Knowing. Writing about the George Zimmerman case, I’ve seen many people of good will write: “we’ll never know what happened in this case, but…”. In the most technical, hair-splitting sense, they’re correct. But in consideration of daily reality, they’re not, and understanding the distinction is at once instinctive and vital.
After all, what’s our standard for knowing anything? Is there a more or less universal standard, or are our standards situational? Will we accept one standard of proof from our friends, but expect more–or less–of co-workers or strangers? At one time, Walter Cronkite was “the most trusted man in America,” but now we know he often lied in the furtherance of a leftist narrative. Few Americans actually believe what the legacy media tells them, yet most Americans are also able–if they take the time to think clearly–to tell when that same media can be trusted. That’s certainly a situational matter, but there are standards.
I’ve been married to my wife for 35 years, unquestionably the best years of my life. For my knowledge of her before we met I rely almost entirely on her word, yet I have no difficulty relying on nothing more than that. Perhaps her memories are dimmed by all of those years? Perhaps she doesn’t remember every detail with perfect fidelity? Perhaps she even fails to tell me some things and like all of us, tells some stories in subtle ways that make her more virtuous and admirable than she really was. Yet, I have no difficulty believing that I know about those years of her life, that I know about her, and if evidence someday pops up that might cause me to alter what I believe I know, so what? I’m not going to discover that she’s actually my daughter from a one-night stand I had and forgot long ago, or that she’s actually an alien parasite just waiting for the chance to lay her eggs in my chest. That she was once mean to Bobby who had a huge crush on her when she was 15 means nothing considering who she now is. Perhaps what she learned from that incident was instrumental in making her who she is.
And what about the Zimmerman case? Are we really unable to know what happened? This is not an inconsequential matter for me. In all of my years of police service, it was an issue that daily confronted me. I know, for example, that there are minor inconsistencies in Zimmerman’s several accounts. Why don’t they tell me he lied? Lied about what?
Human nature plays a significant role here. In retelling traumatic events–and few are more traumatic than taking a life, even to preserve our own–we inevitably add and subtract. From day to day, some events suddenly become clearer or take primacy in our memories. We want to be acceptable to others, so in subtle ways, we accent this and suppress that. In analyzing what happened to us, we rearrange and emphasize details that previously seemed less important and meaningful. And because we are a story-telling species, we always want to tell a good story. We’re guided by our literary and cultural models, whether we realize it or not.
We’re a story-telling species? Think about your interactions with others. What percentage of those conversations are little more than story telling? They aren’t usually huge narratives, just little slices of life, short, short stories, if you will, but stories nonetheless. They are the cement of our relationships, ideas and reassurances, indications that others think as we do, appreciate the same things, or in the case of people whose stories seem disquieting, even alien, they tell us who isn’t like us, who is unlikely to empathize with us or appreciate us. It is only as we become more comfortable with others, as we internalize a body of stories that allows us to accept them that we move beyond story telling and into discussion, even debate of issues that matter to us. Even so, we always return to stories, for they change and grow as we change and grow.
We begin with Zimmerman’s account, with his story. That, by the way, is why so many people have followed the case; it’s a compelling story, a story we realize that but for the grace of God, might be ours. As a police officer, a story alone would never be enough for me, but it’s a necessary starting place. That’s why, in the early stages of writing about this case, I was very cautious about stating things with certainty. I knew only a fraction of what the Sanford Police knew. I knew relatively little of the evidence, evidence I needed to know to form an informed opinion–to know. With greater knowledge came greater certainty.
Let’s consider just a few facets of the case:
(1) Why did Zimmerman leave his truck?
(2) How did the confrontation start?
(3) Who was screaming for help on the Lauer 911 recording?
(4) Where was Zimmerman and what was happening when he fired the shot?
We begin, again, with Zimmerman’s account. He was there. He knows what happened, and there are significant reasons to believe that his story was honest and complete. He immediately admitted what happened, to a witness, and to the first officer on the scene only about a minute after the shot. He not only gave the Sanford Police a complete, taped statement without benefit of counsel shortly after the incident, he met them at about 5 PM the next day and did a videotaped reenactment of the incident, again, without counsel. His level of cooperation would give any defense attorney nightmares, but in this backward case, was his salvation.
In short order, he completed not one, but two “lie detectors,” a voice stress device, and “passed” both. Keep in mind that’s not admissible in court. There is no such thing as a machine that can detect what is, after all, nothing more than an abstraction in the human brain. The police use lie detectors for two primary reasons: to help convince criminals to confess, and most of all, to make themselves feel better. Good investigators know that in every case, there will be things they can’t be absolutely sure about. It’s simply impossible to have absolute, 100% iron-clad certainty about everything, but they want that certainty, they desperately want that certainty. The police, above all else, hate to be wrong. Lives ride on their decisions, so do careers and relationships. If they’re wrong, bad things happen to people, often people that don’t deserve bad things. Lie detectors can help them sleep a little better–sometimes.
But that’s not all. Zimmerman had injuries entirely consistent with his story. His clothing bore the evidence of being on his back in the soaked grass, as did Martin’s clothing bear the marks of straddling Zimmerman. Investigator Serino came to believe that it was Zimmerman screaming. He believed it for the same reasons I came to believe it. Before he saw advantage in it, Martin’s father told Serino it was not Trayvon Martin’s voice. And it made sense. Who would be screaming for help, the person on the bottom, being brutally beaten, or the person on top, administering the beating? It further made sense because Zimmerman is not an aggressive personality. He was known for meekness, for being non-confrontational. The testimony of eye and ear witnesses also supported Zimmerman’s account, and those few that did not, were plainly, probably mistaken, perhaps even deceptive.
Zimmerman’s description of the shot also comported perfectly with the physical evidence, and with the observations of witnesses. In fact, that particular shot could not have been made in any position other than that described, consistently, by Zimmerman.
So what’s our standard for this case? Video taken simultaneously from multiple angles from the moment Zimmerman first saw Martin until the police arrived? That almost never happens, and when video exists, it’s usually from only a single angle, and virtually never high resolution.
One factor above convinced me of Zimmerman’s innocence: the prosecution’s continual lies and suppression of exculpatory evidence. There is no greater ringing bell or flashing red light. Prosecutors with a truly guilty defendant delight in turning over discovery, promptly and completely.
Why did Zimmerman leave his truck? He told us, and the non-emergency call and all of the evidence, including time frames, supports his account. He was asked to keep informing the dispatcher of what Martin was doing. Any dispatcher asks this, it dispatching 101: what is the suspect doing from minute to minute? What’s his location? When Martin fled, Zimmerman, trying to be a good citizen, followed, not to catch him, not to perform a citizen’s arrest ala Goober Pyle arresting Barney Fife in that classic episode of the Andy Griffith Show, but to answer the dispatcher’s questions, to keep Martin in sight and direct the responding police to him.
How did the confrontation start? Even Rachel Jeantel, the state’s star witness–to whatever degree she can be believed–said Martin started the confrontation with a verbal challenge–just as Zimmerman did. She also said his phone call ended with a “bump” of some kind, a “bump” that coincides with Zimmerman’s account of a sucker punch to the nose. She inadvertently confirmed Zimmerman’s account.
Who was screaming for help? Zimmerman told us, and the most credible witnesses, the witnesses in a position to know and with no apparent reason to bias their accounts, supported him. Common sense–yes, common sense–also tells us that it is the victim screaming for help, not the attacker.
Where was Zimmerman and what was happening when he fired the shot? All of the physical evidence and the witness testimony supported Zimmerman’s account.
All of the rest is “what if,” “he shouldn’t have done this,” or “he shouldn’t have done that,” or any of a hundred different suppositions. These are other possible realities that could have should have happened, but never did. One reality brought us to this point in time, to reading this article, to considering how we know things–no other.
None of us were there. But do we need to witness everything we know? Some of us may have doubts, but do those doubts truly wipe away all of the evidence, all of the supporting testimony and fact? Believe me, the quality and quantity of evidence in the Zimmerman case is greater–far greater–than that in a great many cases I investigated, yet I was virtually always able to understand what happened and how it happened, to know. I knew because I began with a story–a two-dimensional construct–and built, block by block, small piece of evidence by small piece of evidence, a three-dimensional motion picture, a replay of events. There were always black outs, jump cuts, missing dialogue, but each movie was understandable and conformed to human reality–to common sense. I don’t mean the kind of common sense the prosecution wanted to foist on the jury, but the common sense, the experience, that allows us to survive in the world, to understand that what matters is not what was in a heart, but the evidence, which is ultimately what we have.
We do know what happened on that rainy night in Sanford, Florida. Given the limitations of our senses and intellects, and the physical reality of existence, what other standard of proof could we demand? And if we have to demand more, can we truly know much of anything at all?
What’s your story?
Reblogged this on A world at war.
Who has indisputable evidence of what’s at the end of our universe? I still have a difficult time comprehending infinity and proof that it is never-ending.
It is an exercise in futility, a circular argument only meant to inflame and cause dissention.
“He was known for meekness, for being non-confrontational.” — :snerk: The masks we wear, I suppose. Known for meekness, save for a restraining order, a run in with LEO, a few co workers, a curious incident while working sercurity (which is not an employ known to go to “meek” folks…).
Snerk? You are famous, or infamous, on this blog for taking a snippet of truth and applying whatever meaning you wish, so as to support your own narrative. A restraining order can be issued against a very meek person. Remember, he had one against her as well. A very meek person might risk their own safety in coming to the immediate aid of a friend. All of the 911 calls that Zim made (that were played at the trial) showed that he was non-confrontational. Blah,blah, blah. Get over it.
From the FBI investigation:
This is a new low, even by your standards.
I am reminded of a quote that has been thrown around often in reference to this case: You’re entitled to your own opinions, but you’re not entitled to your own facts.
Restraining order: It was a mutual restraining order, the came out of a fight that his then girlfriend/fiance started. Nothing ever came of it, and the then-significant other corroborates Zimmerman’s character, per the FBI investigation.
Run-in with LEO: Undercover, plainsclothes ATF agents drug Zimmerman’s of-age friend out of a bar, with no explanation. Zimmerman followed them outside, put his hand on the shoulder of one of the agents, and asked him what was going on. The head agent in charge came over, barely flashed his badge, and arrested Zimmerman for assaulting a police officer. The obviously bogus charge was reduced, and dropped entirely after Zimmerman completed a diversion program.
A few co-workers: Zimmerman was alleged to have made fun of a co-worker’s accent. No physical assault, no bullying, no physical intimidation, nothing.
“Curious” incident while working security: Zimmerman was working security with his cancer-survivor friend. Multiple drunk party-goers ambushed his friend, knocked him to the ground, and started assaulting him. Zimmerman came to the defense of his friend, and got visibly angry when the police broke up the party, but did nothing to the men who assaulted his friend.
An unproven assertion on its face – and whether or not that assertion is true, working security is very much an employ for folks who are known to try to help and to protect others at every opportunity.
So, all of the incidents I mentioned did indeed happen. Your response is simply to down play them with… well, what embellishments you would like to impart. Point of note, I just stated the incidents. I am more than willing to let you fill in the perceived blanks, Mad Lib style.
I have had zero runs ins with the law, zero restraining orders placed against me, involved in zero shootings, and never worked security, and never had complaints lodged against me from coworkers. I don’t think “meek” would be in my immediate friends’ list of adjectives when describing me.
“An unproven assertion on its face” — I like my odds. ;) You don’t ask “meek” people to be the one to separate fights, oust unruly patrons, etc.
For such a meek person, all these events that generally don’t occur to meek people seem to occur. Take of that what you will.
I can’t help but notice this “meek”ness tends to manifest AFTER the event that decidedly isn’t “meek” occurs.
Blessed are we the meek whom will inherit the world from assholes and punks, I guess.
Dear Chip:
Thanks. Your explanations are quite accurate and should settle these matters for any reasonable readers willing to assimilate fact.
C’mon, Mike. “Fact” being relevant to an adjective related in an opinion. So meek as to choose cardio work outs at an MMA gym, vs hitting up an LA Fitness. Preponderance of evidence and all. ;)
I see rule of order still hasnt watched the trial
“Dear Chip:
Thanks. Your explanations are quite accurate and should settle these matters for any reasonable readers willing to assimilate fact.”
— yes. People with meekness in their quality are known for the incidents listed. Its a flat fact, the great Mike M. said it, and as per George’s indication, its God’s will.
The situation is either a) George ain’t “meek”
or
b) George, being meek, has the WORST luck ever, while volunteering himself in to a position remarked as “unusual” for a meek person, by folks on this very forum.
Given the sitch, I like A. I get how folks around here would much rather have George taking MildManner-al, and Meek-apam, but given his rather unique history, its simply not the case. When confronted by authority (by which, I mean REAL authority, not NWC assumed authority), we all act meek. If George showed aggression on his walk through, what would that net him? Yes, sir. No, sir. Voice is above a whisper, sir. Its how you feed authorities’ ego on the matter. Sparing eye contact. Compliance within the law. The person with the badge and gun determines if you see the dude in the black dress. Act accordingly.
False dichotomy FTW?
Despite your attempted false dichotomy, ever person ever interviewed by SPD, FDLE, and FBI who knows Zimmerman has corroborated that he is, in fact, quite meek. Every person who testified at trial corroborated that he is, in fact, quite meek.
The situations are not especially remarkable or unusual. None of them imply that Zimmerman is anything other than the quite meek person that everyone who knows him says that he is.
In the (paraphrased) immortal words of Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word [meek]. I do not think it means what you think it means.
“The situations are not especially remarkable or unusual. ” — being arrested for assault on a LEO, and resisting arrest without violence is not unusual. Check. Especially for some one “meek”. Double check.
What part of Zimmerman never assaulted a police officer, or resisted arrest is failing to sink in for you?
The arrest was bogus, which is why it was reduced, then dropped. Listen to the video I posted. Open you mind to the truth, and stop being clouded by a false narrative and your own specious preconceived notions.
Chip, if you read what I post, I never mentioned he did. I said he was arrested for it. Not did it.
And now we resort again to sophistry. How does merely being arrested for assaulting a police officer in any way prove that Zimmerman is not “meek”?
This is probably the point at which you should consider the First Rule of Holes.
Much like the other incidents, it begins to go in the exact opposite of “meek”. Things like anger management classes as part of a pretrial diversion to get said assault charges dropped. How many meek folks get restraining orders filed against them? Take anger management classes? Volunteer to pull security details? Are arrested for assault? :cough: sorry, alleged assault. As I mentioned, a meek person with either THE worst luck, or not meek. You can call it a false dichotomy, but I do know quite a few folks I would call “meek”, and putting themselves in a position in which they would have to break of a fight is not high on their to do list.
