Tags
Benjamin Crump, George Zimmerman, race baiting, self-defense, social justice narrative, stand your ground, Sybrina Fulton, The Scheme Team, Tracy Martin, Trayvon Martin
George Zimmerman, acquitted.
credit: abcnews
In Update 51, posted only a few weeks ago, I ended with this:
The SMM archive has every detail about the case, including a 2017 attempt to portray Martin as a smiling, aspiring Charles Lindbergh (Update 49).
Of course, none are so blind as those that will not see, but for anyone seeking the facts about the death of Trayvon Martin, the archive has them. One day, I hope to be able to finally put this series to a long deserved, final slumber.
The Travyon Martin Case archive is available here. Sadly, it now seems that day must be postponed yet again. Yesterday, July 30, 2018, I watched the first episode of a five-part series titled: Rest In Power: The Trayvon Martin Story. Produced by The Paramount Network and aired on Black Entertainment Television, judging by the initial episode, the series is a blatant social justice narrative disguised as a documentary. The Los Angeles Times provides proof:
The directors of the documentary, Jenner Furst and Julia Willoughby Nason, said they wanted to expose what they called the systemic racism that contributed to the not-guilty verdict, as well as to provide an opportunity for Martin’s parents, Sybrina Fulton and Tracy Martin, to share their story on the screen for the first time. “Rest In Power” was inspired in large part by the 2017 book ‘Rest in Power: The Enduring Life of Trayvon Martin’ by Fulton and Martin.
‘We have a chance to take this series and use what the country has learned from Trayvon Martin, both the positive and the negative backlash, to [understand] the Trayvon Martin to Donald Trump syndrome of America,’ said Furst.
Furst and Willoughby provided their take on history and the law as well:
It was a turning point in the country,’ Furst said. ‘You had the first African American president and you had some people foolishly saying that we were living in a post-racial America. And when Trayvon Martin was killed, it was an awakening for a lot of people that certain things hadn’t changed and that there was going to be far more Trayvon Martins than Barack Obamas. And that realization, that pain, that sense of injustice motivated a lot of people to act, and it changed the landscape of our country.’
Added Nason, ‘Trayvon Martin came from a middle-class family where black and white people could identify with him. At the same time in 2012, social media was becoming a platform where young people could have a voice, they could record the injustice. So I think those two elements helped bring Trayvon Martin’s story to the forefront.
I was one of a few Internet sites covering the Martin case in detail. I watched every moment of the trial–heard and saw all the evidence–and was also fortunate to be able to speak with Don West, who with Mark O’Mara, were George Zimmerman’s defense attorneys. The facts–what few are presented–could not be more different than those presented by Furst and Willoughby.
I’ll review each of the five episodes. Because readers can find the facts of the case in the SMM archive–a good place to start might be Update 32, the beginning of my direct coverage of the trial–I’ll add details only to correct the blatant misrepresentations and outright lies presented in the series.
To begin, however, this case–if the rule of law and justice are the point–had nothing to do with race. It was a textbook instance of legitimate self-defense, provoked entirely by Trayvon Martin. The inept, corrupt, unethical prosecutors actually proved self-defense. It was indeed blown up into a racial cause-of-the-moment, but the facts of the case certainly couldn’t sustain the racial narrative. In fact, the Obama FBI intensively investigated George Zimmerman in the hope of prosecuting him for a racist hate crime, and discovered that not only did he have a black ancestor, he had annoyed the Sanford Police Department by publically defending a black man. Not only was there no evidence of racism by Zimmerman. The FBI found exactly the opposite and closed their investigation.
Trayvon Martin
These were the recurring themes of the first episode, all intertwined with excerpts from depositions, interviews, and carefully edited clips from Zimmerman’s call to the Sanford Police:
1) Trayvon Martin was a virtual infant, an innocent budding scholar, football player and aviator, though the assertion about Martin’s passion for aviation didn’t appear until about May of 2017. I wrote about it in June of that year.
2) Martin was carrying Skittles and wearing a hoodie. Both are somehow indicative of his virtue and Zimmerman’s evil, and both have assumed mythic significance despite having no bearing whatever on the case.
3) Zimmerman was a white racist who racially profiled, pursued and murdered Martin, who was only walking home from the 7-11.
4) The Sanford police did not immediately arrest Zimmerman because they are racists, and so is everyone that doesn’t buy the social justice narrative. Their refusal to arrest him because there was no probable cause, was even more racist.
5) Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law allows white racists to murder little black boys at will.
6) It’s the NRA’s fault, Donald Trump is evil too, and Martin’s parents are virtual saints.
The episode is told primarily from the viewpoint of Martin’s father, Tracy Martin, and his Mother, Sybrina Fulton. They were divorced and not living together when Martin was killed. Other Martin relatives play small roles. A major player is race-baiting attorney Benjamin Crump, the head of the “Scheme Team” of race-baiting lawyers, who saw, and realized a big payday in the Martin case, and who were instrumental in whipping up racial hatred with the more than willing help of the Obama Administration, including Mr. Obama, who, knowing nothing of the facts of the case, said:
credit: theamericanthinker
If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,’ Obama said. ‘When I think about this boy, I think about my own kids.
If Mr. Obama’s kids were thug wannabes, budding criminals whose social media posts featured misogyny, violence, drugs, guns, and bragging about beating people, it might be an apt comparison.
Fulton begins, emotionally breaking down, when she said that when she got home from work, Trayvon was usually there. On the day he was killed, Martin was living with his father at his girlfriend’s home in Sanford because Martin was serving a ten-day school suspension for drugs, and possession of stolen property and burglary tools. Underlying her narrative were many photos of Trayvon as a baby, and a young child. Skittles and hoodies were mentioned, and Fulton claimed the Stand Your Ground law: “gives people the right to shoot and kill a 17 year old boy.” This theme would be continually raised throughout the hour.
SYG, common across America, merely removes the duty to retreat in use of force cases. If attacked, one does not have to run away. They may remain where they legally are, and use proportionate force to defend themselves. All of the other facets of lawful self-defense still remain. Florida’s SYG law was not at all applicable to the Martin case, and was never raised in the trial. It was not applicable because Martin ambushed Zimmerman, broke his nose, knocked him to the ground, straddled him, and continually, viciously beat him, repeatedly slamming his head into a concrete sidewalk. Zimmerman could not retreat.
Trayvon Martin
Black Lives Matter protests were displayed, more photos of a smiling, cute and “so affectionate” very young Trayvon were continually shown. The episode did display two of the most famous photos of Martin in thug mode, but very briefly. Very brief mention was made of his criminal activities, and only a single school suspension–he had several–was presented. 
There was a brief excerpt from the 7-11 security video showing Martin in a hoodie buying skittles and a watermelon drink–two of the three ingredients for a drug substitute concoction–”Lean,” or “Purple Drank”–Martin bragged on social media about using. The video did not show Martin trying to buy cheap cigars–he was refused–with which to make “blunts,” which Martin also bragged about using. Martin talked a couple of young men into buying some for him. To make a blunt, one hollows out a cigar and fills it with pot. Martin had pot in his system when he attacked Zimmerman, though the defense chose not to use this during the trial.
Excerpts of Zimmerman’s initial call to the Sanford Police were played. Zimmerman is calm and collected, but the tape abruptly cuts off after the dispatcher asks Zimmerman if he’s following Martin and Zimmerman replies “yes.” The audience didn’t hear that moments later, the dispatcher told Zimmerman he didn’t need to follow Martin, and Zimmerman immediately stopped. The edit leaves the impression Zimmerman is hunting Martin. Actually, the dispatcher twice told Zimmerman to keep reporting on Martin’s actions. This too is ignored, as is the fact the dispatcher had no lawful authority to tell Zimmerman–or anyone–to do anything.
Brief, edited excerpts of the 911 tape are played, including screams and what sounds like a shot, but I suspect that shot was edited in. It’s much too loud compared to the rest of the clip. I’ve heard the actual tape, and the shot is much more quiet and of a different timbre. Fulton soon announces that “they”–presumably the police and anyone that is not a social justice cracktivist–“can’t account for 71 seconds, and it changed America.” It’s difficult to know what this might mean. There is no “missing” time in this case–no missing 71 seconds–and it’s not mentioned again.
