he got out of the truck was “cold”. Maybe it was and he was very conscious of the rain and cold.
A contributory problem is that the sole stated reason for Zimmerman to get out of the truck was to get an address. He’s been consistent on this. He wasn’t following. He was simply “going in the same direction”. The story is that if there had been any element of following, then it ended on “We don’t need you to do that.”
.
(1) NEN ends near the T-Junction
This is what Jello proposes above.
Stopping near the T/“doggy station” is also my reading from analysis of the NEN. Using the estimated distances covered over time, Zimmerman is just rounding the back corner of the first house as the “wind” noises in the background die down. He didn’t slow at all ( going by the “wind” noises) on “Are you following him? – Yeah – We don’t need you to do that.”
He does seem to slow on getting just past that back corner – where he has first opportunity to see anything that might be visible down that central path area. It is a perfectly natural point at which to pause and take stock. There is also the situation that it at this point that he gets into an exchange with the dispatcher about his location. This inquiry turns into an attempt to describe his location again and then to questions about the address outside of which his truck is parked and failing that, Zimmerman’s own address – any address. Concentrating on this would tend to have him stopped during the conversation.
Ending the call near the T might seem attractive – as the walk from there to RVC after the NEN ends would cut about 30 seconds off the 2:34 .
But ….. now the problems start.
Problem.1 Right at the very end of the call.
The suspect had disappeared – 2 minutes previously.
Zimmerman had been out in the cold and rain for 2 minutes already.
Zimmerman agrees to meet at the Mailboxes. Very sensible. He can see them (just beyond his truck) from where he is standing. Walk to the nice warm dry truck and move it to the mailboxes. He would have been out in the rain for 2 minutes at that stage, with the last 1.5 minutes of that just standing near the T – in the cold and rain.
Why would he suddenly decide to walk to RVC at that stage? Martin had been ‘gone’ for 2 minutes. What use is a house number on RVC?
One minute earlier:
It is for a meeting with the incoming cops.
He’s already been out in the rain and cold for 2 minutes. More than just cold, it might be f*cking cold. Now he goes back on a perfectly reasonable plan to meet at the mailboxes – and logically he would be sitting in his warm dry truck there.
Now he’s going to walk to RVC and stand there for some unknown time in the cold and rain until the cops arrive? What’s he going to tell them when they arrive? Tell them that Martin had run down towards the back entrance minutes ago? They would already know that. It was already recorded in the Event Log.
This scenario sounds completely unreasonable.
Problem.2
He’s consistently claimed that the sole reason he got out of the truck was to look for an address. He forgot the name of Twin Trees and first looked for a street sign. As there was no sign, he then decided to walk to RVC to get a house number on a street name that he knew.
If he actually only made the RVC decision right at the end of the call, then his mission in going into the central pathway area was actually “following”.
“Following” is a problem for the defence. The action was immediately described as “going in the same direction” and “not following”.
.
(2) NEN ends on RVC
He can stop along the way for 30 seconds and still be standing there at the end of the NEN.
The problems are much like as in (1)
He went to RVC to get a house number. He had view of house numbers at the time that he agrees to meet at the mailboxes.
Why not give the dispatcher the address – as he had planned to do?
No matter. He agreed at that stage to the dispatcher’s suggestion to meet at the mailboxes.
Way better plan. He’s been out in the rain and cold for 2 minutes already. What good reason could there be for hanging about any longer. Martin had been ‘gone’ for those 2 minutes. Presumably he’s escaped via the back entrance. They always get away.
What on earth would be the point in meeting the cops at RVC? Anywhere would do at this stage – and the best place would be the mailboxes – and he can get into his nice warm dry truck directly on his way there.
But no. He doesn’t give the address. He’s going to stand there in the rain and cold for some more unknown number of minutes – having been already exposed to that for the past 2 minutes.
.
To make ‘standing at RVC’ an explanation of the 2.5 minutes involves Zimmerman
a. Having already been out in the rain and f*cking cold for 2 minutes
b. Deciding not to return to warm-and-dry truck & mailboxes as agreed but to
c. Wait in the rain and cold for a further 1.5 minutes before deciding that he was getting too wet and cold.
This is not a reasonable explanation
To cap it all…
When the cops call him, he will have to tell them where he is at.
He has so far dismally failed to describe his location to the dispatcher – twice.
If he is to describe his location to the incoming cops, he will have to be either standing near a house number on RVC – or at the mailboxes. He can’t be anywhere else. He won’t be able to give them directions. He had already failed at that twice in the past few minutes.
Why did he suddenly change the plan at the end of the NEN?
Did he notice something?
Call logs apparently show that Martin’s phone was active at the time.
Chip Bennett said:
Why does Zimmerman have to explain 2.5 minutes?
What unlawful act is he alleged to have committed during those 2.5 minutes, for which Zimmerman must provide an alibi, or otherwise explain himself?
Unless you can provide evidence that Zimmerman committed some unlawful act during (or after) those 2.5 minutes, your walls and walls of text remain irrelevant.
SlingTrebuchet said:
It speaks to credibility. Hannity was a serious mistake IMO.
I’ll leave that to judge and jury.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again.
This is not the court. I am not the prosecution.
jack203 said:
“You really think it’s a toss-up of who’s screaming?”
From what I can tell of Sling. Sling is obsessed with two things GZ said during his multiple hours of his interviews.
1) GZ never admitted to going the same direction as TM (although 2 minutes behind) in order to see if he could attain a visual
2) GZ claimed he wasn’t sure if he shot him right after the gunshot
Because of these two obsessions, Sling is completely ignoring all other evidence and witnesses, and will go on 27 paragraph incoherant rants.
I find his/her obsession thoroughly unconvincing and pathetic. I don’t think Sling has the first idea about police interviews and people in general. Overall, I think GZ handled the police interviews well. He convinced the detectives it was self defense even though they were being pressured by a few of their colleagues to press charges.
Thinker Belle said:
What I do not understand is why he thought he should follow him if he hadn’t actually committed a crime or had acted as if he was making a get away with goods in hand. Most police could care less if someone breaks in and steals jewelry or anything else. Why should Zimmerman?
I knew when I was about to be hit. I screwed the storm door shut with self-tapping screws. They kicked in the neighbor’s door instead. For that little maneuver, I ended up having to replace a tire that had a very large self-tapping automotive screw in it. Almost a bolt, but not yet.
As a result, I got scolded by a neighborhood-or should I say concerned citizen- over allegedly running a stop sign on the way to have the tire repaired. She, in turn, races through a major intersection by running the red light.