I have to confess that I have thought the description of George Zimmerman as “meek” and simultaneously interested in law enforcement, willing to stand up for friends and community and all that unusual, but that is all. Unusual.
“Unusual” is far from impossible. It’s not even unheard of. In my time I have known some police and security officers whom were mild mannered and generally non-confrontational. They did their jobs even so, some better than others.
Chip has graciously done the legwork for us, but in this day of The Google anyone can pair George’s name to each or any little snippet of “fact” which you plopped down and learn the truth fairly quickly.
Sniping with weak ammunition like that, Roo, does not serve your cause very well but then, you haven’t really much else to work with, have you?
If it takes two paragraphs to justify/better qualify your confession, makes you wonder why you consider my position tenuous. Don’t you find all these events in George’s live strangely coincidental for a “meek” person?
Worst luck ever, or is “meek” an apt description?
OK Roo, if the length or brevity of an argument is how you determine the validity of an argument, then you truly are an individual of extremely limited intellect or simply so lacking in integrity you are willing to say anything at all. I generally suspect the latter, but sometimes you make me wonder.
Nevertheless, here you go.
I’ve worked in law enforcement and security. In my time I have known persons in the industry whom were mild mannered and therefore might be thought “meek” by some. Nonetheless they did their jobs.
Go bugger yourself.
I can appreciate your experience in the industry, but as you stated “unusual” for a meek person, right? Add in all the other events listed, and its fast leaving meek territory.
Now that rachel jeantel has stated she may be interested in a career in law enforcement, can we call her a wanna be cop, now?
The media is not going to cover the civil discovery. This is where the fraud and conspiracy will become obvious. Political correctness and social sensitivities are discarded when multi-million dollar damages, political and legal careers, and fantasy fueled narratives are at peril. The remaining dollars of this debacle are currently being rung out of the exhausted suckers. The pathetic demonetization of George Zimmerman limps along. But the unspoken questions are in the minds of the public. Why are young black males so violent? Who is responsible for their lack of impulse control? Why is a sub culture of Americans so bent on self destruction? And why do other sub cultures defend it against common sense? The president said he wanted a conversation on race. He doesn’t. He wants to lecture. The conversation started is internal, private and the questions dare not be spoken in public.
IS THIS THE CASE THAT WE’VE BEEN HOPING TO SEE?
Slightly off topic I but I think still EXTREMELY germaine to the discussion here, I found this nugget from a drphil.com comment section (poster sethpearl) regarding the Dr. Phil show on Monday Jul 22 2013 on the Zimmerman/Martin case:
“If you missed the news coverage we’re here to fill you in. A neighborhood watch man, an adult carrying a concealed weapon, shot and killed an unarmed teenage boy and was just found not-guilty by a jury after two days of deliberations. “I just want to say thank you to the people who believed in me, who stood by me,” [the shooter] said following the verdict. “I still have my regrets for the [young boy’s] family; it’s still an unfortunate situation for them. I am happy that at least this chapter is over.” As deliberations dragged on over two days and the jury asked for testimony to be read back, [the shooter] admits he didn’t know how it would all turn out. “I was nervous of course,” he said. “You never know what direction this whole thing is going to turn, so I have no idea. But it worked out and I feel that justice (was) served today.” [The boy’s] family members say justice wasn’t served. They say [he] was murdered in cold blood, that he’d never been in trouble and [the shooter] acted as judge, jury and executioner. “The message is that we can all go out and get guns and feel anybody that we feel is threatening us and lie about the fact,” said [the boy’s] father. “My son never threatened anybody. He was a gentle child, his nature was gentle, he was a good person and he was never, ever arrested for anything, and has never been in trouble. He was 16 years and four months old, and he was slaughtered.” [The shooter] says he acted in self defense when he confronted [the boy]…Perhaps the reason you missed the story is because here are pictures of the shooter and the victim. The one on the left, in the hoodie, is Roderick Scott, the shooter. The one on the right is the dead kid, Christopher Cervini. I’m shocked you missed President Obama’s statement when he found out about the shooting, “If the white half of me had had a son he would have looked just like Christopher Cervini.” You might have even missed the uproar surrounding the Department of Justice having their Community Relations Services group in Rochester, NY organize demonstrations of white upstate New Yorkers demanding a special prosecutor be appointed to investigate this cold blooded murder of a gentle white boy by a black man wearing a hoodie. Actually, I’m not shocked that you missed all that news since it wasn’t really news outside of Rochester, NY. Here’s a summary of what happened.Scott says he acted in self defense when he confronted Cervini and two others saying they were stealing from neighbors cars. He told them he had a gun and ordered them to freeze and wait for police. Scott says he shot Cervini twice when the victim charged toward him yelling he was going to get Scott. Based on what I’ve been able to find, the jury reached the correct verdict in Scott’s case just as they did in the Zimmerman trial. I can understand how Christopher Cervini’s dad could say what he said just like I can understand how Trayvon Martin’s parents can say what they say. It’s called “grief”. It’s also called “denial. “I also understand why we haven’t heard a word from President Obama, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, the NAACP or anything about expanded investigations or an open webcall for information about the shooter from the Department of Justice. That is called “hypocrisy”.”
I found this case so interesting and revealing as the “reverse” of the Zimmerman/Martin case, I did a bit of checking on the web to MAKE SURE the story even exists and found that yes it does. I read an article in “The Rochesterian” posted about the time Martin’s shooting death went nationwide (late March 2012), so much of the misleading MSM coverage and the emerging “Crump Narrative” was the only source of “information.” However, that nationwide story naturally resurrected memory of and feelings about the Cervini shooting death in the local Rochester community. There are striking similarities between the two cases and differences noted in the comment section. What I write below is conjecture and opinion at this point about those similarities/differences gleaned from the story and the comments since I’ve not done any kind of exhaustive research to confirm the validity of the claims.
Link to story:
http://therochesterian.com/2012/03/21/recalling-roderick-scott/
So, with that caveat in mind, here a summary:
1) I don’t know if Scott is/was a Neighborhood Watch volunteer.
2) I don’t know if Scott is/was conceal/carry permitted in NY.
3) Doesn’t say if there were other witnesses to the incident.
4) Some upset commenter appeared to claim that more than one shot was fired and that the fatal shot was to Cervini’s back, indicating that he was fleeing. Scott was never touched.
5) Also, apparently NY Self Defense statutes implies a DUTY for the defendant(?) in the case to try to escape/flee as opposed to the FL statutes.
6) Scott had answered “no” to the police when asked if he tried to run from Cervini’s charge towards him.
7) This case never went beyond a local issue.
8) Don’t know if there were other kids involved or not.
If anyone has the knowledge of the case or how to access court documents etc about it, as I do not, to get to some of the more FACTUAL aspects, I would think it could be quite illustrative and illuminating and would much appreciate it.
Thanks!
OK. I’ll bite.
The obvious biggies:
1) The circling.
Your story has Zimmerman going blind into the dog-walk area in response to supposedly numerous demands by the dispatcher to tell him what the suspect was doing minute by minute.
Listen to the NEN.
Zimerman describes Martin walking towards him – to check him out – hand in waistband. Dispatcher says “Just let me know if he does anything, ok? ” It’s the immediate. Suspect is approaching. Might be trouble. Dispatcher 101: Coach the caller. But…Zimmerman doesn’t describe anything. His voice rises and interrupts the end of the question. He asks about getting an officer over here. Dispatcher 101:Calm the caller. Coach the caller. “Yeah we’ve got someone on the way, just let me know if this guy does anything else.”
It’s not really two requests. It’s a single one that had to be repeated. It’s all about telling the dispatcher what the guy approaching with hand in waistband is doing right now. It’s not some global request.
Listen to the NEN.
Where does Zimmerman describe circling? “Hand in waistband” is thought significant enough to report.
Where is the time for circling? Zimmerman says that Martin was about a car length distant at closest. How long would it take for a complete circling with that diameter? How long for up close circling?
What we hear is Zimmerman’s voice rise as Martin gets close, and immediately calm down and begin to talk about “Yeah. These a*holes” and then settle to giving directions to where he is. Martin has to be walking away at this stage if he is to get up near the T for “running”.
No circling – Unless Zimmerman is watching the circling – but not describing it as he gives directions to where he is.
2) Time gap
Zimmerman by the sounds in the NEN and his account of walking gets into the dog-walk area about 35 seconds after Martin. If Martin had 4 minutes ( Gee. That’s a long time ), then Zimmerman had nearly 3.5 minutes (Gee That’s a long time too )
Zimmerman has consistently denied delaying in there. He went straight for his truck.
In his closing, MOM had to say something about this gap. In the absence of anything from Zimmerman on the subject, he offered a theory that Zimmerman might have been “looking around” – in the dark rain and cold for those missing minutes.
3) Hannity
(More below)
Yes, and our listeners filter our stories through their own models.
Zimmerman isn’t the usual layperson. He wanted to be in LE. He studied criminal law. He’s done the ride-along.
His giving of statements / cooperation is no indication of innocence.
His actions are promoting a message of ‘Guys. I’m one of you. I’m sure we can clear this thing up together’. He knows them. Listen to him chatting with Singleton before the VSA. Did she see the email that he sent to Bill Lee – about her being “above and beyond”?
The “lie-detector” test wasn’t a lie-detector. It was a VSA – which is even less reliable than a lie-detector.
As you rightly say “The police use lie detectors for two primary reasons: to help convince criminals to confess, and most of all, to make themselves feel better”
Not alone is a VSA less reliable than a useless lie-detector. In Zimmerman’s case it was even more useless than it would normally be. It was Zimmerman himself who asked for the particular test. He’s studying LE. He knows what VSA is (and read what you wrote!)
.
He had injuries entirely consistent with being on the wrong end of a fight. His injuries do not indicate how the fight started. Martin isn’t going to show bruising as his circulation stopped. It would be more accurate to say that his injuries did not contradict his story.
At least two sides to every story.
Alternatively – who would be screaming for help, the person who had or was trying to draw a gun, or the person who believed or knew that the person who had followed them into the dark and not explained why , had a gun.?
Who would stop screaming for help with the last scream cut off by the shot, the person who had fired a shot but says that he didn’t know if the shot had hit or not, or the person who had been shot?
IDing the voice?
They are about 30 feet away from Laeur’s porch and South of it. The sounds come up at an angle and also bounce off the concrete walls opposite. They pass through heavy blinds and through the open sliding door. They turn a bit South again to get to Laeur who had moved to near the stairs *expressly* so that any sounds from her would be less audible to those outside ( The same deadening also applies to incoming sounds). The sounds have to make it to the microphone of a cell phone hat she says was at her ear the whole time. She’s having a conversation throughout.
Yes. That’s (whoever we want it to be) screaming. No doubt about it!
It could have been either of them.
.
It seems quite clear that the positions on the shot were with Martin over Zimmerman. Good describes a pose and some “downward arm movements” – although it was MOM who chose to repeatedly describe it as “full ground and pound” whereas Good does not.
What is unknown is when that gun actually got out, and how the fight started. Zimmerman says it started after his hand went towards his hip.
.
That is not an indication of innocence.
That is simply an indicator of Corey’s blatant opportunism and BDLR’s face-palm buffoonery in trying to railroad through a charge of M2. It says nothing about Zimmerman’s innocence.
Had the prosecution devoted its entire efforts (and dear lord, please no BDLR) to a manslaughter charge, then the conduct could have been very different – and the outcome also.
.
“One factor convinced me” of Zimmerman’s lack of innocence – the Hannity Show. This was a blatant PR stunt that set out to mislead.
On top of the obvious lies about circling and more so the time gap – “There is no greater ringing bell or flashing red light”
Bullet points for the stunt:
– Nothing Zimmerman did should have caused Martin to fear him. Therefore Martin is no longer running. He’s sort of skipping. And… “not in fear” – Even Hannity had a hard time with that last one.
– Martin did not seem really threatening to Zimmerman. Zimmerman was “not particularly threatened” by Martin’s actions. It should therefore follow that Zimmerman was not totally reckless to have followed/same_direction blind into dark. No?
So there’s no circling any more.
“Hand in his waistband” gun/weapon wad considered only a bluff as he watched Martin aproach. No worries.
– AND THE BIGGIE!!!!! The “missing minute leading up to the shot and beginning at “We don’t need you to do that” . WTF?? When did he next see Martin? “Less than 30 seconds”.
“There is no greater ringing bell or flashing red light”
.
Listen to the NEN.
The dispatcher had asked to say if the guy approaching the truck with hand in waistband did anything. He had to repeat as Zimmerman interrupted. Whereupon Zimmerman did not describe circling – and the note of his voice plus timeline indicate that a circling – which he described only later – never happened.
“He’s running!” and Zimmerman has lost sight of Martin.
Zimmerman is still beside his truck when he tells the dispatcher that Martin is running down towards the back entrance – (where they always get away by running between the houses). He can’t see where Martin is anymore. Job done. Thank you and good night. The cops can try intercepting him at the back entrance. If Zimmerman wants to confirm the story, just drive down there in the safe warm dry truck.
From that point on, the dispatcher expresses absolutely no interest in where Martin might be. Follow? We don’t need you to do that. The sole reason for asking for a location now is because Zimmerman wants to meet the officers when they arrive. Meet at the mailboxes? Fine. That’s it!. “He ran”. Gone!
No need to stay out in the dark, cold and rain. Meet the officers at the mailboxes. He can get into his warm dry truck and move it the 200 feet there. He can see it from where he is standing. The mailboxes are about 50 feet closer to the truck than is the spot on RVC where he says he was standing.
Why did he suddenly change from an agreement to meet at the mailboxes to one of the officers ringing him to find out where he was at? Only seconds before, he had voiced a realization that “this kid” could well be nearby in the dark and close enough to overhear him.
Why is he still there 2 minutes later?
MOM has a theory that he might have been “looking around” – for something presumably –in the dark. cold and rain.
.
I just *love* the Jeantal menu that people use. I’ll have that little bit, that little bit – but none of the rest.
“started the confrontation with a verbal challenge”?
Someone follows you in the dark – by truck and foot. You come face to face. You ask “Why are you following me?” You are practically committing a felony offence with this question?
In Jeantel’s account, the follower does not answer your very reasonable question. He asks you a question. Now that’s a significant provocation in the circumstances.
What if the follower had answered the question. “I’m with the local Neigborhood Watch. I didn’t recognize you and wondered what you were doing.”?
This one didn’t do that. This is pretty stunning if you consider that when this guy was arrested for assaulting a plainclothes officer, part of his justification was that the officer did not identify himself.
That’s world class stupity!!
In Zimmerman’s account, you ask the person who has been following you by truck and foot “You got a problem?”. In Zimmerman’s account, he answers “No. I don’t have a problem.”