Martin had no ID, and wasn’t positively identified until the next morning, which provided the opportunity for more emotional footage of Martin’s parents, and more baby pictures. Martin was a cute, smiling baby, which is obviously the point.
There was a brief clip of Zimmerman’s voluntary walk through of the crime scene. His head and face were bandaged, which required more baby photos of Trayvon for balance. We’re then introduced to Benjamin Crump, who announced Trayvon was “profiled, pursued and shot in the heart,” which occasioned more baby photos.
A member of the Scheme Team of racialist lawyers introduced the theme that the Neighborhood Watch at Zimmerman’s gated neighborhood was in fact racist, established to harass innocent black people, and Zimmerman, the Captain of the Watch was, of course, the chief, self-appointed racist. Zimmerman was said to have made a large number of calls about black people, and a few very brief excerpts from his calls were played. In each case, he mentioned that suspects were black only in response to a dispatcher’s direct question about their race.
During my early coverage of the case, I determined that Zimmerman made as few as one call per week to the police, and no more than three. Considering his position, and the fact that his gated neighborhood was being constantly burglarized–mostly by young, black males–the director’s implication is deceptive at best.
The neighborhood watch was under direct police supervision, as was Zimmerman’s position as local watch Captain. During the trial it was established the police thought so highly of him in that role, they offered him a more formal position, including his own police vehicle, which he declined. He was pursuing a law enforcement degree. However, the thrust of the episode is that Zimmerman was a self-appointed, racist vigilante. Then things got weird.
Crump again cried “racial profiling,” and Jeb Bush was blamed for the Stand Your Ground law, which again, had no more bearing in the case than a law prohibiting frightening horses pulling carriages. This led to blaming the NRA, specifically Florida lobbyist Marion Hammer, who supposedly changed self-defense laws to sell more guns, which makes it easier to get away with murder. Fulton was very upset that police officers decide who gets arrested for crimes, not lawyers.
This is, of course, the role of the police in the criminal justice system. Officers determine probable cause and make arrests on that basis. Prosecutors prosecute, or not, based on their ability to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The episode ignores the fact the local prosecutor declined to prosecute because there was no probable cause to arrest Zimmerman–he acted in self-defense–let alone proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Next was video of Zimmerman being interviewed, specifically when he took one of two lie detector exams (he passed both), in this case, a “Voice Stress Analysis.” Displayed on screen was this legend”
George Zimmerman passed the test
There were 9 questions
None were about race
Where to begin? Any “lie detector” exam, whether polygraph or VSA, requires a limited number of yes or no questions dealing with specific facts of the case. No examiner would ask generalized, emotionally charged questions “about race.” Such examinations are brief, not wide-ranging, lengthy interrogations.
Crump immediately followed, outraged about race, and admitted he intended to make the case all about race. The implication was this was necessary and justified because the police were racist and would not provide justice–social justice–otherwise. He, with ample Obamite help, eventually succeeded when Florida’s governor and AG appointed a special prosecutor with a mandate to prosecute Zimmerman regardless of the facts. That’s certainly how the special prosecutor exercised her charter.
Fulton appeared again to assure viewers she was talking about the case because she “wants people to know what’s going on.” What’s “going on” is the contemporary Black Lives Matter “white cops–and George Zimmerman–are killing black men and getting away with it,” meme.
Crump returned to inform viewers “George Zimmerman had a 9mm gun. Trayvon Martin had a bag of Skittles.”
There was a quick mention of Zimmerman’s past arrest for assault on a police officer. No mention was made of the fact that a couple of plainclothes alcohol enforcement agents jumped on one of Zimmerman’s friends in a bar without identifying themselves, and Zimmerman went to his aid. He didn’t hurt anyone, and the case went away.
Crump appeared again to involve–wait for it–Al Sharpton! Sharpton declared that he would push the racial angle on his TV show, and a brief clip of him doing just that was shown.
Next was information about the Mayor of Sanford ordering the Police to release all related tapes. Jeff Triplett, the Mayor called the demands to break proper investigative protocol and release the tape “a PR nightmare.” The implication was the police were trying to hide something. A portion of Zimmerman’s original call followed:
Dispatcher: ‘Are you following him.’
GZ: ‘Yes.’
Dispatcher: ‘we don’t need you to do that.
The tape was cut off there. Had it continued, the audience would have heard Zimmerman telling the dispatcher he stopped, and also telling him he had lost Martin, had no idea where he was, and was walking back to his truck to meet the officers that were on their way. During this time–at least a four minute span–Martin could easily have made his way home, even if he slowly walked–gone inside and never been seen again. He chose, instead, to hide in that rainy night and ambush Zimmerman.
Fulton appeared, to say it was Trayvon’s voice crying for help, confirmed by Tracy Martin. No mention was made that Tracy, when he first heard the tape, said he was sure that voice was not Trayvon. It was only later, when he had a significant financial interest, that he changed his mind.
This was followed by scenes of demonstrations featuring people in hoodies, and carrying posters of Trayvon in a hoodie with the “We are all Trayvon” legend. This was followed, in rapid sequence, with Barack Obama telling us if he had a son he would have looked like Trayvon, President Trump saying, “We will make America Great Again,” and several kneeling, black football players. I’ll leave it to you, gentle readers, to make the connections.
Final Thoughts:
The first episode was nothing more than social justice agitprop. It was the well-known Trayvon Martin narrative, having little to nothing to do with the facts of the case. There was a very brief showing of a photo of Zimmerman, his nose broken, his face and head bloody, and if one looked carefully at a few other brief exposures of Zimmerman, one could see bandages. This was an apparent attempt at some sort of balance, but to put it in Trumpian terms–since the directors have already involved him–the series begins 90%+ focused on the narrative–attacking George Zimmerman and white America–with less than 10% on fact.
Readers might remember the media invented an entirely new race for Zimmerman: “white/Hispanic.” Despite his last name, Zimmerman is Hispanic, but to fit the narrative of an evil white man murdering a helpless little black boy, he had to be at least partially white. This too was ignored in the episode.
There seems little doubt where this series is going. The only question is likely to be how far the directors go into social justice wonderland, how well they do their best to keep the racial pot stirred, and how badly they ignore the evidence that legitimately acquitted George Zimmerman in a court where everything, including the judge, was arrayed against him.
I’ll continue to report on each episode. Readers might like to keep an eye out at Legal Insurrection, where Law Of Self Defense guru Andrew Branca plans to also review each episode. Branca also covered the Martin case, and we often referred to each other’s articles.
Stately McDaniel Manor 
Looks like a hot topic no one wants to comment on.
Zimmerman got off… he’s been in and out of trouble himself since then… and time has passed, and public opinion assume he’s guilty… and life goes on. During those days I tried to follow the trial but in the end it got way out of line with 911 calls, hoodies, racism, profiling… in the end I resolved to myself since I was not there for all the evidence to be presented, was that both were to blame.
Having said all that… your explanation here (once you get past all your political presumptions that everyone in the case was crooked) brought up on thing I don’t recall ever hearing. You state that following the 911 call where the operator states that Zimm should not follow and leave the suspect alone… that Zimm went on his merry way only to be ambushed by Martin, hence setting up the self-defense thing for Zimm. I never heard that one. Not that it isn’t true. It seems you like conspiracy theories and you have half the legal profession under suspicion, so I’m not sure what to presume is fact here.
But all that aside… what’s your take on the recent “stand your ground” event in Florida over the last couple days?
Zimmerman got off, and has been in and out of trouble since then. Unfortunately, he’s not the best poster child for self-defense rights, but that doesn’t mean he was guilty, or that he’s racist, or that people were vigorously pushing a racial narrative.
I certainly can’t answer for the evidence or lack thereof presented or not at the trial. But it does seem that Zimmerman’s conduct that evening did have some reflection on his ability to make a sound decision.. or even exercise some common sense.,, whether he was guilty of a crime or not. It’s obvious his decisions since that night have not been all that appropriate, which might suggest a behavioral pattern of bad decision-making. Sounds like he certainly bears some fraction of moral responsibility for events that night. Oh well… history now.
I know in my line of work I sure as hell profile. It’s part of my very limited defense options.
I love how people who admittedly don’t know much about the case think they’re qualified to pass judgment on Zimmerman’s actions.
Zimmerman was a concerned member of the community and a member of the Neighborhood watch.
There had been a rash of burglaries in his neighborhood recently.
He saw a person who’s actions seemed suspicious to him. So he took the following actions:
He called the Police and reported the suspicious person.
He stayed on the phone with the dispatcher to keep proper authorities advised as to the situation.
When the Dispatcher asked Zimmerman to keep the dispatcher apprised of what the suspicious person was doing, he did his best to fulfill this request.
When the Dispatcher told Zimmerman that he didn’t need to follow the suspicious person (in spite of the previous request to keep the dispatcher informed of the suspicious person’s actions), Zimmerman immediately replied “OK”, stopped following, and started returning to his vehicle.
The ONLY part of Zimmerman’s actions that could arguably reflect poorly on his decision-making skills and lack of common sense were his getting out of the vehicle and trying to follow the suspicious person…and that was in direct response to a request from the dispatcher to keep an eye on the suspicious person and let the dispatcher know what the suspicious person was doing; so I would argue that it was imminently reasonable and sensible to do so.
I wish we had more people who took an interest in what’s going on their neighborhoods and tried to do something about it. Maybe my house wouldn’t have been burglarized in broad daylight a couple of years ago. Maybe we’d have fewer criminals wandering around thinking they can ambush and beat people senseless with no consequences. Maybe fewer people would have to defend themselves from criminal violence every year.
Or maybe it’s perfectly reasonable and “common sense” to just mind your own business and let “society” handle itself.
Neighborhood watches, like with most quasi-organizations, can indeed fulfill a true need as a stop-gap when the police are not around. BUT.. like anything else.. it has to be structured and organized to be effective. We all know what happens inside clubs, volunteer organizations, and informal groups-with-purpose… human fallibility takes over, thus politics and self-promotion of individual importance (prima-donnas) often takes over simply because each person may have their own idea on how things should be run. In my business I have seen way too many so-called neighborhood watches end up having the occasional marginal social outcast thinking they have some job of authority as quasi-cops and finding an excuse to be a Walter Mitty. Having a neighborhood watch member carry his CCW weapon just because the law permits him to do so is NOT going to end up being a good idea. This is exactly why the security industry does not permit private weapons, under CCW or not, be carried on duty. If Zimmerman hadn’t been carrying his gun ON DUTY as a neighborhood watch member then no one would have been grabbing for it during the confrontation to begin with. But he was playing “cop”.
The psychological misrepresentation of civilians carrying a firearm legally just exacerbates the “super hero” mentality… where any person can pretend to be a cock-o-the-walk and prance around thinking he has the power to defend himself and maybe save someone else’s life (if he/she’s in the mood). I’m not saying that there should be no CCW… I am saying it promotes a totally incorrect psychological mental state of situational awareness.
Doug, there’s no evidence that TM was grabbing for the gun. Indeed, I would suggest that, had he known Zimmerman was armed, he would not have jumped him.
And Zimmerman’s participation in the neighborhood watch was voluntary. You can call it “on duty” but he was doing volunteer work for his community, period.
Which you make my point entirely…. neighborhood watches.. to be effective.. need organization. Not a haphazard collection of law enforcement wannabes.. but citizens with some basic understanding, knowledge, and at least a little training in how to “observe & report” and NOT go out and try and save the world because of some macho, gun-toting presumption that “no one is going to mess around in MY neighborhood!” wild west, Second Amendment finger-flipping-to-the-world, mindset.
Doug, your last post shows a mindset that I find most troubling. This country was founded on individual freedom and with-it individual responsibility. It does not require organization, training or what you advocate to pay attention to one’s surroundings. It doesn’t require training to “observe & report”.
As far as George Zimmerman having a firearm on his person. The basic and fundamental right of self defense is something that we are born with. There are a lot of people that choose to leave their personal safety to others. Unfortunately, many of those same individuals would like to force their views on the rest of us.
I am guessing you missed a portion of grammar school civics class, friend. Our individual freedoms are guaranteed by the collective democratic need for the rule of law.. that being said. the rule of law should not impede on our individual freedoms. We are a civilized society.. not a tribal gang as you might think you are hoping for someday. A civilized society also frowns upon vigilantism.. even if it’s masked as a individual self-organized neighborhood watch.
Doug,
You admit to being uninformed and then make judgmental comments that have nothing to do with the case. I suggest you read Mike’s articles in the archive.
Zimmerman was not “on duty”. He was headed out to run an errand. He saw a guy in a hoodie, acting strange, as though he was on something (toxicity report confirmed Zimmerman s belief). He had a CC permit. He did not pursue Trayvon. He was trying to keep an eye on him from what he thought was a safe distance. He had no idea that Trayvon was hiding in wait. He had no reason to believe that there would be a confrontation. His gun was “holstered”. Trayvon surprised him, sucker-punched him, and knocked him to the ground. Trayvon then got on top of him, straddling him, and commenced to pound on him, MMA style (according to a witness and per Zimmerman’s statement. Zimmerman stated that he had actually forgotten that he was carrying. There was some evidence that Trayvon saw the gun and went for it. Regardless, Zimmerman was now having his head slammed on the edge of the concrete walkway and feared he would lose consciousness and perhaps be killed. He then got his gun and fired a single shot. He wasn’t sure he had hit him, but Trayvon stopped the attack immediately.
Accepting what I have stated is the record, since you know not otherwise, what did Zimmerman do that was wrong? He did have training and was absolutely correct in his assessment of Trayvon’s actions.
IIUC, 1. Zimmerman was not on duty with the neighborhood watch on the night of the confrontation with Martin. 2. The neighborhood watch of which Zimmerman was a member, was organized, sanctioned, and supervised by the local police department. It was not necessarily a bunch of vigilantes or wannabe cops.
FWIW, I don’t believe that Zimmerman should have gotten out of his truck and followed Martin. His civic duty, if any, began and ended with calling the police. But an error in judgment is not the same thing as malice or criminal intent.
And Zimmerman did not do anything that would justify Martin’s assault on him. Martin’s assault on Zimmerman did justify the shooting.
Jeepers… seems like everyone on this blog has bits and pieces of their own interpretations of things regarding Trayvon… as long as it suits the CCW cause. I honestly don’t happen to care about that case one way or the other. I simply mentioned that judging from Zimmeran’s post-court behavior it’s not impossible to presume that his state of mind on the night of the event was not entirely without at least some moral responsibility. I’m not out to debate everyone’s interpretation. Bottom line, Zimm had a gun in his possession and a bullet from it killed Martin. It was up to a court to assign responsibility for pulling the trigger, if any needed to be assigned.
I haven’t read all the comments yet, so I don’t know if this has been addressed. But to your point about George having his gun while “on duty” as Neighborhood Watch volunteer: He was NOT “on duty”, if there even is such a thing. He was simply on his way to the grocery store. He left his house, headed to the store, and saw Trayvon (presumably) casing houses. It was then when George called the non-emergency dispatch and so on… But my main point is he was NOT acting as a member of Neighborhood Watch at that point.
Ah, now I see that several others mentioned the “not on duty” aspect before I did. So… as Emily Litella would say… never mind!
Dear Jello333:
Yes, It’s always best to be well informed before speaking. In the Martin case, Zimmerman wasn’t “on duty.” He was on his way to buy groceries when he spotted Martin, hood up, acting strangely and apparently casing a home that had recently been burglarized. Zimmerman wasn’t able to determine Martin’s race until some time after he made the call to the police and was specifically asked about his race. He also thought Martin might be drugged, and he was right.