As in – “What on earth do you mean. I was just walking here. We have never ever seen each other before this very instant. How can you assume that I have a problem. It’s not like I’ve been following you or anything. “ As in – being a total provocative smart-ass in the particular circumstances.
What if the follower had answered the question. “I’m with the local Neigborhood Watch. I didn’t recognize you and wondered what you were doing.”?
.
Then what happens?
The follower-in-the-dark who has not answered your question puts his hand towards his waistband.
He did what??? Oh Hello! I’m Mr. Hand Inwaistband. Remember me?
The follower-in-the-dark later reports that after he put his hand to his waistband, you punched him.
.
Mike, I’m very grateful to you that you typed the text immediately following. It saved me the trouble of typing exactly the same sort of thing. I’ll copy/past it but with ‘defence’ substituted for “prosecution”.
None of us were there. But do we need to witness everything we know? Some of us may have doubts, but do those doubts truly wipe away all of the evidence, all of the supporting testimony and fact? Believe me, the quality and quantity of evidence in the Zimmerman case is greater–far greater–than that in a great many cases I investigated, yet I was virtually always able to understand what happened and how it happened, to know. I knew because I began with a story–a two-dimensional construct–and built, block by block, small piece of evidence by small piece of evidence, a three-dimensional motion picture, a replay of events. There were always black outs, jump cuts, missing dialogue, but each movie was understandable and conformed to human reality–to common sense. I don’t mean the kind of common sense the defence wanted to foist on the jury, but the common sense, the experience, that allows us to survive in the world, to understand that what matters is not what was in a heart, but the evidence, which is ultimately what we have.
.
What do we have?
We have an incompetent idiot who “lost it”.
Having gone into the dark pathway area, he stayed there for more than two minutes before the two of them came face to face.
We don’t know where exactly Martin was. The whole dog-walk area is “right by” the Greene house. That whole area is a shared, unfenced “yard”. The whole area is lined on both sides with back porches where he could shelter from the rain while he talked to the girl.
We don’t know where Zimmerman was. All we know is that 2 minutes before the fight broke out, he had changed from an agreement to meet at the mailboxes to one of the cops ringing him on arrival to find out where he was at. We know it was dark, cold and raining.
He could well have circled South. Martin could well have gone North to avoid him. We don’t know. Zimmerman had 2 minutes during which MOM has to suggest that he “might have been looking around”.
We have two accounts of the exchange when they came to face each other. Zimmerman’s and Jeantel’s.
By both accounts, Zimmerman exhibited monumental stupidity. His responses could only have served to inflame the situation. This is particularly so in the light of his claiming that plainclothes ATF officers did not identify themselves to him – and so the unfortunate fisticuffs happened.
On top of that, going for his hip/waistband in the particular circumstances was the most unbelievably stupid thing to do. It was truly senseless.
There are indications that he had some idea about exercising some authority over Martin, but it seems he might not have had a presence as “stern and commanding “ as did Singleton – who never had to shoot anyone.
Martin ended up dead. The lead up and the trigger was Zimmerman’s recklessness and monumental stupidity.
In a civilized society, this means manslaughter. At the very least, it doesn’t mean “This guy did nothing wrong and has absolutely nothing to answer for.”
.
The SPD investigation seemed lacklustre. The forensic work was sloppy. One dead kid that nobody knew. One NW guy – who they actually knew and who had some injuries consistent with his story but also consistent with being in any fight. What’s to investigate really? SYG stuff.
John Good had a rain of MMA-style punches and head-pounding. ( Whereas eventually on the stand he had Martin on top for maybe 10 seconds and at the end of those seconds, Martin sitting leaning in and some “downward arm movements” – the true meaning of which will probably never be vertically or horizontally known.)
Singleton had an incorrect timeline that took 1.5 minutes off the gap. So nothing to see there while under that false understanding.
.
This wasn’t a racist killing. It wasn’t a hate killing.
What we actually had was simply an imbecile scr*wing up major big time and a death resulting.
.
Then a bunch of ‘-ism’s came to the party – *after* the event.
Reverse rac-ism – taking a ride on the grief and questions of a family. Situation has to be a racist killing.
Opportun-ism by Corey – Votes. Photo opportunities.
Buffoon-ism by BDLR. Crazy M2 101.
Authoritarian-ism – Situation has to be NW guy protecting his community savagely attacked by thug
Protection-ism – Rumblings of moves to restrict gun ownership, so no way can this situation involve any irresponsibility on the part of a gun owner.
Popcorn-ism – The media pumps it all up.
Dear Sling:
Oh dear. I was afraid of this. I mentioned these issues only to illustrate my points about standards of proof with a case familiar to readers. The trial is over. The state lost. The examples I raised persuaded the jury in a trial where the prosecution had more than a fair chance to win, therefore, it is entirely reasonable to accept them. It’s over.
Just for the heck of it, do you have any comments about the actual topic of the post?
Ah Mike, I feel for you-Sling is here again to Sling her trebuchet of crap all over the place. She has a horrendous habit of doing it. I refuse to read her “story” anymore. She goes so far away from the facts into imagination, I just can’t take it anymore. She should turn her great imagination into writing fiction. She would probably make a nice living that way.
I watched the trial. They have nada, zip, nothing. And to their mindless drivel, I add simply, you can take the rat out of the hood, but you cant take the hood out of the rat.
.
Or live like a thug, die like one (if you dont want to smear the name of a dead child, you better not smear the name of the exonerated person falsely accused of his untimely demise.
.
If millions of black youth identify with thug rappers, thug culture and drug coctails we havent even heard of, blame whitey
It appears to me, stobberdobber, that she’s got only one book in her to write. Maybe she could make a living writing it over and over again. Others have done it before!
Dear Mike,
I do not think it is accurate to portray my comment as “off topic”.
If you were to portray it as “off message”, then you would be more accurate. :)
It might have escaped your notice, but I opened my comment with something that went straight to the heart of the topic of “knowing” about something in which people are involved.
I chose to open with that primarily because it is central to the topic and also because you introduced the matter as a direct question.
You mentioned that you “know” your wife. It’s a depth of knowledge is very strongly informed by 35 years of being together, and by using your senses.
If your wife were somehow associated with a matter that had media and online fora abuzz with what she did/did_not/might have done, you would know what she did. This would come as much from knowing her as from what she might tell you about the matter.
BUT ……
What if you could see that she was lying? What if you make the leap to consider her explanations and assertions in the light information that was objective fact, and then found lies?
That would be devastating for you – and for her.
Lies – “There is no greater ringing bell or flashing red light”
.
I opened with information on lies – as your question required – “Lied about what?
In my opinion, lies go to the core of the matter. The give weight to the matters that our senses already detect as suspect.
I demonstrated the use of “the common sense, the experience, that allows us to survive in the world, to understand that what matters is not what was in a heart, but the evidence” in relation to matters that you had introduced as illustrations.
.
Specifically on knowing things….
I came to the Zimmerman/Martin party, not from some preconception of what happened but because I found a “people” situation that was rich in information to feed my all-consuming curiosity into how things and people work.
I must confess that if I had any preconception ( a received impression rather than an opinion based on an amount of raw information) when the matter happened to pass my eyes on a legal blog I had been following, I had a slight “NW guy shoots someone who attacked him. Sounds like he’s probably the good guy.”
In the large picture, in which individual people are not considered, there is absolutely nothing remarkable in the incident itself. A lot worse happens day after day. That incident was just a tiny blip in a far larger continuing stream of way more violent incidents.
What differentiated it for me was not the fuss that was going on about it.
What differentiated it for me was that
1) there was a large amount of primary source material becoming available over the Net and readily available to anyone with even a whiff of curiosity
2) a large number of people were passionately expounding theories and certainties that were diametrically opposed. Many were calling on interpretations of selective “facts” (but not always) to support their opinions.
To me, this mix was irresistible.
People fascinate me. I consciously watch their body language, their voices, their interactions with others, their ideas…everything my senses can pick up. To me, this as natural as breathing.
This is not to say that I treat people like specimens in my laboratory. We are complex creatures. We are not just machines of flesh and bone with an organ at the top full of electrical impulses. We have a spiritual dimension. We also change, and not just in the physical dimension. I will admit/claim to using all my senses on family and friends as well as others. I have to be aware of how they might be feeling and changing.
Just observing people involved in discussing Zimmerman/Martin is interesting – chiefly because of the ready availability of extensive primary material available to them, and their seeming ignorance of it or their selective interpretations.
It’s not enough to be a spectator. I am driven to experiment.
I run facts past their eyes. – Xx:yy in video Z. – That document.
I propose alternative interpretations of something.
Sadly to say, the results of these experiments are not encouraging – people-wise.
Most people crave certainty with a desperate intensity. Even if something that they have chosen to believe can be shown to be false, it can be impossible to sway them – because they “know”. Allowing that certainty to fall opens up the possibility of other certainties falling. Where could that end?
I get hit from both sides in this Zimmerman/Martin thing. I point out things to both extremes that challenge what they “know”. I need a macro-key that pumps out “Listen to the NEN”.
Sure it’s long, but as you wrote in ‘Update 34.2:Think With Your Heart’
“…..turn out far longer than I prefer to write due to the attention to detail required.”
I pay attention to detail.
I see the event as a joined-up sequence in a fixed timeline – as opposed to an a la carte menu of items on which an interpretation can be imposed in isolation from the others.
I ask anyone to try to point out to me the seconds in the NEN in which Martin could be circling the truck. If they identify such, explain Zimmerman’s tone and words in those seconds.
I ask anyone to try to explain the extraordinary Hannity spin.
I ask anyone to try to explain any sane reason for Zimmerman to be still in the dog-walk area 2 minutes after the NEN ended – a reason that ‘joins up’ with everything that is said in the NEN.
I ask anyone to argue that Zimmerman’s responses and actions – by his account or Jeantel’s account – can be interpreted as anything other than provocative in the particular circumstances.
.
You are absolutely correct that the trial is over and that the state lost.
Zimmerman can not be tried on the same charges again. The Feds can bring him up on a different charge. If that were race/hate based, then that’s not going to be a runner.
The best that a civilized society can hope for now is that he faces into a civil case against him. The benefit for society would be that a message could go out that Zimmerman’s actions were unreasonable and unacceptable.
You are wrong about the jury.
We hear from B37 that three of the jurors came from the courtroom thinking manslaughter at minimum. She says that even though she was of the ‘not guilty’ view from the outset, that she thinks that Zimmerman should have not got out and that he didn’t know when to stop – that he was frustrated and wanted to catch those people.
We know that the jury found themselves prevented from considering if Zimmerman’s actions provoked the conflict. In the particular circumstances of the case, that prevented a manslaughter verdict.
The state would have had a very good possibility with a manslaughter charge from the outset. They lost due to overcharging and incompetence. They had their eye on the wrong ball both throughout and when the defence got the “original aggressor” instruction removed at the last moment.
In a way, BDLR’s conduct of the trial was like Zimmerman’s conduct of his NW-related activity – incompetent and inept. However, Zimmerman’s incompetence and ineptitude resulted in a death.
@Sling:
1) You don’t know that Zimmerman was lying. You have what may possibly arise to the level of reasonable doubt that Zimmerman is lying, but no more than that.
2) The things about which you believe Zimmerman is lying are entirely immaterial to the question of whether Zimmerman bears any legal or moral culpability for Martin’s subsequent assault of Zimmerman.
This deserves separate reply:
Wrong. The jury was instructed to consider whether any deliberate act of Zimmerman’s resulted in Martin’s death. That’s the definition of manslaughter by act, which was the lesser-included charge for second-degree murder.
What the jury was not instructed on, however, was whether through any negligent act Zimmerman bore any legal culpability for Martin’s death. The State did not allege culpable negligence in the information, did not present evidence of culpable negligence in its case presentation, and did not argue culpable negligence in its closing arguments. Zimmerman was thus not afforded the need or opportunity to defend against an allegation of culpable negligence, and therefore the jury was not instructed on manslaughter by culpable negligence.
Attempting to prosecute Zimmerman for manslaughter by culpable negligence would at least have had a modicum of reasonableness. But, again you’re wrong: the State would no more have been able to convict on manslaughter by culpable negligence than they were able to convict on second-degree murder or manslaughter by act.
Zimmerman had every right to be where he was. Walking on a sidewalk recently vacated by Martin is not reckless, and does not attach any responsibility to Zimmerman for Martin’s decision to approach, accost, and assault Zimmerman. Following (even pursuing – which has never been proven) is not illegal. Getting out of a vehicle is not illegal.
As I see it, the only way the State could even remotely succeed on a manslaughter by culpable negligence conviction would be to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was the initial physical aggressor. They couldn’t prove that, because they had no evidence to do so.
Wrong.
Martin is dead because Martin, of his own volition, decided to approach, verbally accost, and physically assault Zimmerman.
“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.” – 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)
Here we are, discussing “How can we know?”
In the context, because of the matter used to illustrate the process, it’s really become “How can the jury know?”
As Mike put it above “the common sense, the experience, that allows us to survive in the world, to understand that what matters is not what was in a heart, but the evidence, which is ultimately what we have.” is way that the jury can “know”.
It’s not simply a matter of dumping evidence on the jury though. In the Zimmerman trial, the jury appeared to have been overwhelmed by the volume of items dumped into the deliberation room. They had to request an itemized list to help them to try make sense of it.
The items of evidence needed to be explained by lawyers on both sides. The manner in which the lawyers put that evidence before them has to be a strong influence on them. The law that they had to work with was outlined to them – but they are not legal minds, and the instructions limited what they could take into consideration.
.
Wonderful!
When I read that, an image comes to mind.
It’s BDLR in front of the jury . He’s shouting. As he shouts a phrase, he bends forward and swivels his upper body to the left and back up. There is a faint quiver in his voice on the last word.
He’s shouting “VERBALLY ACCOST!!..VERBALLY ACCOOSSSST!!
.
I love this notion that asking someone who is following you why they are following you is a provocation.
You don’t know how they actually came face to face. There were no witnesses. Zimmerman has not accounted for his time in the area. We don’t have any independent evidence to show where he was in all of the NEN, nevermind the two minutes after it.
You don’t know that \msrtin assaulted Zimmerman – defined as ‘got into a fight with him without good reason on his part’.
.
Your arguments regarding charges/instructions are missing something.
It is not merely a matter of Zimmerman somehow being careless/negligent. There is the question of aggression.
.
The case made by the prosecution and the way they made it was farcical. The circumstances did not justify M2. The prosecution didn’t lay out a manslaughter fallback properly. Even if they had, the M2 circus performance would have tended to poison juror minds against the prosecutor. They are only human.