Dear Doug:
I’m afraid you’re misinformed. There is no conspiracy theorizing involved, only the evidence, including the actual audio and transcripts from Zimmerman’s call to the police. What I’m about to say is all in my archive, in much greater detail, but here’s the very brief version.
The dispatcher told Zimmerman, twice, to keep him informed about what Martin was doing. So when Martin sprinted off into the dark and around a row of the condos, Zimmerman left his truck–still on the line with the dispatcher who never told him to remain in his vehicle–and trotted after him, not trying to catch him, but merely trying to keep him in sight for the police he had been told were on their way. Within seconds, he had lost Martin and told the dispatcher just that. He also said he was heading back to his vehicle. Martin, who could have been completely gone, decided to hide nearby, and ambushed and viciously beat Zimmerman. A very credible eyewitness saw Martin astride Zimmerman, beating him
MMA ground and pound” style.
I’ve no doubt you haven’t heard the facts and evidence before. They don’t conform to the social justice narrative. I know you’re apparently coming to this case late, but read the archive if what you’re seeking is the actual evidence rather than the narrative. Trayvon Martin was not unlike many wayward teenagers, but he was certainly not a role model for anyone, and he is no martyr. He tried to beat a stranger to death, and Zimmerman lawfully saved his life. Zimmerman “got off” because the evidence exonerated him; there was no credible evidence to the contrary. Virtually every one of the prosecution’s witness proved the self-defense case.
I’m unaware of any SYG event recently in Florida; I’m afraid I can’t comment on that.
The Florida SYG incident is getting a lot of media the last couple days… check one of the news sites for the video.
By “The Florida SYG incident” I assume you mean the incident wherein a guy named Drejka shot a guy named McGlockton during an altercation over a handicapped parking spot yes?
Based on what I’ve seen, that case, like the Zimmerman case, had nothing to do with Stand Your Ground. The shooter had been pushed down and was on the ground at the time of the shooting. There was no opportunity to flee so SYG is not implicated.
The pertinent question in that case is “was it self defense?”. By all accounts, McGlockton knocked Drejka to the ground, Drejka pulled his gun, McGlockton raised his hands and started backing away and Drejka shot him.
Based on that raw description, the answer is “no” it wasn’t self-defense and Drejka should be charged.
It’s then up to a jury to decide, based on the totality of evidence, whether Drejka may have reasonably believed himself to be in imminent danger of death or severe bodily harm.
Regardless of their determination, I can’t see how stand your ground had anything to do with it…other than the fact that the left and the media (but I repeat myself) hate the stand your ground laws (or, for that matter, any law that makes it easier for people to take care of themselves rather than having to rely on the state to do it for them) and so try to make EVERY half-way questionable self-defense shooting about that relatively benign aspect self defense.
(do I get a prize for longest run-on sentence?)
Well, it is a SYG case.. as it’s being discussed across the board as such and it’s the reason the local police chief/also-a-lawyer did not make any arrest, by his own admission.
SYG does not give you a right to shoot someone in retreat. It merely says that you do not have to run from the altercation. Many, many people kept referring to the Zimmerman shooting as a SYG situation. It was not. Just because people refer to a case as SYG, it isn’t always the case. It sounds like the Florida case began as a SYG incident but turned into a homicide.
As I’ve said, I know nothing about that case. But yeah, if that one part is true — that after the guy on the ground pulled his gun, the attacker raised his hands and clearly was backing away, not longer a “threat” — then any SYG defense the original victim may have had goes out the window. If, BIG IF, those facts turn out to be true, with nothing much to aggravate/mitigate, the shooter is probably gonna be looking at manslaughter.
The Florida case has many aspects. First, the video is not the best. Only the people present can say what was said.
An argument can be made that Michael Drejka could have just ignored someone parking in a handicap parking space.
No one can defend Markeis McGlockton coming up to Michael Drejka and pushing him violently to the ground. In most jurisdictions that is called assault. Most reasonable people would agree that being assaulted and shoved to the ground would cause fear. Michael Drejka did not draw his sidearm till he was assaulted and shoved to the ground. What was going through his mind at the time one can only wonder.
No matter what, the fact remains that Markeis McGlockton, whether he was going forward or backward was still close enough to be a threat to Michael Drejka when the shot was fired.
Another example of.. “just because it’s legal and you can, doesn’t mean you should.”. As it relates to carrying a firearm… the law may say it’s ok for you to do so and the Second Amendment may proudly provide you with the reason to do so… but until you solidly know and fully understand how YOU personally will react to any given potential threat situation, you have absolutely NO idea if you are mentally capable or prepared to exercise life and death judgement over another person and therein is the problem…. because who is going to sit in any sort of judgement of another to say they are mentally ill-prepared to carry a firearm… or more to the point, kill someone else who may or may not pose a threat.
Regarding the recent Florida event… under Florida law that guy who was shoved to the ground will never be charged. Yet, he was totally inept and psychologically ill-prepared to carry a firearm.because that situation did not require making someone else die. Personally, I would have gone for the assault charge, followed by a civil suit had the guy pushed me down.
This is but another example of.. “just because it’s legal and you can, doesn’t mean you should.”. As it relates to carrying a firearm… the law may say it’s ok for you to do so and the Second Amendment may proudly provide you with the reason to do so… but until you solidly know and fully understand how YOU personally will react to any given potential threat situation, you have absolutely NO idea if you are mentally capable or prepared to exercise life and death judgement over another person and therein is the problem…. because who is going to sit in any sort of judgement of another to say they are mentally ill-prepared to carry a firearm… or more to the point, kill someone else who may or may not pose a threat.
Regarding the recent Florida event… under Florida law that guy who was shoved to the ground will never be charged. Yet, he was totally inept and psychologically ill-prepared to carry a firearm.because that situation did not require making someone else die. Personally, I would have gone for the assault charge, followed by a civil suit had the guy pushed me down.
Doug, this is what I find most troubling about your reasoning. You weren’t there, I wasn’t there, only the people there can say what happened.
To say what you would have done if you had been there is only speculation.
To say someone is inept and psychologically ill-prepared to carry a firearm, when you haven’t met them and weren’t there is armchair quarterbacking.
Andrew.. you are absolutely correct! All I know is what I saw in that video… and I drew my conclusion from it. Given my mind is not a court of law I can afford to pass interim judgments using my human bias pre-selects until shown otherwise.
As far as being an armchair quarterback.. yep, guilty as charged. What’s your role on any blog?
Doug, we all have opinions that may be biased from our experiences. My bias is toward personal responsibility, respect of law. My overall view could be summed up as you do what you want to do, and I’ll do what I want to do, just leave me be.
When I offer an opinion, I try to make sure that what I post can be backed up factually. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people that feel that since they don’t like something, take your pick, no one else should have it.
As for my “role” on any blog. I try to offer opinions based of facts as apposed to speculation. Perhaps someday people will make decisions based on facts as apposed to feelings and leave me be.
I don’t deny your right to privacy… but the “just leave me be” suggests no room for compromise; it’s a wall. And I certainly don’t have to tell you that “facts” these days are as scrambled as everything else. You cite numbers, I cite numbers, yet no one agrees on the credibility of where anyone’s numbers have been cited from. Your source sucks, my source sucks.. ad naseum.
Quite honestly… if I give an opinion or speculation it comes from one of two places, or even both. 1) I’ve been there 2) I’ve not “been there” but based on my level of life experience and education and application of common sense (which I admit is all relative) I will try some form of logical conclusion without the emotion.
Now, either way I could be wrong as much as right to accepted facts. But I learn.. and I am flexible to change… and most certainly amiable to compromise. I know what I know and it has served me well. You’ve obviously have gotten this far in life knowing what you know. But we may likely never agree that what we each know is any more right or wrong than the other.
I know nothing about that case, and so I don’t know if it is or isn’t related to SYG. But just because the media or people online are convinced it’s SYG may not mean a thing. After all, even to this day most people call the GZ/TM case one of SYG… and it absolutely was NOT. It was just pure, simple, universally-recognized self-defense.