Considering the mess made, it is very interesting that two of the jury came away with manslaughter and one with M2.
.
So here’s the pitch from a prosecutor to the jury…………….
1) Zimmerman was frustrated by all the break-ins.
Cue the reports. Cue the neighbors confirming.
He wasn’t just frustrated. He was really frustrated. Cue Taffe – “He’d had enough, and he wasn’t going to take it anymore.”
“They always get away”
Portraying Zimmerman like this is to push an open door in the minds of the jury.
B37:
(1)? – Check! Going by B37, she and 3 other jurors *at least* would accept this
.
2) Zimmerman recklessly got out of the truck to follow
We hear him start to move immediately on “He’s running”.
He said he was following. After he said “OK” to “We don’t need you to that” we hear that he keeps on going and only slows when map/time indicates he got into the dog-walk area.
It was also reckless in the circumstances as he described them.
We are pushing an open door for this one too.
B37:
(2)? – Check! Going by B37, she and 3 other jurors *at least* would accept this
.
3) Zimmerman searched for Martin and tried to detain him.
He had always claimed to have been returning directly to his truck. He denied lingering.
Cue a 10-foot wide timeline from start NEN to shot – which includes selected timestamps from the NEN
Cue a 10-foot square map, on which are marked the positions at which he would have been at the timestamps in the timeline if he had walked to RVC as he described. This shows that even if he had paused briefly to look down the very dark dog-walk area, he would have arrived at RVC before the NEN ended and that he would have been standing there while agreeing to meet at the mailboxes and then suddenly changing.
Cue his walk-through video. ( Note on introducing videos comes below)
Oh my goodness! Highlight that he describes standing on RVC as he finishes the call…. Just as we predicted with the timeline/map.
Wow! If there had been any suggestion raised that he went to RVC to get a house number, then he was standing with a view of house numbers while on the NEN. If he went to RVC then he was more likely looking to see if Martin had come out on the road on his way (supposedly) to the back entrance.
Highlight that he claims that he then started for his truck immediately.
Highlight that it would have taken him only 20 seconds to get to the spot at which he says he was attacked.
Show the timeline with a two-minute gap between the NEN ending and the fight beginning.
What was he doing during that gap. It certainly isn’t accounted for by a 20-second walk.
B37 appears to be with us here too:
.
Why did he suddenly change from an agreement to meet at the mailboxes?
B37:
DeeDee – but very carefully!
Martin’s perception is that some guy is following him.
We know that this is a reasonable take. We’ve introduced the walk-through video. This has Zimmerman stopping to look at Martin as he came into the complex via the unfenced route commonly used by residents and other. Martin is simply returning home. It is Martin’s direct route home. It’s used by residents when on foot. He had to come that way anyway if he doesn’t have a key for the pedestrian gates adjoining the front and back gates. Those gates need a key to get in after 7.
We have the NEN in which Zimmerman describes Martin approaching and passing.
To Martin, it’s some creepy guy following.
He wouldn’t assume some sort of security mission. A security person would have approached him when first seen or certainly when he walked past the truck.
We appreciate that in the scale of a walk from the 9-11, being anywhere in that dog-walk area can be described as “right-by” the whole area is one big “yard” without boundaries.
It seems he describes his follower reappearing and getting closer. We don’t have a clear picture of movements.
What we have is Martin reporting the guy getting closer and then Martin asking “Why are you following me?”
The response is not an explanation. It’s “What are you doing around here?” or something similar.
This sounds like someone whose perception of the situation is they are an authority figure. Sort of “We ask the questions”.
Then there are sounds of a struggle.
Cue the video in which Zimmerman takes the VSA test.
.
Small diversion regarding use of that or any sort of video…………….
I heard a story about an army sergeant teaching others how to teach.
1. Tell ‘em what you are going to tell ‘em.
2. Tell ‘em
3. Tell ‘em what you told ‘em
Prepare the way for that VSA video.
Start with some experts. Rubbish the VSA as a reliable test of anything. That’s going to be easy. Highlight the inferiority to the classic and completely different “lie-detector” – which is not particularly reliable anyway. Let the jury know that the “lie detector” is more a tool to frighten suspects who do not know that it’s not authoritative.
Highlight that it was Zimmerman who requested that specific test. He’s interested in LE. If he knows about the test, he knows its limitations.
The experts could not alone rubbish the test and the circumstances that led to it. They could also rubbish the conduct of that particular test.
Tell ‘em what you are going to tell ‘em with that video – which is the bit before the test where Zimmerman is talking with Singleton.
What we have is Zimmerman telling how he went to his therapist the next day, and “that’s when it really hit me”. He asks her “Did you ever have to shot someone?” She answers “No”. He thinks about this for a while. He then suggests that she had “a stern commanding presence, so they would get the point”. She -Wut? Her commanding presence – he wouldn’t question her authority.
Tell ‘em what you told ‘em
Zimmerman is mulling over people not having to shoot someone – because they have a stern commanding presence such that a person would not question their authority.
Why is he connecting the questioning of authority and having to shoot people right now?
This isn’t proof that Zimmerman actually tried to impose his authority on Martin, but if you couple that with (1) and (2) above, combined with the reported exchange in which a “we ask the questions” air is apparent ….. a jury would be very receptive to the idea.
(3)? – Check!
.
What we have in 1,2,3 Check! Is Zimmerman as the aggressor.
.
Now we come to
4) After the shot, Zimmerman came to his senses. He had just ended up with a dead kid. It certainly was not his intention
To quote B37: “He was frustrated, and things just got out of hand.”
He immediately realized that following and trying to detain would put him in peril with the law.
He began to lie.
He decided to lie so as to paint Martin in as bad a light as possible. Circling the truck. “You got a problem Homie – Now you do” Pow!”Shut up!” “You gonna die tonight MF!”
He decided to deny following. He simply walked to RVC for an address and then started straight back. He didn’t spend any more time in there than he had to.
He’s got a fallback if any strong suggestions of following surface. It’s the dispatcher’s fault. The dispatcher kept on and on at him to regain visual – to get to a place where he could see him, etc.
You can see him in full flow on this in the Walk-through. He goes for a double-whammy on this. He says there was a session of demands for visual both at the front of the clubhouse and in Twin Trees.
Listen to the NEN. None of that happened. Nothing even approaching it.
There are very strong indications that he lied about starting the NEN at the clubhouse.
Get in some experts to analyse the background sounds in th NEN for the time that he was in the truck.
Drop in the clubhouse CCTV. It does not identify that vehicle pausing at the mailboxes and proceeding to apparently turn. Synchronize the times by reference to the lights of the cop cars arriving.
Do timelines – as wide as you want.
.
What we have in 1,2,3 Check! is Zimmerman as the aggressor.
Add in (4) where he lies to smear Martin and to deny following.
Icing on the cake. That wouldn’t go down well with anyone.
.
That sort of approach, and where the jury has the “original aggressor” instruction could very well have ended with a Guilty verdict.
This is because the jury would “know” by using, as Mike put it “the common sense, the experience, that allows us to survive in the world, to understand that what matters is not what was in a heart, but the evidence, which is ultimately what we have.”
@Sling:
All the evidence that Zimmerman was somehow the aggressor exists in one place only: your clearly vivid imagination.
Walls and walls of text, and you lack the one thing you need: any shred of evidence that Zimmerman was in any way, shape, or form the aggressor.
Keep writing walls of text. You’ll never be able to overcome the evidentiary obstacle that separates you from common sense.
How Can We Know? ( aka How Can A Jury Know?)
Chip, you see a wall.
Others might see a structure made of bricks
Some of the major bricks entailed one of the jury telling us in an ABC interview what she “knew” of the incident, and what at least three other jury members appeared to have “known”.
When these people became jurors, it appears that they knew little or nothing about the details.
So…. How Can They Know?
They sat in the courtroom and watched the circus.
There was a clown – who was quite funny in a face-palm sort of way, but who also was a bit scary – approaching the audience and swearing at them. Some people are scared of clowns to begin with (Coulrophobia ). His act wouldn’t endear anyone to whatever he was selling.
There was a magician. He was smooth, played magic with words and misdirection as magicians do.
When the show was over at least 4 of the jury knew that Zimmerman had done something wrong. Three think manslaughter minimum. Juror B37 “knows” that “he should not have gotten out the truck. He was frustrated and wanted so badly to catch those people. He didn’t know when to stop. He started the ball rolling. It got out of control.
She knows that “nobody knows where the two of them went to”. She knows that there was a gap of 2 minutes. She knows that “there were some fabrications, enhancements” (aka “lies” ) in Zimmerman’s stories. She says that the roles reversed – meaning that Zimmerman started out as the aggressor.
How did she know all of this? She used her common sense and her experience of life did she not?
Juror B29 wanted a guilty verdict so much that she toughed it out for 9 hours. She would hang the jury rather than return “not guilty”. She says she only agreed to “not guilty” because it was explained to her that unless they could prove that Zimmerman killed Martin deliberately, then they had to find him not guilty. That’s what she says!
.
They got to “know” all this despite the best efforts of the clown to make them look for a racial/hatred intentional murder and the best efforts of the magician to make then believe that Zimmerman had done absolutely nothing untoward and was as innocent as a new-born puppy.
What would they have “known” had the prosecution set out to prove an unintentional killing arising from an attempt by reckless and incompetent individual to catch a person that he had mistakenly decided was a burglar? What if the rules allowed the jury to consider if Zimmerman was the original aggressor?
I think they would have known a variety of manslaughter.
They would know something like my 1/2/3/4 above.
.
Chip,
Lines like “It is not illegal to get out a truck” and “It is not illegal to walk along a path” are all very well in an echo chamber ( “Huaaagh” ). A defence lawyer could spout them in a court, but then lawyers say all sorts of things that make intelligent people face-palm.
Lines like that are just stones to throw. You can’t make a decent wall out of them.
To a rational person who is genuinely trying to get to know, such assertions are seen as the nonsense that they are. That is because they ignore that the whole incident is a series of connected events. The issue about getting out of the truck or walking is not whether or not those actions taken completely in a vacuum would be illegal or not in normal everyday situations. The issue is whether or not – in the particular circumstances of the night – those actions were reckless, provocative and dangerous.
It seems that at least four of that jury thought so.
They used their common sense and experience of life. That’s How They Can Know
The point you’re missing is that courts concern themselves with laws, that criminal prosecution derives from violation of laws, and that criminal conviction requires evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to prove a violation of laws.
What you claim that the jurors “knew” are matters not of law, and are not matters that were argued or proven in court. As such, they are irrelevant.
So what if one juror wanted to convict for second-degree murder? When confronted with the legal requirements for such a conviction, she relented, appropriately. So what if two other jurors wanted to convict for manslaughter by act? When confronted with the legal requirements for such a conviction, they also relented, appropriately.
So she confirms that there was no evidentiary basis for the legal charges brought against Zimmerman. Thank God that she was able to follow the law, and not her misguided beliefs – beliefs that she admits are not based on any facts in evidence.
And that, again, is the point: this juror, like you, believes something to be true, but this juror, like you, has no evidence to prove that belief to be true.
Who knows? The prosecution didn’t present such a case, and the defense did not have the requirement or opportunity to rebut such a case.
That omission must be terrible for you – but I assure you that it is equally terrible for the rest of us, because it forces us to continue to endure your assertions – incessant as they are specious – that Zimmerman was criminally culpably negligent for getting out of his vehicle.
You are quite crafty in the way you erect this straw man, but this is the reason that I keep forcing you back to the statutes – the statues that define the law of which one may be criminally in violation. You see, for Zimmerman to hvae been criminally culpably negligent, he would have have to meet the statutory definition of culpable negligence. Getting out of one’s vehicle does not meet that definition, nor does walking on a sidewalk recently traversed by another party.
You would almost certainly have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmemran was the initial physical aggressor, in order for him to be criminally culpably negligent.
Nonsense. You have both Zimmerman and Rachel Jeantel who claim that Martin had “lost” Zimmerman. As much as you try to deny it, it is irrefutable that Rachel Jeantel said that Martin said that he was literally right by Brandi Green’s home, about a minute and a half before Zimmerman completed his NEN call while standing on a sidewalk almost 400 feet away from Martin.
Under no conceivable circumstances is Zimmerman standing on a sidewalk and talking on a phone in any way “reckless, provacative, [or] dangerous” with respect to Martin, who was 380 feet away, in the dark, unseen by Zimmerman.
Again: evidence not presented, arguments not made, and rebuttal evidence and arguments not presented in court. This so-called “common sense and experience of life” has no evidentiary basis whatsoever.
Speaking of common sense: are you even capable of considering the possibility that Zimmerman never left the east-west sidewalk, that he completed his call while standing on the RVC end of that sidewalk, that he lost sight of Martin before exiting his vehicle and never regained sight of him until after his NEN call completed, that Martin ran, that Martin made it back to Brandi Green’s house, and that Martin, of his own volition crept back up to the sidewalk “T” and confronted Zimmerman?
Are you even capable of considering that scenario as being possible? If not: why not? What evidence refutes or contradicts the mere possibility of that scenario? Of all the things that Zimmerman and Martin could have done during those critical seven minutes, what evidence exists to exclude the above scenario?
I daresay that there is none, which is why a jury would never convict Zimmerman even of manslaughter by culpable negligence.
“Speaking of common sense: are you even capable of considering the possibility that Zimmerman never left the east-west sidewalk” — not to jump in, but were this the case, you won’t get to many house numbers there (like he asserted), he would not merely be going in the direction Trayvon went (like he told Serino), he could have easily said “meet me at my car” to the NEO (which of course he didn’t), and this would also mean that he had full line of sight to see Trayvon approach… and do nothing about it.
Still being intentionally obtuse, I see.
Except, yes, the house numbers would, in fact, have been visible from RVC.
And more to the point: that doesn’t exclude the possibility of the scenario presented.
Actually, yes he was, and yes he would have been. He saw Martin go along that sidewalk, and then turn south on the dog walk. So from Zimmerman’s vehicle to the “T” intersection – roughly the point at which the “are you following him…we don’t need you to do that” exchange took place, going in the direction Trayvon went is exactly what Zimmerman was doing.
And more to the point: that doesn’t exclude the possibility of the scenario presented.
Non-sequitur.
Patently wrong. Visibility from the sidewalk down the dog walk was perhaps 30 feet at best. The photos from that night prove it. John Good’s testimony proves it. So, there is zero chance that Zimmerman could have observed Martin’s approach from Brandi Green’s home.
There’s also the point that, under the scenario presented, Zimmerman is standing on the sidewalk at RVC, and thus doesn’t have line of sight down the dog path, because the buildings are in the way.
Three swings, three misses. Three strikes; thanks for playing.