Oh, which reminds me: I thought it was very interesting that one of the main points that caused people to get so emotional at the beginning of that case was the 9-11 recording of the screaming. People were going, “Oh god! That poor little boy! You can hear him begging for his life!” Which, if they were correct, would have been a great point. But turns out that “little boy” screaming was not Trayvon at all! And then? Once it became obvious the one screaming and begging for his life was George? Did these people then change their tune? Of course not! These hypocrites then switched to “Well, if Trayvon was beating on him, that’s a GOOD thing, Zimmerman deserved it.” Dishonest, racist, violent HYPOCRITES.
Perhaps a clarification of “just leave me be” is in order.
“The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant”. John Stuart Mill.
When I say leave me be that also means leave you alone. I believe in freedom of association. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people that don’t agree with that view.
As an example. When I bought a new pickup, one of the larger models since I due a bit of towing, one of my former coworkers couldn’t see it. All he could say was “such a large truck for one person”. He couldn’t understand it is my money and I’ll spend it like I please. This is also the guy that complained about people parking in front of their garage instead of in it. He felt it made his neighborhood look bad.
I see what you mean. But it’s not like those folks.. the one’s who presume they need to assert their beliefs/opinions on the rest of the world… are all over the place. They are usually amazed when you don’t agree with them.
Hey.. that’s sorta like me wondering where all the Trump supporters brains went when it’s so obvious to me his faults. Conversely, I presume you think the same with me not seeing the complete logic in believing in Trump. Impasse.
But in normal life I’d not badger you on getting a pickup to large for your needs. :) God knows I make crap purchases all the time and I flog myself for it. I don’t need some clown acting like a voice on my shoulder second guessing me. I do that enough to myself.
” Within seconds, he had lost Martin and told the dispatcher just that. He also said he was heading back to his vehicle. ”
Wrong.
Listen to the call.
At 2 minutes 20 seconds, Zimmerman gets out to follow Martin.
At 2 minutes 28 seconds, Zimmerman says “OK” to the dispatcher’s “We don’t need you to do that.”
He is 8 seconds away from his truck, if he moves back at the same pace. Say 20 seconds to his truck if he strolls.
The call ends 1 minute 38 seconds after he says “OK”.
At the end of the call, by which time he should certainly be as the truck even if he crawled backwards slowly, he hasn’t decided where he’s going to be when the cops arrive. He asks that they call him on arrival to find out where he is.
2 minutes 30 seconds after Zimmerman’s call ends, the first 999 call comes in.
This is FOUR MINUTES after he said “OK”
Certainty: Zimmerman did not head back to his truck after he said “OK”.
What was he doing for the 1 minute 38 seconds between “OK” and the end of the call?
What was he doing for the 4 minutes between “OK” and the 999 call?
He was searching for Martin.
He probably found him hiding some way down the path and got officious.
He probably pulled the gun. No way could Martin, if straddling Zimmerman, have seen the gun if Zimmerman was on his back on the ground.
No way was he ambushed on his way back to his truck. He wasn’t even heading for his truck as he wanted to cops to ring him when they arrived so he could direct them to wherever he was at the time.
I don’t believe that there was any racial motivation for Zimmerman. He was simply an officious type who decided to track down some punk (whether black, white or yellow).
For the source of these timings – showing that Zimmerman was certainly hunting for Martin and not returning immediately to his truck, see
http://zimmermanscall.blogspot.com/p/the-call.html
You’re right that he didn’t return immediately to his truck, but you’re WRONG about him continuing to follow (let alone “search for”) Trayvon. You know what he WAS doing? He was looking to find an ADDRESS to give to the cops when they arrived. If you listen to the earlier part of the call, you’ll hear George having some major problems trying to describe where he’s at, where his truck is parked. If it all hadn’t turned out so badly, that part of the call would have been downright funny. Poor George… you can hear the frustration in his voice as he tries to give directions. There were no addresses on the parts of the houses he was facing. SO… the reason he tells the dispatcher to have them call him back when they get there is because he figures he’d have a better description by then. AFTER the call ended, George continued straight ahead to the next street to find addresses, THEN he turned around and walked back the say he came, back toward where his truck was parked a street over. He NEVER headed down the sidewalk at the base of the T (where Trayvon had ran and disappeared, and unbeknownst to George had hidden). I can give you lots more details, but you’ll probably need to be looking at a map of the area to get the full effect.
Jello,
Great post. I read every posting Mike made on this case. In fact, it was this case that led me to SMM and Michael McDaniel. I had forgotten this point. Thanks for the reminder.
Allyn
Thanks Allyn. Yeah, I got pretty deep in the weeds on this case… TOO deep it turned out. I didn’t realize till the very end how emotionally invested my wife and I had gotten, partly from my personal contacts with some of the people involved. But anyway, yeah, knowing everything we knew, and knowing how horrible a totally innocent guy had been treated by nearly ALL the powerful people in this country, all the way up to O himself… well it kinda took a toll. When the verdict was read, and they read only the one charge and said “not guilty”, I was holding my breath waiting for the rest. George sitting there, with the look on his face, seemed to be doing the same. But then it dawned on us… that was it, it was over. Well, at that moment my wife and I both broke down and just hugged each other, one of the most emotional moments of my life.
So anyway, partly because of that, I’ve promised myself never to again get so deeply involved. Oh I’ve studied other cases since then, and actually had a small impact in one (Ferguson), but I always tried to keep things a bit at arms-length, so my emotions didn’t get mangled again like in the GZ case. :)
It sounds like I can give you far more details than you could give me. :)
Have a look at the blog I built up as I dug into the situation all those years ago.
http://www.zimmermanscall.blogspot.com
Not only have I looked at the maps, I have reproduced maps on the blog. I have measured distances on them and worked out distances covered over time..
I have cross-checked some of those against actual videos of Zimmerman walking over that ground.
There’s a lot in the blog. It grew organically.
Just to take bits of it to address your points above:
In the walk-through video (part 2), Zimmerman says that he paused at the path T-junction and had problems with his flashlight. Then he walked on to Retreat View Circle to get a house number.
That walk from the T-junction to RVC takes him 20 seconds. Give him 10 seconds to get close to the house number beside him there. 30 seconds.
This is very strange.
2:14 Sound like the truck door slamming shut
2:42+ Noises that could be Zimmerman running/fast-walking die down. We hear clicking/knocking sounds which could be him having problems with his faulty flashlight.
The timings would correspond to him getting to the T-junction and pausing.
The call ends at 4:06, with Zimmerman asking for the incoming cops to call him so he can tell them where he is.
If the call ended at the T-junction, he’d been standing there for 1 minute 20 seconds or so.
In the walk-through video, he says that he ended the call at Retreat View Circle. That doesn’t make any sense, as he would have been able to give a house number before the call ended.
SO
Give him 30 seconds after the call ends to walk onwards to RVC and get a house number.
He has a house number. Yay!
He’s going to wait there. When the cops call him. He’ll give him the address that he’s at. Right? That’s why he went there, he says. That the whole point of going there.
Nope!
You say , “THEN he turned around and walked back the say he came, back toward where his truck was parked a street over”
Hello? That’s completely weird but let’s see what would follow logically from that walk.
Give him 20 seconds to walk back as far as the T-junction. That’s at his ambling pace in the walk-through video – as opposed to a faster pace a guy might take on a dark night with the rain coming down.
50 seconds after the call ends (at the T-junction), he’s back at the T-junction. He’s memorized the number of the house that he is no longer outside and won’t be outside when the cops call him.
Let’s say 1 minute if he walked really slowly.
He says that Martin approached him there and began an assault on him.
Problems:
a) 2 minutes 30 seconds after Zimmerman’s call ends, the first 999 call comes in.
This would be 1 minute 30 seconds after Zimmerman, on his walk back to his truck, arrived at the place where he says he was attacked.
This would mean that Martin had been beating him up for 1 minute 30 seconds before anyone noticed and called 999.
b) Martins phone was found about 50 feet down the path from the T-junction.
(b) is the real killer factor here. You might argue that Zimmerman hung around in RVC for nearly 2 minutes before starting back – and has no memory of doing that. You can’t argue that phone 50 feet North.
Face it.
Zimmerman’s account does not stand up against the solid record of his own NEN call and the 999 call.
It also does not stand up against the location of Martin’s phone.
These are not opinions or somebody’s memories or lies. These are solid automatically-recorded facts.
Looking at the solid timings, Martin’s phone, and where they ended up on the ground, Zimmerman *must* have gone down the path looking for Martin.
He wasn’t trying to “observe from a safe distance”. In that darkness, there is no safe distance from someone who he can not see and who he earlier described as “He’s got his hand on his waistband…He’s got something in his hand.” In that darkness, he could suddenly find himself face to face with the person.
Zimmerman is not only an utter fool, he’s also a really bad liar.
“Martin was serving a ten-day school suspension for drugs, and possession of stolen property ”
It was vandalism, drugs, possession of stolen property and a burglary tool. Trayvon was victimized by the same Obama era diversion program that kept the Parkland school shooter out of the system. What if Trayvon had gone into the system instead? If he was sitting in juvie or on probation, do you think he would have been roaming the streets at night looking for another house to break into?
No. He had suffered no serious consequence for any of his actions except a ten day vacation from school.
Dear Mike:
Quite right. There is evidence his father, presented in the episode as a loving, upstanding adult, was an enabler rather than a stabilizing influence in Trayvon’s life. And you’re quite right about the Miami “diversion” disaster, which really took off during the Obama era. We are still dealing with the damage that kind of thinking did and continues to do.
Thanks, Mike. Yep, you and the Treehouse and one or two other sites were about the ONLY places that seemed to care about the truth back then. I only wish I had known about your site when I was so involved, but as it is I spent nearly all my time at CTH. Just glancing through your archives though, I can see you did some really amazing work. So since I didn’t tell you thanks then, I’ll do it now!
So yeah, I’ve only read the first part of this post tonight, I’m gonna read the rest in later on this evening when I have more time. But just wanted to throw in my own comment for anyone else who might be reading, and might be doubting you… especially the ones who might think George was some way to blame. He was NOT, even in the slightest. Not legally of course, but also not “morally”. He did nothing wrong. And by the way, he was NEVER “chasing” Trayvon, at best he was “following” from quite a distance. Oh, and the dispatcher NEVER EVER told him to “stay in the truck”.
I could say much much more… I could rattle off countless facts about this case in my sleep. Like you, I followed it in minute detail, and yeah, I too talked personally with some of the people directly involved, on BOTH sides. As for the “documentary”, I wasn’t aware of that, and to be honest I’m not sure I care to watch it. Even as long as it’s been, I still find myself getting really angry when the LIARS start spewing their garbage about this case.
One more thing: I’ve said here and other places how I used to be a lifelong Democrat, and liberal in most regards. But now I’m a strong supporter of Trump, and became part of the #WalkAway movement long before there even was such a thing. The reason I’m mentioning all this is that I can pretty much pinpoint the moment in my life that I started abandoning the phony, dishonest, hypocritical, racist “left”: It started less than a month after Trayvon Martin was shot, when I started realizing that everything that was being reported was a LIE. A LIE intended to inflame and cause hatred and racial division… a LIE pushed almost solely by the “left”! I slowly but surely started feeling literally SICK that I had considered myself a part of that bunch.
I’m STILL ashamed it took me so long to wake up.
Dear jello333:
Thanks so much for your kind words. Don’t worry about taking awhile to wake up. What’s important is that you did, and that you analyze such things based on fact and evidence rather than feelings and ideology, which you’re obviously doing. Sadly, not everyone is able to do that.
No one should support any politician for personal or emotional reasons, but because they are doing their jobs properly: upholding the Constitution and the rule of law, and establishing and maintaining limited government. Thus far, Mr. Trump is doing that. When he no longer does, he deserves no one’s support.
It always amazes me how so any miss the big picture. In our system of justice, one is innocent unless proven guilty. George Zimmerman did not get off. He was found not guilty and anyone who claims otherwise needs to reflect on how blessed we are with the justice system we have.
There were a lot of mistakes that led to the tragedy that night. Sadly, there are people that would like to cloud the issue with irrelevant topics.
However, one chooses to look at it had Trayvon Martin simply gone home that night instead of jumping someone we would not be having this discussion.
Dear Andrew:
Well said. Your first and final points are particularly pertinent. The ultimate problem is those keeping this case alive are not interested in justice–the rule of law and equal justice for all–but social justice, which is an inherently political concept where favored victim groups can do no wrong, others can do no right, and where money and power are the ultimate goal.
” had Trayvon Martin simply gone home that night instead of jumping someone we would not be having this discussion.”
We don’t know that he ‘jumped’ anyone.
We do know from the timings and content of Zimmerman’s call and from the timings of the 999 calls that Zimmerman can only have been searching for Martin – in a very dark area.
8 seconds after he left his truck, he says “OK” to dispatcher “Are you following him….We don’t need you to do that”.
We then have one-and-a-half minutes until his call ends.
We then have two-and-a-half minutes from end of call to the first 999 call.
In that time he could not alone have returned to the truck. He could have changed a wheel.
Stories of Zimmerman since the incident and trial indicate that he is an idiot.
His call shows him to be an idiot – an incompetent bumbling idiot. He’s a captain of Neighborhood Watch in a small gated compound but he can’t describe where he is in it. He doen’t need to say where he is anyway. He just needs to arrange a meet-up with the cops. Martin is “gone”. It’s dark.
He’s not a racist. He’s just an officious incompetent idiot – with a gun.
He clearly went searching. That’s why he asked for the cops to ring him when they arrived. He couldn’t tell them where they would find him at the end of the call because he would be wandering around.
It seems he found Martin, but we have no idea what actually led to the violence. What was Zimmerman intending to do? It’s dark. There was a possibility that he would suddenly find himself face-to-face with the ‘punk’. Did he go into ‘cop’ mode?
He clearly went searching? How do you know that? No evidence was introduced to support that. What if in fact, he wasn’t returning to his vehicle? That does not equate to your supposition that he went searching.
If I hear a noise outside and go out to see if I can see who caused it, that does not mean that I was looking for a confrontation. I just want to see if I can spot someone. The only evidence presented was that Zimmerman was trying to observe.
I will raise this further. It does not matter if Zimmerman was looking for Martin. That is not illegal. Other than being on drugs, Martin was not violating any law at the time either. If Martin had been less aggressive, he could have run off or just told Zimmerman to get lost with his choice of profanity. It’s when he attacked Zimmerman – according to eyewitness testimony and injuries – that he presented a sufficient threat that Zimmerman was justified in shooting him.
Omegapaladin, what you have said is the clearest summery of all. Bravo.
Dear Sling:
Welcome back; haven’t heard from you in awhile. Even the prosecution, which tried to accuse Zimmerman of just about anything they could think of, didn’t come up with the time formulation you’ve noted here. There was no evidence Zimmerman in any way was hunting for Martin Looking here and there to try to see him, yes, but nothing more.
Hello again Mike,
I have been reading your scruffy blog all along. I read a very wide variety of materials, getting different viewpoints on topics. I read from the loonytoons extremes at opposing sides and the middle ground. You might be cheered to know that I do not regards you as one of the extremes :)
I don’t comment in all of these forums. I’d have to spend my entire life at a keyboard for that.
When I first heard of the Zimmerman case – because of all the publicity – I got it as “Neighborhood Watch guy shadowing a suspect. Suspect jumped out of some bushes and attacked…etc.”
I thought “Yeah. That sort of shit happens.” Then I happened to see a photo of that area and path between the houses.
Something seemed odd about the story, so I started investigating. The more detail I discovered, the more the original story stank. I recorded my findings and opinions in a blog http://zimmermanscall.blogspot.com.
The conduct of the investigation was a complete zoo, with extreme views on all sides creating a huge distraction from the known facts.