I will be happy to entertain that some how in 30 foot visibility you can collect house numbers from his location, though I am not thinking I am understanding what you are referring to as the road you believe him to have stayed on, then. You are talking about the cross of the T, yes?
I’m not trying to be sarcastic or antagonistic here: have you actually looked at a map of the area, and do you understand where Zimmerman claims he was when he stopped walking? Zimmerman claims that he completed his NEN call while standing on the east-west sidewalk where it intersects with Retreat View Circle (RVC).
The sidewalk connects Twin Trees Lane (TTL) on the west with RVC on the east. A row of town homes faces west toward TTL, and another row of town homes faces east toward RVC. The “dog walk” connects with this sidewalk in the easement between the two rows of town homes, and traverses south, to the end of the rows of town homes. The intersection of these two sidewalks is the “T” at which the altercation started.
At the time of the incident, there were lights at (approximately) either end of the east-west sidewalk. There were no lights for the dog walk. The entire area of the easement between the rows of town homes was essentially pitch black. From the “T”, the visibility was approximately 30 feet. From that intersection, facing the back of both rows of town homes, no house numbers would be visible, since the house numbers were on the front of the town homes. From that intersection, even if the backs of the town homes had been adorned with house numbers, those house numbers would not have been visible in the given light conditions.
But that visibility has nothing at all to do with the visibility at the intersection of the east-west sidewalk and RVC, where there was a light in the vicinity. From that intersection, the house numbers would be facing RVC. From that intersection, those house numbers would reasonably be visible given the light in the vicinity of that intersection.
Zimmerman parked his vehicle on TTL – what he refers to as a “cut through”, the name of which he cannot remember, on the NEN call. When he exited his vehicle, he walked on the east-west sidewalk from TTL to RVC. That intersection of the sidewalk and RVC is where Zimmerman says he was as he completed his NEN call (a location entirely consistent with the duration of wind noise heard in the background of that NEN call).
Chip:
The point you’re evading is that the jurors were not allowed to consider all of the laws that could be applicable in the particular circumstances.
Another point that you are missing is that the “reasonable doubt” refers to the thinking of the jurors. They go into secret deliberation and come out with a verdict.
What *you* consider to be the meaning of any evidence and ‘reasonable’ is irrelevant.
.
Speaking of “reasonable”, I *love*(?) your mental gymnastics when it comes to Jeantel. You’re utterly conflicted.
On one hand, she’s meant to be an acknowledged perjurer ( saying “Yeah” under oath when asked if she went “to the hospital ‘or somewhere’”.). She lies about overhearing a conversation. She lies about what she heard. On the other hand she speaks the gospel truth.
On one hand, she can hardly speak English or express herself. On the other hand she speaks clearly and absolutely unambiguously.
Oops! Sometimes she’s mumbling perjury. Sometimes she is enunciating the literal truth.
Hmmmmm…..
To quote the topic “How Can We Know” – when Jeantel is truth-telling or perjuring – and when doing either is being absolutely unambiguous or unclear?
It’s very clear that your method of knowing is to treat anything inconvenient as perjury and anything that can be twisted to serve your argument as literal gospel truth. That’s how *you* know.
What you wrote to Rule Of Order was fall-down-hilarious: “Open you mind to the truth, and stop being clouded by a false narrative and your own specious preconceived notions.”
You admonish him for doing precisely what you do.
.
I must have missed her saying “literally”. Maybe she mumbled. You sure she said “literally”?
What does “right by” actually mean? What are the inner and outer boundaries of this measured in feet?
If Martin is up near the T and mentions his location to Jeantel, what does he say? “I am approximately 350 feet from home”? The context is a walk from the 7-11. He’s up at the top of a grass/yard area. His destination is in the third block of buildings. He’s right by. He’s in the yard area.
What does “near” actually mean? What are the inner and outer boundaries of this measured in feet?
According to Zimmerman, the T is “near the Clubhouse”. Is it? Over 400 feet. How far away does it have to be before it stops being “near”?
Is there some universally accepted scale of distance? One foot – A couple of feet (which might not necessarily be two feet) – a few feet – right by – close – close-ish – kinda near – near – near-ish – far. What are the actual numbers of fee that define all of those terms? How far is far away?
Everything is relative. It is totally refutable that Martin told Jeantel that he was at some specific distance from the house.
Can we assume that you accept that Martin literally said “Why are you following me?” and that Zimmerman literally said “What are you doing around here”? What about “get off” or similar?
If you do not accept that this is what was said. Why do you not?
If you do, does this not mean that Zimmerman was lying?
.
You might think that evidence – aka an interpretation of a phrase used by Jeantel – proves Martin was within, say, 10 feet of the house.
Juror B37 says that “nobody knows where they went”. Your opinion is not alone contrived but is also irrelevant. She’s a juror. She’s one of the 6 arbiters of credibility and doubt. You’re just some person on the Net. She seems clear that her understanding is that nobody knows.
.
Speaking of Zimmerman and lying…
B37 says “I’m sure there were some fabrications, enhancements”
Do you suppose that what she meant by this is that in the 2 minutes that she recognizes as passing between the NEN ending and the start of the fight, that Zimmerman “literally” fabricated something – a new cover for the dog-poo container for example, and thus enhanced the container? There certainly was some banging going on while he was on the NEN. Maybe he had started the enhancement project at that stage?
.
Ah. But of course…..
That is simply your opinion. Even if you were correct, your opinion is irrelevant.
Your arguments appear to be based on the particular items offered as evidence and the particular arguments offered about selected aspects of those items. They appear to be based on the particular instructions given to the jury and the particular charges alleged.
You are basing this discussion on *that* trial.
BREAKING: That trial is over – finished – gone – no going back. Zimmerman got a not guilty in it.
That trial is over.
Zimmerman may still face problems in legal action that would be conducted in a different manner to that which resulted from the Corey/BDLR farce.
Provided that this action learns from history rather than tries a re-run – and encompasses the question of Zimmerman’s actions as being aggressive, then he may well experience difficulty.
The Feds can take action – on a different charge, but I’m not sure what that would be.
The Martin family could take a civil action. I’m not sure about Crump. I never paid much attention to him during all of this. He was not relevant to the actual merits of the case. Still, I get a sense that he is a darker version of BDLR. If that is so and he fronts a civil action, that could possibly come as a relief to Zimmerman.
.
As for your question :
Not alone am I capable of considering it, I have actually done so – long ago – at length and in great detail.
I can see it. I have worked it through the timeline, the NEN, the MAP.
I’ll type it up and post it in a while.
I’m sure you’ll love it.
I’ve not missed that point at all. I’ve actually made that point, repeatedly.
The point you seem to miss is that legal culpability through a deliberate act and legal culpability through a negligent act are two entirely different concepts, and one cannot be both legally culpable for a deliberate act and legally culpable for a deliberate act for the same given act. An act can be either deliberate or negligent, but not both. The State simply could not prosecute Zimmerman for both a deliberate act and for a negligent act, unless the state had two separate acts for which to prosecute Zimmerman.
The State chose to prosecute Zimmerman for a deliberate act, rather than for a negligent act. That’s not Zimmerman’s fault, it’s not my fault, and it’s not the jury’s fault. The jury thus did not consider Zimmerman’s guilt for commission of a negligent act, because to do so would have been improper, and a violation of Zimmerman’s constitutional rights.
The didn’t hear arguments or evidence to support such a finding, and the defense didn’t present a rebuttal for such a finding. The jury was given no instructions regarding such a finding. Jury Maddy discussing any such potential guilt is simply non sequitur.
That the State would have been utterly unable to prove Zimmerman’s guilt for commission of a culpably negligent act is another matter entirely.
How am I missing that point, and how would that point be relevant regardless?
You keep accusing me of “mental gymnastics” with respect to Rachel. Nothing could be further from the truth.
R100% of her testimony is perjured. I don’t believe a word she says. achel Jeantel was not on the phone with Trayvon Martin at the time of his death. “Francine” was the one on the phone with Martin.
But her testimony was admitted into the trial record, and for the sake of argument I consider all of her non-impeached testimony as valid.
I’ve done no such thing. I take 100% of her trial testimony at face value.
Really? Where have I ever argued a false narrative, based on specious preconceived notions?
“Literally” is my word, but is an accurate reflection of her trial testimony. Maybe you should try listening to it sometime?
Rachel said, on the stand, that she couldn’t tell who it was that said “get off”. Again: maybe you should try listening to her testimony some time?
And yet she voted “Not Guilty”. Funny, that.
By the way: I think the State does know where Martin was. His phone had ping logs and GPS data – data that would pinpoint down to a matter of feet where Martin was, every few seconds – data that mysteriously went missing. Funny, that.
The officers who investigated the case said that Zimmerman made no materially inconsistent statements, and that they believed his statements were sincere. I couldn’t really care less if you, Juror Maddy, or anyone else thought that Zimmerman was lying about something.
It is fact, not opinion; and it is utterly relevant. Even if you could prove that Zimmerman was lying about where he was between the end of his NEN call and the beginning of the first 911 call, such lying still doesn’t prove him guilty of any criminal offense. It doesn’t prove that he didn’t act in self-defense. It doesn’t prove that he was the initial physical aggressor. It doesn’t prove that he acted with a depraved mind.
Congratulations for picking up on that, finally. I have been utterly consistent from the beginning: I don’t care about anything other thant Zimmerman’s culpability under relevant statutes.
The Feds don’t have jurisdiction or probable cause to charge Zimmerman with squat. (Not that I would put it past Eric Holder to try anyway.) Crump is all bark and no bite. They’ll never bring civil charges against Zimmerman, because if they do so, Martin’s fighting, drug use, and other details of his illicit past will be fair game – and if they do file, Zimmerman will move for 776.032 immunity, will be granted immunity, and will collect legal defense fees from Crump.
Can’t wait. Please try to focus on any evidence that directly refutes the stated scenario, within the timeline of when Zimmerman exited his vehicle until the physical altercation started. I’ll consider anything outside of the stated scenario to be nothing more than smokescreen.
Short answer: Yes.
Longer answer: Below
This necessarily involves “attention to detail” – which as our genial host Mike has himself explained at the end of the “‘Update 34.2:Think With Your Heart’ posting, can result in posts “far longer than I prefer to write due to the attention to detail required.”. In short, what he means is “long”.
.
Your posts can be short. You see the situation as small number fixed tableaux – frozen and divorced from all else – that can be stood against your statute of choice.
I look at that sort of post and consider that the question “How Can We Know?” begs a follow-up – “Do You Really Want To Know?”
Your simplistic question indicates that you don’t want to know. You don’t want to consider all of the implications of what you propose when it is set in entire stream of connected events in that piece of ground on the night.
.
There are two parts to this – Zimmerman and Martin.
They are not chess pieces that effectively teleport to new squares on the board. They have to move by walking/jogging/running through the environment. The can move at the samr time. It’s not turn-by-turn. There is some form of reasoning behinds their destinations and movements.
Zimmerman: in his truck. He’s watching Martin walk towards the T. He does not describe this, but the Martin has to be walking away so as to be up at the T at the time Zimmerman reports him as running/not-running-skipping.
Zimmerman is in the middle of giving directions to his truck when he suddenly interrupts that mid-flow.
Martin runs (or sort of skips, depending) down the path towards home.
Zimmerman sees him disappear in that direction and on saying “Sh*t, he’s running” starts to get out immediately. You hear him in the NEN starting to move immediately. It is clear that he got out to follow. Martin disappearing is the trigger. When Zimmerman says “He’s running”, he already knows ( or thinks he knows) where Martin is heading. He does not need to get out to know this. He’s seen it all from his truck.
It is clear from the NEN that he did not get out to get an address. He is engaged in giving direction and interrupts this when he sees Martin disappear.
As he is getting out, the dispatcher asks which way Martin is running.. Zimmerman tells him that the suspect is headed (running implied) down towards the back entrance.
Thereafter, the dispatcher never makes any inquiry whatsoever about where the suspect might be. He doesn’t need to. He knows – back entrance. Cops take over from here.
Noises sound like Zimmerman is moving at a hurried pace. “Are you following him? – Yeah – We don’t need you to do that.”
They really don’t need him to do that because (1) they know where the suspect is headed (2) they don’t want vigilantes charging around and getting into altercations. The dispatcher is not permitted by policy to give orders. He is restricted to giving only sensible suggestions.
Then the question of a location/address arises. It arises *only* because Zimmerman said “Yes” to the dispatcher asking him if he wants to meet with the officers when they arrive out there. Had Zimmerman not expressed a desire to meet officers, that would have been the end of the matter as far as the dispatcher was concerned. “Listen to the NEN” -(TM).
The dispatcher even suggested Zimmerman’s home as a meeting point. This is very clearly about meeting officers and nothing to do where Martin is/was.
At this stage, both by his own story and confirmed as possible by the NEN timeline and physics/Map, Zimmerman has been standing on RVC as the call comes to an end.
As Zimmerman has had issues with providing an address for a meeting, the dispatcher suggested that the meeting be at the mailboxes. Zimmerman agreed.
Chip,
Absolutely I can visualize him – as you wrote – “that he completed his call while standing on the RVC end of that sidewalk”.
One has to wonder why he did not give a house number on RVC to the dispatcher at that stage. He says that this was his reason to go there.
Anyhow. Let’s leave him standing there with the NEN ended and 2 minutes to go before the fight breaks out.
Martin: is said to be headed South. We don’t actually know his position over time. Jeantel thinks he’s running at some stage because she heard the wind noise. We thought Zimmerman was running because of the wind noise in the NEN. He insists that he simply walked. Maybe the cause of the wind noise is the same in both cases? We don’t know. Jeantel talks of Martin saying he’s not going to run. – And I think we’re zapped the “literal” “right by”/”yard” nonsense above.
Let’s take your suggestion that he’s running.
Listening to the NEN, Zimmerman gets into the central area 28 seconds after he slams the truck door. The ’wind’ noises die down. He’s either stopped moving fas through the air or the air has stopped moving fast – as might happen if he were no longer in the tunnel formed by the side of Laeur’s condo and the backs of the RVC houses opposite.
This is 35 seconds after he reported Martin as running.
If Martin ran for those 35 seconds, he would have covered about 500 feet.
If he simply jogged, he would have covered about 300 feet.
It’s about 280 feet to the house. He could be at the back door of the house when Zimmeman gets into the central area.
Fine. But what does this mean?
Back to Zimmerman.
He walks across to RVC. It’s very dark. He carries a flashlight that seems to be giving trouble. He’s whacking it to try bring it to life. At best it’s flickering. There is 45 foot wide space between the back corners of the houses. Anyone to the South only has a chance of seeing this flickering while he is crossing that space. At a walk, it would take him 10 seconds to cross that space. Let him pause in the middle to look down that really dark central area and see darkness. 20 seconds?
What would Martin see?
He had no way of knowing that Zimmerman got out of the truck. He was gone before that happened.
He’s now ( purely for the sake of your argument) 280 feet South of the T and at the house.
If Zimmerman went to RVC and finished up the call there as you say, then……
If Martin happened to look North for some reason, and for a specific 10 to 20 seconds, he might have noticed a flickering light crossing the top of the area – 280 feet away in the darkness. Then there is only darkness.
In the timeline, when the flickering light disappeared, there is 1 minute still to go in the NEN call.
There are 3 minutes to go before the fight breaks out.
If Zimmerman is telling the truth – that he left RVC to walk directly to his truck, then he would only have become visible to anyone down the central area just 9 or 10 seconds before the fight started.
To anyone down the central area, a flickering light would have been seen crossing to top for about 10 to 20 seconds. Then there would have been just short of 3 minutes of total nothing. Darkness. Quiet. Zip.
Chip, your argument is that 10 to 20 seconds of flickering followed by 3 minutes of absolutely nothing was enough to entice Martin northwards to attack whoever it was that had been invisible for 3 minutes.
That flicking 280 feet away might have been the follower. It might not have been.
.
Back to Zimmerman, ending the NEN at RVC – which is what you propose and what he says happened.
1) He says that he went there to get a house number. Fine! Standing there while finishing the call, he can see house numbers. You’ve seen photos and videos of those house numbers by day and night no doubt – designed to be clearly legible to someone on the road.
He doesn’t give a number to the dispatcher. Why? He’s had plenty of time to cross the road is he’s short-sighted.
He’s into the dog-walk areas at 2:40 in the NEN, both bw walking time and by the wind noises fading. He’s got 1 minute 26 before the call ends. He’s got about 110 feet to travel to RVC. At a walk, he’d be there in the 26 seconds. He’s got 1 minute to kill between maybe pausing to look south at nothing in the darkness or looking at house numbers in RVC.
2) He agrees to the dispatchers suggestion that – as he wants to meet the officers – that they meet at the mailboxes. That’s sensible. He’s already been out in the dark, rain and cold for 2 minutes 50 seconds. No sign of the suspect during that time. They always get away – running between the houses – down towards the back entrance – same old – same old. Nothing to do here.
3) Then all of a sudden, he breaks in over the end of the dispatcher who is saying “Alright George, I’ll let them know to meet you when they’re out there, okay?”
He breaks in between “there” and “okay?” to say “Actually could you have them, could you have them call me and I’ll tell them where I’m at?”
What’s happened? Why the sudden change?
4) It’s 2 minutes before the fight will break out.
A walk to where the fight was first noticed would take him 20 seconds – by calculation and also be demonstration in the walk-through.
If he was walking from RVC directly to the truck, he would have had to stand still at RVC for 1 minute 40 seconds —- in the dark, rain and cold — doing…? Going? What is he doing?
.
You see Chip, there’s your problems.
You see a frozen tableau.
I pay attention to detail and show that your tableau makes no sense to any reasonable person.
A child could work that out if they had a mind to.
How Can We Know?
You Don’t Want To Know.
Somebody once said: “: “Open you mind to the truth, and stop being clouded by a false narrative and your own specious preconceived notions.”
Oh! That was you, above, lecturing Rule of Order. Hilarious!!
Actually, the scenario presented did not speculate regarding Martin’s motivation. It doesn’t need to. Zimmerman not leaving the east-west sidewalk, and Martin reaching Brandi Green’s home and then returning to the sidewalk “T” are what matter.
These are the sorts of smokescreens I’m talking about. It really doesn’t matter why Zimmerman didn’t give a house number to the dispatcher. What matters is that he stayed on the east-west sidewalk, while Martin went to Brandi Green’s home, and then returned to the sidewalk “T”.
See above. This is a question. It does not represent evidence that refutes the proposed scenario. It is but a smokescreen.
Actually, no.
Zimmerman’s NEN call ended at 7:13:40.
Jenna Lauer’s 911 call connected at 7:16:11.
Lauer testified in the trial that she dialed about 30 seconds before the call connected with the dispatcher. (Lucky Lauer; Zimmerman’s call took about a minute and a half to connect to NEN.)
That means that Lauer called at about 7:15:40.
Factor in reasonable time for the altercation to start, escalate, reach the attention of Lauer, Lauer to become concerned enough to call… that is at least a minute, and very likely longer.
So, that means that Zimmerman had no more than a minute between the end of his NEN call and his initial encounter with Martin.
Your math is off (see above). Zimmerman would have had to stand still for no more than 40 seconds (and quite possibly less than that – 40 seconds assumes that the time from initial encounter to the first witness placing a 911 call to be only one minute.
Even so: that’s not a refutation. What was he doing for no more than 40 seconds? Trying to get his flashlight to work? Peering down RVC toward the back entrance, trying for one final glimpse? Making a note of the house numbers, to give to the police who he knew were on their way?
In the end, it doesn’t matter. You have no evidence that he did anything other than walk across the east-west sidewalk from his vehicle to RVC, stand there while completing his NEN call, and then walk back along the east-west sidewalk toward his vehicle. That’s the presented scenario, and you have no evidence to refute it.
Yes: any child could see that Zimmerman was getting beaten, and acted in self-defense. Any child could work out that you don’t have a shred of evidence to refute a self-defense claim.
Any child could see that you continue to view the incident through the preconceived notion that Zimmerman was a stupid, reckless vigilante who acted stupidly.
Any child could see that you’re simply wrong.
SInglton asked the County Sheriff’s office for the call timings. They gave her the wrong start time for the NEN. That resulted in gap after the NEN ended being shortened by 1 minute 28 seconds.
Had they been working with teh correct time, they would have see a major inconsistency. See my last comment – Zimmerman at RVC and all the questions arizing.
SIncere?
They do not appear to have examined the timeline and content of the NEN to realize that Zimmeman is certainly inventing the circling. SIncere?
They do not appear to have questioned the consistency of his walk-through account of starting by Taffe’s house and then leaving the scene – leaving a suspicious person to burgle houses unseen and undisturbed.
There are a bunch of major inconsistencies that they missed because they were not looking for them.
Did they determine the truck position and the way it was facing?
.
Zimmerman seems very sincere on Hannity. He’s is very sincerely spinning changes to his story. What happened in the minute between “We don’t need you to do that ” and the shooting? I saw him in less than 30 seconds. Yes SIr.
No Sir. He wasn’t running, and he wasn’t in fear. No Sir, I wasn’t particularly alarmed. Maybe that was because I forget about the circling?
“Hand in waistband?” Pffft. A mere bluff such as would never remind a CCW that they had a CW.
.
I hadn’t mentioned the Maddy juror. It was B37 who said she was sure that Zimmerman was lying.
But …. Maddy… who says that she eventually gave in because it was explained to her that the law was that unless there was proof that Zimmerman intended to kill Martin, then he had to be found not guilty.
Hello?
Manslaughter? – Needs intent to kill?
That may have been true at the time that Serino and Singleton conducted their challenge interview of Zimmerman. It is doubtful that it remained true when both Serino and Singleton testified on the stand over a year later.
And you base that on, what, exactly? Merely because you and they disagree on that timeline, and its applicability to the veracity and sincerity of Zimmerman’s statements? I’ll take their word over yours, any day.
I’ve demonstrated multiple times that you’re misquoting the interview, and that Zimmerman never said what you claim he said. You should either go work for ABC, or start writing probable cause affidavits for Florida’s 4th circuit, with that kind of splicing and out-of-context quoting.
Yes. Deliberate act. Manslaughter by act requires a deliberate act. Why does that remain so difficult for you to understand (or perhaps, to accept)?
Actually, no.
What Lauer said was that she thought that about 30 seconds passed between he noticing the first sounds and the call being answered. That’s what her 30 second estimate was.
The Event Report for her call shows that it was picked up at 7:16:11.
Because it was a 911 call, metadata is collected (unlike NEN).
That shows that the incoming call was detected by the system at 7:16:00.
Her call was answered in 11 seconds.
You can take it that she had completed dialling at 7:16:00
If you want to work her 30 second *estimate* for time from noises to being answered, then she estimates hearing the noises at 7:15:41
In addition, the Martin/Jeantel call dropped at 7:15:43
The NEN ended at 7:13:40
2 minutes betwen the NEN ending and the noises being detected, with the Martin/Jeantel call dropping a few seconds after the struggle would have commenced.
Your math is all wrong because you didn’t pay attention to the evidence.
Zimmerman’s story does not make any sense whatsoever when you consider the correct timeline.
It is not reasonable to believe him because of this.
.
“Manslaughter by act requires a deliberate act.”
There you go again, banging on about the specific charges laid in that trial and the particular instructions given to the jury in that trial.
It’s pointless to bring a charge that involves Zimmerman deliberately killing Martin.
He didn’t.
He just f*cked up bigtime, and a death resulted. It was unintentional.
His stories don’t stand up to a proper scrutiny.
SPD were are careless as you have just demonstrated yourself to be on the timeline.
Right. Because a difference of 20 seconds changes everything.
Nonsense.
You keep claiming to know the “correct timeline”. Tell me, o keeper of the timeline: what exact time (hours, minutes, and seconds) did the altercation start? Given the importance you place on a difference of 20 seconds, surely the exact timing of the start of the altercation is critical information, and is within your possession.
What’s that? You can’t say for certain? Huh; funny, that.
So, what was Zimmerman’s negligent act (his “bigtime eff-up”) that makes him criminally culpable for the death of Martin? What exact act was it, and how does that act rise to the level of criminal culpable negligence?
I’ve given you my out: prove that Zimmerman was the initial physical aggressor. (Even then, you’ve got statutory hurdles, in that 776 includes a specific provision for the justified use of deadly force by an initial physical aggressor. But at least it would be a starting point.)
Short of Zimmerman being the initial physical aggressor, there simply is no act that he committed that night that rises to the level of criminal culpable negligence.
Dear Chip Bennett:
As usual, you’re correct. I did not engage in any by the second analysis of this case in its early stages, or indeed, at any point, because I knew that such things would not matter at trial, as they did not. Time lines were not know with sufficient accuracy by anyone to engage in quibbles over seconds, or for the most part, even minutes.
I remain amazed that we’re still talking about these issues.
I’m not sure where your 20 seconds comes from.
You were arguing 1 minute NEN to fight as you did not pay attention to Lauer’s testimony.
It’s actually 2 minutes.
Lauer’s estimate indicates that. The Martin/Jeantel dropping indicates that.
Up above I have indicated the approach that would get a jury believing that Zimmerman set out to follow and then to search for Martin.
That he was frustrated and wanted to catch perps would be and was obvious.
They would see that he invented the RVC story to try explain the time in there. The story does not work. It’s completely unreasonable.
They would also see that he invented the circling, plagarized the “you got a problem – no – now you do” from a movies, “You gona die tonite MF” in order to blacken a dead Martin and make himself a victim.
Jeantel’s account of the conversation shows Zimmerman imaging himself as an authority figue. Que the “stern commanding presence” associated with having to shoot people.
Even by Zimmrma’s own account, Martin would have seen him as going for a gun – giving Martin self defence in the circumstances.
Despite a fog of BDLR screaming M2 and nobody concentrating much if at all on the factors that I mention, even B37 ( Zimmerman supportive ) picked up on his recklessnes and lies – and also acknowledges that nobody knows what Zimmemman was doing or where he went.
Presented to properly, a jury will be more than receptive to finding Zimmerman guilty of something. So give them something.
But….. that trial is over.
The tragedy is that a lot of people seem to think that Zimmerman is innocent – did absolutely nothing that should incur any penalty or even criticizm.
At least four of the jury did not think so.
He happened to be found not guilty in a botched comedy trial and with a jury limited in which subsets of the law they had to work with – and one of them at least under the impression that they had to find “not guilty” unless it could be proven that Zimmerman intended to kill. That’s insane.
Bring on a civil case. Let Zimmerman try for immunity.
What does he do? Fill in a form and pay a small fee – and gets his application rubber-stamped without any discussion? Kewl!
Yeah, I just wanted to double check and make sure we are talking about the same place.
In this instance, its the same place where spotting house numbers is reasonable, but seeing Trayvon approach, Zimmerman had no chance. 30 foot visibility to see letters at best a foot on the front side of a building where Zimmerman isn’t but you at least agree that is where he should have been if he wanted to collect them. And of course, if they were in plain view to him, failed to relay them to the NEO. Like I previously mentioned, if Zimmerman is desirous of doing any of the things he mentioned, he would have had to of left the cross of the T. The gloom of the section between the houses is dark, granted, but its opaque. The debris field indicates he had to at least have traveled some degree down the spine of the T, the exact distance and frequency, Mike has adequately summed up in the title. I am just merely noting that for all the things Zimmerman said he wanted to do and did, hanging out on that cross of the T for the entire duration satisfies none of them.
Dear Mike,
Chip was completely incorrect (the point being the extent, and so the implication, of the gap)
He was wrong because he didn’t pay attention to the detail/evidence/testimony.
He seemed happy to engage in a discussion of the time while his error appeared to support his argument. I pointed out his error and that the gap to the fight was actually 2 minutes (give or take a few seconds). All of a sudden, he doesn’t want to talk about times.
.
Mike, your comment has us unmistakably on the topic of “How Can We Know?”
Of course you didn’t go into the timeline at any stage.
You didn’t need to.
Like Chip and many others, you already “knew” what happened.
They “knew” that Zimmerman went to get an address, and that he was ambushed as he returned directly to his truck.
They “knew” that Martin *must* have doubled back with the intention of attacking.
They “knew” that DeeDee was just reciting a script written by Crump to damage Zimmerman. They “knew” that even though DeeDee was mumbling perjury (assuming you could actually understand what she was saying,), that when she said “right by” she was unambiguously damaging Martin.
They “knew” – even without Crump scripting DeeDee to say unambiguously that Martin was right at the door of Greene’s condo – that Martin doubled back because no reasonable person would stay up near the T. Questions to do with “reasonability” only had to be asked about Martin, and not about Zimmerman.
They “knew” that Martin must have attacked because he’s a drug-crazed thug with a criminal history. Plus there was that really threatening circling.
You were not the only people who didn’t need to go into timelines.
On the other side of the bear-pit, a bunch of people “knew” that Zimmerman was a crazed racist who set out to stalk and murder a black child.
Neither you nor they needed any stinking timelines – because you all already “knew” what had happened.