I went looking for facts to analyse. The time formulations that I mention are real. It does not matter that the prosecution were too busy running a reality TV program to do some cold scientific analysis.
My bad for using the term “hunting”. It’s too emotion-heavy.
A better term is “searching”. If you search for someone in a very dark place, you’re only going to find them when you’re right up to them.
“Looking here and there” (implied ‘looking from a distance’) is not something that is possible in such a dark place.
It’s clear to me that a lot of people approach questions from a purely emotional start point. They already ‘know’ the answer and they look only for anything that will confirm that.
Looking at some comments above….
Sailorcurt
“When the Dispatcher told Zimmerman that he didn’t need to follow the suspicious person (in spite of the previous request to keep the dispatcher informed of the suspicious person’s actions), Zimmerman immediately replied “OK”, stopped following, and started returning to his vehicle.”
This is a fantasy. The object is to make Zimmerman seem sane.
Zimmerman said “OK” about 8 seconds after he left his truck. He would not have even reached the T-Junction.
Allyn
“He did not pursue Trayvon. He was trying to keep an eye on him from what he thought was a safe distance. He had no idea that Trayvon was hiding in wait. He had no reason to believe that there would be a confrontation.”
Zimmerman lost sight of Martin as Martin went behind the first house. There is no safe distance. Martin could have been waiting right at that corner. There is no safe distance from someone that you can not see. Zimmerman claimed that Martin circled his truck in a threatening manner – although he did not mention this to the despatcher. He did say “Hand on his waistband….something in his hand”.
Zimmerman, by his own description, *should* have expected a confrontation. He didn’t get out of his truck to talk to Martin. He didn’t even make sure all the doors were locked, then wind down the window slightly and ask him what he was doing there.
THEN, he follows after person into a dark area, with no idea of where that person was. Insane!
Mike McDaniel
“So when Martin sprinted off into the dark and around a row of the condos,……
…
Within seconds, he had lost Martin and told the dispatcher just that. He also said he was heading back to his vehicle. Martin, who could have been completely gone, decided to hide nearby, and ambushed and viciously beat Zimmerman. A very credible eyewitness saw Martin astride Zimmerman, beating him MMA ground and pound” style.”
He lost sight of Martin as he was getting out of his truck. He lost sight of Martin even before he started trotting towards the dark area and the path.
He didn’t say that he was heading back to his truck.
The idea that Martin was hiding to ambush is pure pre-judged conjecture. The idea that Martin just upped and attacked Zimmerman is the same. There’s witness to how it ended, but not to how it started.
Omegapaladin, gets to the real question in all of this. The discussion of the recent “Florida SYG incident” in the replies here is not actually off-topic.
“I will raise this further. It does not matter if Zimmerman was looking for Martin. That is not illegal. Other than being on drugs, Martin was not violating any law at the time either. If Martin had been less aggressive, he could have run off or just told Zimmerman to get lost with his choice of profanity. It’s when he attacked Zimmerman – according to eyewitness testimony and injuries – that he presented a sufficient threat that Zimmerman was justified in shooting him.”
Try this scenario:
Martin is quite legally and innocently heading back to the house where he’s staying.
A guy in a truck starts shadowing him. Passes him. Waits for him. Follows again. It’s dark and raining. The place is deserted. It’s you being followed. How would you feel if that happened to you?
Zimmerman is quite legally and innocently doing his NW thing. Martin has no way of knowing this. Even when the two are very close. The guy in the truck doesn’t talk to him. He just stares. Could be some nut case. Could be dangerous.
Martin decides to take to the central path between the rows of houses. He feels hunted. The truck can’t follow him there. But there’s a problem. What if the weirdo in the truck sees that he’s headed down that path, and so drives down the road a bit, gets out, cuts between the houses and intercepts him?
Best thing is to lay low and hide in a dark back porch near the top of the path for a while.
He’s talking to his girlfriend on the phone. He describes the situation. Then his voice goes low. The guy is getting near. Then she hears “What are you doing around here?” and “Why you following me?”. Then the sounds of a scuffle.
What’s happened here?
Zimmerman is an idiot. He has generated a threatening situation for Martin. He then goes searching/looking_for Martin in the dark. He finds him, and necessarily in that darkness, they are right up close when that happens.
Zimmerman could have spoken to Martin from the safety of his truck. The situation could have been resolved then. Now he’s tracked down Martin in the dark and they are face to face. Does he explain his business? Nope.
We don’t know what happened precisely. We just know how it ended up.
Did Zimmerman go for his gun? He has a story that while Martin was straddling him, he saw the gun.
Crazy! I illustrate that with photos and reason in http://zimmermanscall.blogspot.com/p/the-struggle.html
No matter what actually happened in the end, one thing is certain.
Zimmerman was a complete idiot. He was an idiot with a gun.
Stand Your Ground
In Zimmerman’s case and the Florida SYG, it was the shooter who provoked the whole incident.
Justices is to be defined by what happened in the last few seconds of a much longer interaction.
What does this blindly applied SYG version mean?
It means that if someone is obnoxious and begins to abuse you are make you feel threatened, you must be ultra-mature with great presence of mind. You must not in any way offer any resistance. You must not do anything that might be interpreted as a threat to them. This is they because they might pull a gun and shoot you.
You should only offer resistance if it is clear that they are definitely going to do you great physical harm. Even then you’d better be good with your fists and totally disable them. This is because they might have a gun.
If you begin to offer resistance, you have to follow through and disable the person. This is because even if you back off, they would still be justified in shooting you. It does not matter that they provoked the situation.
Sling,
You assume the area very dark, such that movements can’t be seen. I have rarely been in such a dark area. My days working in a photographic lab comes to mind back in the early 70’s, where the glow from my watch could streak film.
In this situation, there were porch lights and lights from within homes. You make an assumption that somehow Zimmerman should have expected this person to be violent. Why? When they were within feet of one another, when TM circled the vehicle, neither attacked the other. Are you suggesting that Zimmerman knew he was black and therefore should have been on alert?
The best way to see movement in dark situations is to remain still, allow your pupils to dilate, use all of your senses, and look for shadows or movements visible as a result of ambient lighting. Obviously, the ambient lighting was adequate for a witness to see Trayvon straddling Zimmerman, pounding him?
You also seem to think SYG was relevant. I can’t believe you spent ant time analyzing this case and still think that. This was classic self defense. SYG never came up in the trial. But if it was the sole defense, Zimmerman didn’t do anything, based on the evidence presented to run afoul of that law. Following someone is not illegal. Zimmerman had every right to be where he was. You assume that Zimmerman was obnoxious and somehow abused TM. Where the hell do you come up with that? You have zero evidence that Zimmerman was in fact doing any thing other than trying to spot the hooded figure. A completely legal and reasonable thing to do, as he awaited the arrival of the police.
Mike,
On “ didn’t come up with the time formulation you’ve noted here.”
It appears that people were careless about interpreting the timestamps in the NEN Call Report.
The list of entries are in the report are (automatically) timestamped from a “Created time” of 19:11:12 onwards. People seem to have assumed that the call began at 19:11:12 – and ended 4 minutes 6 seconds later.
What seems to have been missed was that the call is recorded as having connected at 19:09:34.
That’s a gap of 1 minute 38 seconds between the Connected time and the Created time. That’s the operator talking to Zimmerman, typing up the initial details and then then pressing “Enter”.
There is an image of the Call Report in http://zimmermanscall.blogspot.com/p/the-call.html
Check the timed entries in the Report against the elapsed times of information giving in the call transcript. That call definitely started at 19:09:34 and not at 19:11:12
The exact time is important as the end time gets lined up against the time of the first 911 call.
Ye gods! Six years since I wrote all that up. As I read my blog again now, all sorts of forgotten details surface.
I encourage people to read the entire blog, but they do have my sympathy. There is *a lot* of original source detail in there.
What ya gonna do?
A) Grab hold of “Despatch told Z he didn’t have to follow. Z said OK and started back to his truck. M ambushed him.” – and stay with that.