It seems to me that SPD on the night also “knew” what had happened. NW guy they actually knew and had prior contact with – dead person that nobody knew – bloody nose and cuts to back of head of NW guy. What’s to investigate really? – But they had to go through the formalities. In that process, they used the concept of a timeline against Zimmerman’s story. They didn’t find a problem there because they were as careless as Chip was above. They didn’t pay attention to detail. Singleton got the times wrong. They probably didn’t go into small detail because the big detail looked ok in the light of their faulty information.
.
So I came along and found all these people who “knew” completely different versions of what happened.
I thought – effectively – “How Can They Know?” – this particularly as they clearly “knew” absolutely contradictory things.
It felt to me that all these people on both sides were “guided by” their “literary and cultural models” so as to “know”. Another way of putting that is they were prejudiced – as their positions clearly ignored available detailed evidence.
.
They were not there. I was not there. “How Can We Know?”
I brought my “literary and cultural model”. I spend my life analysing things to see how they work and what happened if things didn’t go as predicted. Measure things. How much information do we have. How reliable is it? What are we missing?
“How Can I Know?”
There was a deal of primary source material available ( to everybody – if they were at all open-minded). Maps – Call recordings with to-the-second timings of the content – statements and interviews.
All of the issues that I have described above in relation to Zimmerman at RVC were immediately obvious. His RVC story made no sense at all once it was examined in detail. The logic of going there for an address and then not giving it when appropriate and possible might indicate that he never actually went there. There is absolutely no evidence that he went there. Then he has that gap. Two minutes for a journey from RVC that should have taken 20 seconds.
Zimmerman is running low on credibility.
Then listen intently to the NEN and try to find the circling that he only reported afterwards. It can’t have happened.
By the time you get to “Yo. You got a problem Homie?” and “You gonna die tonight MF”, Zimmerman’c credibility tank is empty and he’s driving on fumes.
The differences between his walk-through description of the NEN conversation and the actual NEN are not “minor discrepancies”. They are either major hallucinations or deliberate invention to spin a notion that the dispatcher was pressing him for information on Martin’s movements – even to the extent of going somewhere to “regain visual”.
Sean Noffke, dispatcher extraordinaire, c’mon down (to the witness stand).
Despite MOM’s best efforts, Noffke is absolutely unambiguous and explicit.
His “Let me know if he does anything”s were solely to do with a guy approaching and the possibility of a confrontation arising from that approach at that moment.
Noffke hears Zimmerman moving to get out *immediately* on “He’s running”
“We don’t want you to do that” is the closest that he is allowed by policy to “Don’t do that.”
Noffke at that stage considered that the “suspicious person had left the area”.
Procedure demanded that he must ask the caller if they want to meet responding officers. That Zimmerman said “Yeah” was the sole reason for asking for an address – for a meeting. If Zimmerman had answered “no”, that would have been the end of anything that involved Zimmerman as far as Noffke was concerned. The officers would have looked for a person matching a description near the back entrance.
All of what Noffke said on the stand about the call would have be obvious to anyone with an inquiring and open mind simply by paying close attention to NEN recording. It would not have been so to someone who already “knew” what happened that night.
.
The timelines were exact – to the second. The are automatically collected in real time by machine. They are not a matter of opinion or memory.
2.5 minutes is not a quibble. It’s a fact. It destroys Zimmerman’s story. It shows his story is not reasonable.
When I first raised that gap in this blog, the response was to the effect that I had no way of knowing that Noffke’s clock (supposedly a dedicated NEN system in SPD) was synchronized with the 911 system. My answer was that Noffke worked in the County Sheriff’s call centre dealing with both NENs and 911s. How did I know this? I had checked before I talked about the gap. Anyone could have checked that if they had an open and inquiring mind.
.
That trial is over. It was a total scr*w-up, but it’s over. “These issues” are therefore not relevant to the verdict in that trial.
.
Whoa Martin family!! Don’t even think about a civil case. You don’t want to know what kind of dirt is going to be thrown at you, your boy, your cousins and the horses that they rode into town on!!!
Oh you mean like all that sort of stuff that’s already out there?
So a civil case goes ahead.
This time you got an incompetent fool with delusions of being an authority figure, who followed someone into the dark and ended up shooting that person some minutes later.
Their story afterwards has major discrepancies. It simply does not stand up to reasonability or timeline.
It includes at least one clear lie designed to make the victim appear a threatening individual. Another set of discrepancies is so remarkable that they are either hallucinations or lies. The spin in these is to give an impression that the dispatcher had pressed him to follow.
There is also something very odd and unreasonable about his description of the events at the beginning of his walk-through and NEN. This isn’t a biggie, but it’s certainly very odd. It’s worth further investigation.
The matter ending in a shooting was unintentional. It was also totally avoidable.
A significant aggravating factor is the nonsense story and the lying afterwards.
@Sling: this is utter and complete nonsense:
No, it doesn’t “destroy” Zimmerman’s story. It fits in precisely with his story, either taken literally, or accounting for the known time perception issues caused by a traumatic event.
You claim that I’ve been “careless” with the timeline, over a matter of 19 seconds (the difference in time to connect for Lauer’s 911 call: 11 seconds vs. 30 seconds). But what you fail to accept or even to consider is that those 19 seconds don’t change anything.
We don’t know how long Martin was beating Zimmerman. We only know what time an ear witness, having become concerned enough to do so, called 911 in response to that beating.
Because we don’t know how long Martin was beating Zimmerman, we don’t know what time Martin started beating Zimmerman. Because we don’t know what time Martin started beating Zimmerman, we don’t know what time Martin approached, confronted, and verbally accosted Zimmerman.
Here, I’ll re-write what I wrote, accounting for that 19-second difference:
—–
Zimmerman’s NEN call ended at 7:13:40.
Jenna Lauer’s 911 call connected at 7:16:11.
Lauer’s call took 11 seconds to connect with the dispatcher. (Lucky Lauer; Zimmerman’s call took about a minute and a half to connect to NEN.)
That means that Lauer called at about 7:16:00.
Factor in reasonable time for the altercation to start, escalate, reach the attention of Lauer, Lauer to become concerned enough to call… that is at least a minute, and very likely longer.
So, that means that Zimmerman had no more than a minute and 20 seconds between the end of his NEN call and his initial encounter with Martin.
—–
What we do know, however, is that approach and confrontation took place in the vicinity of the sidewalk “T”, exactly as Zimmerman stated.
What we do know, however, is that the known timeline absolutely leaves no time for Zimmerman to have wandered down the dog walk to look for and to find Martin. Further, we know that it is incredible to the point of absurdity to believe that Zimmerman went down the dog walk, found Martin, and then chased Martin back to the sidewalk T, where the physical altercation started.
We also know what Rachel Jeantel said on the stand – well, I’m not sure if you either don’t know what she said on the stand, or are simply being obtuse in ignoring what she said. Even if you deny that she said that Martin was indeed right by (in the literal sense) Brandi Green’s home, you cannot deny that she said that he continued walking for the couple of minutes before he confronted Zimmerman. Where was Martin going, and how did Zimmerman find him?
Everything known about the story, the timeline, and the relative movements of Zimmerman and Martin corroborates Zimmerman’s story. You have decided that a specific, arbitrary timeline that you constructed is the only one possible, and then declare that Zimmerman’s story cannot reconcile to the timeline. You’re arguing facts not in evidence, and you’re begging the question.
The real timeline, with everything we know:
7:13:40: Zimmerman NEN call ends
7:16:00: Lauer dials 911
2 minutes, 40 seconds.
You’ve allowed that Zimmerman might take 20 seconds to walk from RVC to the dog-walk sidewalk “T” on the east-west sidewalk.
2 minutes.
The absolute minimum time from initial approach to Lauer dialing 911 is 1 minute.
That leaves Zimmerman with all of one minute unaccounted for.
But it is reasonable that Zimmerman didn’t hang up his phone and immediately turn toward his vehicle. Maybe he peered down RVC toward the back entrance for a few seconds. Maybe he smacked his flashlight some more, trying to make it turn on. Maybe he simply stood there in indecision, not knowing whether he should stand there to wait for the police, or return to his vehicle. Such completely innocuous things could easily account for 20-30 seconds.
It is also reasonable that the time from initial approach to Lauer dialing 911 includes part or all of that minute.
A perfectly reasonable timeline?
7:13:40: Zimmerman NEN call ends
7:14:10: Zimmerman decides to wait in his vehicle rather than standing outside, and turns to walk back toward his vehicle
7:14:30: Martin approaches Zimmerman out of the dark, at the sidewalk “T”, verbally accosts him, and begins physical altercation
7:15:30: Altercation becomes loud/sustained enough for Lauer and her fiancee to say, “What’s going on? I wonder if we should call the police?”
7:16:00: Lauer dials 911
Do I know for certain that this is the timeline? Of course not.
Do I know for certain that this timeline is reasonable, based on all known evidence? Absolutely.
Do I know that you’re full of crap for claiming that your arbitrary timeline is more likely than the one proposed above, and for claiming that your arbitrary timeline “destroys” Zimmerman’s story? Absolutely?
Chip,
You began with an incorrect impression that Lauer’s call took 30 seconds to be answered (after dialling).
Had you checked her testimony before posting, you would have discovered what I told you.
Had you checked her testimony before coming back to me again, you would have discovered the basis of her estimate. Hint: It’s below
Her estimate of the time from hearing the noises to being answered was 30 seconds.
The Event Report for her call shows that the system detected the incoming call at 7:16:00 and was picked up at 7:16:11.
This would mean that using her estimate, the time from hearing the noises to dialling would have been 19 seconds. Look at her testimony to see how that estimate came about and what is meant by “hearing the noises”.
They were watching TV. The sliding door was open. There are blinds enclosing the porch area.
They heard loud voices outside and she immediately muted the TV.
They heard a scuffling, ( like sneakers on pavement and grass – like running or basketball ). The scuffling was an immediate continuation from the voices. They decided to dial 911 immediately on hearing the scuffling.
Jeremy had a problem. His phone locked, so she dialled.
She sounds quite sure that her reaction to mute the TV was immediate and the decision to call 911 was immediate.
That being so, a 19 second delay from voices to dialling sounds more than adequate.
Next bit is important.
The voices they heard were a 3-part exchange. Voice1, Voice2, Voice 1.
After that it was just scuffling, grunting, yelping, yelling.
Where have we heard a 1/2/3 exchange described? Both by Zimmerman’s account and Jeantel’s account – and both accounts get to bumping/scuffling then.
That 1,2,3 exchange seems to be this. Her 30 second estimate ( discussed and re-enacted later with Jeremy) sounds very reasonable as it means 19 seconds to get to dial 911 after hearing the 1/2/3 voices.
Count yourself through 19 seconds. Re-enact what she describes. She and Jeremy re-enacted it. It’s more than enough.
.
This puts the 1/2/3 voices at 7:15:41
The Martin/Jeantel call dropped at 7:15:43. If you have any issues with that particular time-stamp, the best thing to do would be contact Mark O’Mara. That’s what he had in his 10-foot-wide timeline.
We have two strong indicators that the fight started 2 minutes after the NEN ended.
Lauer’s considered/re-enacted 30-second estimate seems good – as 19 seconds to dial and 11 seconds to answer.
Your timeline is not reasonable. You say it is based on “all known evidence”. Clearly, you don’t know all the evidence. You thought Lauer’s 30 seconds was the time taken to answer. You were unaware of both the nature and the basis of Lauer’s estimate. Had you reviewed her testimony – as I had – you would not be so unaware.
Your timeline is your guesswork. It’s arbitrary. Mine is based on the detail of Lauer’s testimony and automated timestamps (aka … known – to some of us anyway -evidence).
As I understand you, your description of someone who offers an inferior arbitrary timeline would be “full of crap”. I feel your pain.
.
You wrote of your own inferior arbitrary/guessed timeline: “Do I know for certain that this timeline is reasonable, based on all known evidence? Absolutely.”
How Can We Know?
I would suggest that an excellent start-point in this process would be to actually check the evidence.
Really! You should try it sometime.
@Sling:
Yep: arbitrary timelines are arbitrary.
Yours is as equally as arbitrary as mine. I admit: I don’t maintain perfect recall of Lauer’s testimony from almost a month ago. I am undoubtedly off by a number of seconds, on a number of utterly inconsequential points.
Why are they utterly inconsequential? Because recall of time perception is unreliably mutable, especially following a traumatic experience.
Lauer says it was “25 or 30 seconds”. Does that mean that it was exactly 30 seconds, and no more or no fewer? Of course not. What she recalls as being 30 seconds could have been 10 seconds, or it could have been a minute and a half.
What a similar, related example? John Good. He stated in one of his interviews (FDLE, I think?) that he heard a five minute altercation. We know that a five-minute altercation is physically impossible, based on known timeline points.
Zimmerman’s recall of time perception is subject to the same margin of error – and moreso because he’s the one who underwent the life-threatening trauma.
So he thinks it was 30 seconds after his NEN call (or after he turned to return to his vehicle, depending on how you interpret the context of his statement in the Hannity interview) that Martin approached him. So what? It could have been 30 seconds, or it could have been a couple minutes.
You can have your timeline quibbles. You have bested me on the precise moments in the timeline between the end of the NEN call and the beginning of Lauer’s 911 call. You are the keeper and master of the timeline.
Why? Because all of that is still beside the point: whether the time was 10 seconds of two and a half minutes: there is simply no evidence that Zimmerman did anything unlawful during that time, or that he was the initial physical aggressor for the altercation.
So, yes: my recall of some of the timeline details is imperfect, and I don’t care enough to go back to be more precise. Because it simply does not matter.
You’re hanging your hat on Zimmerman’s reasonably imperfect recall of the exact number of seconds that elapsed between the end of his NEN call and the moment when Martin approached him, and trying to claim that such imperfect recall is evidence of lying. You then build on that false premise to say that such lying is evidence of some sort of culpability on Zimmerman’s part.
That argument is absurd, because you are holding Zimmerman to an unreasonable standard in order to derive a specious conclusion.
You treat every immaterial inconsistency in Zimmerman’s account – an account that he gave willingly six times when asked by law enforcement – in the same manner, and hold Zimmerman to a standard of consistency that would almost assuredly led law enforcement to suspect that he had fabricated his story, because it would have been too consistent.
Thus, your assertions that Zimmerman is lying about his account, and such alleged lying is evidence of culpability, is as absurd and unreasonable as the standard of consistency to which you hold Zimmerman accountable.
You quibble over 10, 20, 30 seconds, while completely ignoring the fact that all the physical and eye-witness evidence corroborates Zimmerman’s account that Martin assaulted him, and likewise that none of the physical or eye-witness evidence indicates that Zimmerman was the initial physical aggressor.
You can’t state that the scenario I proposed is excluded by known evidence. You can’t provide one shred of evidence to show that Zimmerman wasn’t fully within his rights to act in self-defense. All you can do is wax ad nauseum about immaterial variances in the timeline.
Show that Zimmerman pursued Martin. Show that Zimmerman intended or tried to apprehend or to detain Martin. Show that Zimmerman was in any way the initial physical aggressor. Show that Zimmerman in any way justified Martin’s use of force against him.
Show that Zimmerman did anything other than stand on a sidewalk previously traversed and vacated by Martin, at a time when he had no idea where Martin was, and had no expectation that Martin was nearby, or would attempt to confront him.
I would say that you’re foolish, but that’s not sufficient. You’re dangerous. You want to hold a law-abiding citizen accountable for the decisions and actions of a thug – a thug who, for his own reasons and of his own volition, decided to confront, accost, and assault a person. That the thug put that person in reasonable fear for his life, and that his victim had the means to defend-himself using justified deadly force, are not Zimmerman’s fault.
Chip,
Firstly….
That trial is over. Finished. Done. No going back. Over.
All the rules in that trial and all the buffonery are gone. Bye bye.
Now we think about a civil action.
Different presentation. Different rules.
It’s not proving beyond a reasonable doubt.
It’s in tort – “Preponderance of evidence” – ‘More likely than not’.
Bear in mind that in the criminal trial even with the shambles of a prosecution, *at least* 4 of the 6 jury members believed that Zimmerman did some thing he should not have done.
B37 – who was supportive of him – said that at the very least she “wanted to find him guilty of not using his senses” – that he should not have got out – that he didn’t know when to stop – that he wanted so badly to catch those people – etc. She says that she would only be happy to have Zimmerman on her NW if he never behaved like that again.
Getting out of a truck isn’t illegal? Well cry me a river. Jury members think he should not have got out.
This does not bode well for a civil action.
We’re looking at what is reasonable and what is not – in the eyes of jurors.
.
You are trying too hard on Lauer. You are disinclined to check what she said exactly. The basis of her estimate is good, cross-checked with her husband and re-enacted by both of them t overify. Get yourself a stopwatch and re-enact what she says happened in 19 seconds. You want to spin that out to 1 minute 19 seconds?
Check out a video of her testimony. It’s more likely than not that her estimate is very accurate – with a few seconds. Bring in the Martin/Jeantel timestamp.
Her estimate would have a fight that lasted 1 minute 12 seconds up to the shot. You want to start it 1 minute earlier? That’s 2 minutes and 12 seconds of fighting. (aka vicious frenzied assault) – following which Zimmerman is walking around and requires no medical attention other than a wipe-down.
So who is this sissy pussy Trayvon anyway? Why did he hold back on the ultra-violence? Afraid of breaking a nail were we?
.
I’m not hanging my hat on any particular aspect. It’s a continuity of factors. It’s about “reasonable”and “likelyhood” now.
.
He was not ‘twice asked to keep an eye on Martin’. Any reasonable review of the NEN would show what Noffke testified to. He wanted to know if the person approaching started any confrontation when he got up to the truck – end of and very clear from the context.
Circling. Didn’t happen. Listen to the NEN. No mention. No tone of voice. No time.
We’re not talking “beyond reasonable doubt” here. It’s so far more likely than not that circling never happened – that it’s practically a certainty. Why is he lying about this? Painting Martin as violent and threatening?
Oh dear. That’s not going to go down at all well.
Zimmerman got out to follow – “He’s running” interrupting in mid-flow of giving directions to the truck. That’s very clear from the NEN. He did not get out for an address.
Once he reported “Down towards the back entrance”, Noffke had no further interest and never mentioned the person again.
The request for an address only came after Zimmerman was out in the pathway area – and actually at RVC by his own account.
He already failed the “reasonable” test in getting out – going by what B37 says about herself and the jury.
Then we really get into ‘reasonable person’ territory.
Why not give the address? Why not return to the truck as agreed?
This is *not* a matter of remembering times elapsed.
This is the rationale of doing things.
Why did he do what he claims to have done?
Why did he go to RVC?
Ah! He was at RVC. He changed from an agreed meet at the truck, but didn’t give the RVC address because he wanted to keep his options open about a meeting place.
He decided that he might stay standing in the dark rain and cold at RVC for a while in case the cops rang him while he was there. He would want to meet them there because…….. eh…..why?
Anyhoo, he eventually gave up waiting – in frustration.
He remembers none of this logic about keeping his options open.
He doesn’t remember giving up in frustration.
Fair enough if he had said that he had waited there for …um..a while. We might not expect him to remember exactly how long “a while” was. We would expect him to remember that he had waited in the dark, cold and rain and had then given up in frustration. That sort of thing is memorable.
What was he going to do if the cops rang him if he was not at RVC or not at the mailboxes? He had already failed twice to give directions to where he was. He had said that this was the reason that he was at RVC at all.
In all of the circumstances, a meet at the truck – as suggested by the dispatcher was the most sensible.
That would be some sort of mild recovery from the stupidity of getting out there at all in the first place.
It’s more likely than not that the whole RVC thing is just an attempted cover for his time spent in that dark dog-walk area.
.
What was that about “I don’t want to give that all out. I don’t know where this kid is”?
Seems he thought there was a chance the late teens kid might still be around.
Go looking did we?
“This kid”does not sound like a dangerous thug who had just circled a truck, does it?
It sounds more like a kid that an adult could find and question.
.
There is no evidence as to how it started.
We have someone seeing Martin on top of Zimmerman for maybe 10 seconds.
This would be near the end of a struggle that lasted at least 1 minute 12 seconds or even ( Chip ) 2 minutes 12 seconds. Ooh! 2 minutes of the fight completely unseen – especially the start of it.
Some injures? So Zimmerman was losing a fight that he started. No bruises on Martin formed because his circulation stopped. The autopsy could have found something, but that was not done.
.
What’s that thing with Singleton and her having a stern commanding presence such that nobody would question her authority – and therefore she never had to shoot anybody?
What’s that about?
We’re not talking about “beyond reasonable doubt” here.
.
“Why are you following me?” responded to by “What are you doing around here?”. That sounds like someone who thinks that they are in a position of authority – and should not be questioned.
Isn’t that going to inflame things in the particular circumstances?
Where’s “Mr I’m the local NW”?
Or how about “You got a problem?” responded to by “No. I don’t have a problem”
Cute! Isn’t that going to inflame things in the particular circumstances?
Where’s “Mr I’m the local NW”?
.
You did what George?
Having inflamed the situation with either your sense of entitlement or your being a smart-ass, you then put your hand to your waist?
As in “hand in his waistband” / weapon ?…. from the point of view of someone you had followed in the dark?
In hindsight, was this a little or even a lot moronic?
You say he punched you then? In hindsight, was this pretty much to be expected. It probably looked like you were pulling a weapon. Y’know. Self defence ‘n all.
You sure you really totally forgot you had a gun?
Ah! You say you were reaching for your phone?
Great move. Presumably your plan was that if the kid made any move towards you, you could say “Would you *mind* not interrupting me please? I’m on the phone”. You’re a very clever guy.
.
.
I would say that you’re foolish, but that’s not sufficient. You’re dangerous.
You want to proclaim as totally blameless an incompetent fool who ended up killing someone through his ineptitude. He went off in the dark in search of what he thought was local kid burglar and more likely than not tried to confront him.
Even by his own account, he didn’t attempt to state his business and then appeared ( at the very least) to go for a weapon.
Having shot the person because he was losing the ensuing struggle, he then spun a very unlikely tale about going for an address to cover for his time in searching. He lied about a circling in order to blacken his victim. He pretended some bad movie dialog into his victim’s mouth in order to blacken him.
The one-liner:
The danger of an acquittal is not more riots. It is more Zimmermans.
In proclaiming this fool as totally blameless, you encourage other fools to behave as he did.
In proclaiming this fool as totally blameless, you ignore the belief of *at least* four of the jury in the criminal trial that he was at fault in the matter. Even B37 says she is sure he lied. This was despite the (very understandable) inability of the prosecution to prove intentional killing beyond reasonable doubt under the instructions that the jury had been given.
@Sling:
Arbitrary timelines are arbitrary. You believe that Zimmerman’s statements are inconsistent, but you simply have no evidence that they cannot be true beyond a reasonable doubt. You have no evidence that they cannot be true with a preponderance. And things like whether or not Martin “circled” Zimmerman’s vehicle are completely irrelevant. They have absolutely nothing to do with Martin’s decision – of his own volition – to approach, confront, verbally accost, and physically assault Zimmerman.
The contention that Zimmerman had to “attempt to state his business” is patently absurd. (You may also note that Martin didn’t “attempt to state his business” before he assaulted Zimmerman – well, unless you consider, “well you do [have a problem] now” to be “stating his business”.)
The assertion that Zimmerman was going for a weapon is specious and absurd. Under relevant statute and case law, any belief on Martin’s part that Zimmerman reaching for a pocket constituted “going for a weapon” is deemed as unreasonable.
What you call an “ensuing struggle”, based on all available evidence, was a one-sided beat-down, otherwise known as an assault, and one that fully justified the use of deadly force in self-defense.
See? This is you, voicing your dangerous beliefs again. I have no desire to live in a world such as what you envision. Law-abiding citizens don’t have to engage thugs who assault them. They don’t have to “fight back”, or attempt to give equally what they receive. They are morally and legally justified in doing whatever is necessary to end the assault.
There is no evidence that Zimmerman did anything other than stand on a sidewalk and talk on a phone. There is no evidence that Zimmerman is anything other than completely blameless.
The jury was not given evidence to support anything other than second-degree murder. The jury was not given argument and rebuttal for anything other than second-degree murder. The jury was not instructed nor tasked with considering anything other than second-degree murder.
Thus, what the jury believed or considered short of second-degree murder (and the necessarily included lesser-charge of manslaughter by act) is utterly and completely irrelevant. The jury’s opinion on matters that may or may not ever be considered in a civil trial is moot. Zimmerman was not afforded the opportunity to provide a defense to any of those considerations.
Speaking of a civil suit:
Again, as you say: different presentation, different rules.
That’s why the opinion of the jurors on aspects outside of the criminal charges is irrelevant. They weren’t presented evidence or arguments according to the different presentation and the different rules.
I seriously doubt a civil suit will ever happen – at least, not one in which Zimmerman is the defendant.
In a civil suit, Martin’s known history and reputation for fighting will be fair game, as will his drug use, and all other examples of his thuggery-in-training – and all those things will factor, heavily, into the determination of preponderance of evidence regarding who was the initial physical aggressor.
Who will be considered as most likely to have been the initial physical aggressor, the meek Zimmerman, who didn’t have enough competence to win a shadow-boxing match, or Martin, who had been suspended from school for fighting, who refereed street fights, who participated in three-round fights, and who was chagrined that his most recent opponent didn’t “bleed enough”?
Do you really think that $ybrina Fulton is going to bring a civil suit?
“And because we are a story-telling species, we always want to tell a good story. We’re guided by our literary and cultural models, whether we realize it or not.”
Zimmerman told a story in his walk-through. His story of the very start is interesting.
Here is an extract from a story that I am writing about the night……………
……………………………………………………………………………………..
Option.A (Zimmerman’s walk-through)
Zimmerman then drives away from the scene, around the next corner and down to the Clubhouse.
He can no longer see Martin. For all he knows Martin is breaking into houses back near Taffe’s.
He then waits for 1.5 minutes or so before dialling NEN.
This is what has have to have happened if Zimmerman’s narrative in the walk-through is correct.
He says that after the NEN call connected, that Martin walked past him at the clubhouse front. That row of houses with Taffe’s place on the end is over 400 feet away and around a corner.
Alternatively, if Martin had jogged from near Taffe’s to the near the clubhouse front and then slowed to a walk just before Zimmemran saw him walk past, then the delay before calling NEN would be about 1 minute.
It’s dark. No bright public lighting.
If Zimmerman did not delay dialling NEN for a time consistent with Martin’s walking (or jogging) time to the clubhouse, there is no way that Martin can arrive – walking – at the clubhouse front during the NEN and still be up at the Eastern end of Twin Trees in time for Zimmerman to report seeing him disappear and then reappear to approach the truck and circle him.
Note that Zimmerman does not report this passing at the clubhouse to the dispatcher.
Martin walks past and down into Twin Trees. Zimmerman reverses out of the Clubhouse front and drives in after him.
Honda Ridgelines are superb machines. Even though we can hear the intermittent wipers in the NEN, there is not a trace of gear select and driving noises at the appropriate time in the NEN.
This is unlike whatever junk car they used while recording that phase in the walk-through. We hear all the noises in that one. Probably made in Detroit. No wonder they went bust.
—————————————————————–
How can Martin walk past the truck at the clubhouse front at the very beginning of the NEN?
What was Zimmerman doing while Martin proceeded there on foot?
Why can’t we hear any sounds of driving at the beginning of the NEN – corresponding to Zimmerman reversing out and driving into Twin Trees?
SlingTrebuchet, here’s a thought. Instead of using up all the space on Mike’s excellent blog, why don’t you start your own? I expect you’d find a follower in Rule of Order, so you’d probably start with at least one person who’s on your wavelength.
Your thoughtfulness in doing so would, I believe, be much appreciated by the readers here.
I think what you are looking for here Landau is what is known as an “echo chamber.”
In such a forum, someone posts something and then every one basically agrees.
“Yeah. Me too. Huaaaa!”
That is definitely not a “How Can We Know?” forum.
That is a “How Can We Reassure Ourselves?” forum.
You probably missed that bit above where I said that what brought me to the Zimmerman/Martin was a fascination with people and the process of —- essentially – getting to know.
I didn’t come to it on a mission to right wrongs and set the world to rights.
The Zimmerman/Martin business itself is just an insignificant blip in the larger picture.
.
As it happens, I do have a little blog that I created initally as a way of collecting my thoughts on the affair and linking to. I do occasionally drop a link to it, but try to limit doing that.
I think it is more unmannerly to continually drop links to ones own blog than it is to take up a few 10’s of k on a server holding gigabytes.
My own little blog is not a flagship effort. Some of the pages go back a year and ned updating.
It’s only had 12,000 visits, with 5,000 of those in the last few weeks. So it’s not a big deal.
Most of the visitors arrive via search engines – and not via some unmannerly pimping exercise by myself.
Since the verdict, I notice that most of the visits are coming from queries on NEN call transcripts and timelines. That’s a marked change in profile. It seems people are digging into the detail.
Most common search term hitting at the moment is “zimmerman 911 call transcript”. You should see that about half-way down the first page in a Google search for that phrase.
You should see it ranking in the first few pages for similar terms.
Pingback: Kavanaugh: Knowing | Stately McDaniel Manor