B) Go through 17 pages of transcripts, videos, recording, reports, maps, diagrams, etc and maintain an open mind
(B) is waaaay easier.
A good read as always Mike. It never ceases to amaze me that there are people who have not read the facts of the case but still use it as an example of why Concealed Carry is bad. I am glad the SMM has an archive of the case, and that it’s always been a fact-based analysis. I’m not sure that it would help even if the directors of this special were to read it, as facts take a backseat to feelings for most people these days.
To me, the long and short of it has always been that Zimmerman may have made an error in judgment, but he did not have hostile intent that night, nor was he acting as a vigilante. He was a concerned neighbor who wanted to help the police to catch the burglars who were striking homes in his community with relative impunity.
The entire saga of Trayvon Martin has always been contrived and had Trayvon been a white male it is doubtful there ever would have been any discussion of the incident. Had the media looked at the facts of the matter without bias or searching for racial undertones, it would have been a story that ran for a day or two and then would have been forgotten. If anything, this story should have been used as an example to teenage boys of the importance of the non-aggression principle, and why we do not use physical violence to settle matters in a civilized and lawful society.
I hope someday that this matter will be dropped, and that history will look on the incident without bias for what it was. An unnecessary and unwise act of aggression by a young teenage male that cost him his life. Unfortunately I have a feeling that Saint Trayvon is a concept that will exist in perpetuity.
Dear optimisticallypessimistic:
What you said.
You might be surprised to note that I agree with most of what you wrote.
The race thing was a distraction. It’s wasn’t a factor in the incident.
Where we differ is in your “An unnecessary and unwise act of aggression by a young teenage male that cost him his life.”
The primary factor was Zimmerman’s incredible stupidity. He acted against NW guidelines. He acted against common sense.
Look at it from Martin’s point of view. He was quite innocently on his way from the store to where he was staying.
He notices a guy in a truck following. It’s dark and deserted. The guy feels like a threat. What’s his game?
M head for the path away from the road and goes to ground. The guy follows and eventually finds him about 50 feet down from the T-junction.
We don’t know what happened between them then, but it was Z that was presenting the threat to M – by following him and finding him in the dark.
We have M’s girlfriend saying that she overheard M asking Z why he was following him. She says the response was “What are you doing here?” Then a struggle.
All we actually know is how they ended up.
We all owe a duty of care towards each other.
Zimmerman was careless and unwise. He created a confrontational situation. How was innocently-walking M supposed to know what Z was at? That was unnecessary. It cost a young man his life.
Sling,
You said “Look at it from Martin’s point of view. He was quite innocently on his way from the store to where he was staying.”
That alone is a huge leap. Innocently? Walking up to houses and looking in while it was raining? Everything you said after that is immaterial.
Your timeline is totally irrelevant as well. You have no idea what Zimmerman was doing during that time. So his phone was 50 feet up from the T. That’s about one house. How far did it fly when Trayvon sucker punched him? We can all speculate. But that is not evidence. What he had time to do is not relevant. Timelines are more important to prove what someone couldn’t have done.
You see, this is where I am in harmony with optimisticallypessimistic, who says “Unfortunately I have a feeling that Saint Trayvon is a concept that will exist in perpetuity.”
I just have it in the Saint George version.
We seem agreed that the whole racist/hate thing is just a deafening distraction.
From the Martin extreme we get a sweet child, aeronautics, etc.
From the Zimmerman side we get blunts, housebreaking, etc. The logic is that even though Martin was not breaking into houses, he might have been.. and ZOMG BLUNTS!!!!
Therefore it does not matter that he died. He was guilty of something sometime, plus he made a gesture with his fingers in a photo, so let’s not fuss unduly about the manner of his death. Good riddance.
Although the matter is actually irrelevant, you assert that he was walking up to houses and looking in. That’s total invention.
Look at Part.1 of the Walk-through video. Z is describing the events of the night to Sanford PD. He points out the grassy area between the houses where he first saw Martin. That’s the well-used cut-through entrance. Z says that M is standing in the grassy area looking around, looking at the houses, just looking around, and this is very strange because it’s raining. Bear in mind that Zimmerman needs in this walk-through to paint Martin in the blackest terms. However, there is no walking up to houses and looking in the windows.
It is clear that you have not bothered to check the basis of your assertions. You just picked that up somewhere and accept it as gospel.
Your “You have no idea what Zimmerman was doing during that time” is hilarious in the context of this discussion.
It’s true. I don’t know where he was. *Neither do you*. *Neither does anybody*.
All we have is Zimmerman’s word for where he was.
The problem for Zimmerman is that his story is demonstrably at odds with the reality of the automatically recorded and unbiased timeline. The minutes are important. His story, as illustrated physically in the walk-through video does not account for the time involved.
“Timelines are more important to prove what someone couldn’t have done.”
Yes. They prove that Zimmerman’s story of where he went and when could not have happened.
Even if he ended the call at the T-junction (despite saying that it ended at RVC) he still arrives back to be ambushed at the T-junction over a minute before the fight is noticed.
There is unexplained time. There is a phone 50 feet away from the T-junction. There is John going back on MMA. There is boy agreeing with John’s ‘2 people horizontal’. There is a bullet trajectory, etc.
Seriously? :)
You punch someone with your phone in your hand, and you phone flies 50 feet North?
That was some sucker punch!
Maybe M’s hands were a bit sweaty, so the compression of the fist sort of squirted the phone out at high speed way up in the air and far away.
It goes to show what a thug he was. A decent law-abiding ambusher would put their phone in a pocket before punching someone. Respect for property!
“But that is not evidence.”
Neither is Zimmerman’s word,
Hey Sling, it’s not 999 anymore they changed it to 0118 999 881 999 119 725 3.
I’ve finally read the rest of this post, Mike, and wanted to say your summary is right on. But I still plan on looking through your whole archives when I get the chance. But now I wanted to make a few points that I haven’t seen mentioned here in this post yet.
Regarding the “documentary”, and all the parts involving Sybrina Fulton, I just wanted to note that she was really Trayvon’s mother in name only. The fact is, it was Alicia Stanley who raised him for most of his life. That was Trayvon’s step-mother, who the media gave virtually NO attention and NO respect. All the while, it was the so sad and heart-broken Sybrina/Candy who got all the attention… and $$$ Nice, huh?
Regarding Trayvon’s location from moment to moment that evening, it’s hard to say precisely where he was at times. And part of the reason we can’t be sure is that the prosecution REFUSED TO TURN OVER phone data which may have shown that. Plenty of other stuff on the phones, but no data from that specific time period… it just went POOF! Uh… yep. But speaking of how much time Trayvon had to “get away” even all the way “home” if he chose to? Yeah, guess what?… there’s evidence he DID make it “home”, left a couple things on his (dad’s girlfriend’s) back porch, and then CAME BACK toward where he had come from, and where George now was (top of the T). I suspect, I’D BET, that GPS data would show exactly that if we had it.
And Sling has mentioned several times about things “Trayvon’s girlfriend” said about what she knew and heard. Are we talking about DeeDee? Are we talking about Rachel? Please, please, PLEASE tell me you’re not actually taking the word of anything that girl said! And DOUBLE PLEASE tell me you don’t actually believe that was really “Trayvon’s girlfriend”!! :)
Finally, people on both sides of this issue have mentioned how they don’t really believe race was a factor. The implication being that George himself wasn’t racist. But why stop there? Why not ask if there might have been racism coming from the other direction? Yes, what I’m implying is that there WAS some racism in play that night… but not from George. I don’t know if anyone else did so, but I spent a lot of time checking out Trayvon’s social media. Not a single non-black among his many friends. And taking it out one more level, looking at his friends… almost NO non-blacks among the friends of those 2nd-level people, either. You tell me: What are the odds that if you have, say, 300 total individuals among your online “friends”, and every single one of them are the same race as you. What’s the odds that that just happened by chance… rather than by choice.
To take a line from Mike’s opening remarks..”Of course, none are so blind as those that will not see”
It’s very clear Jello333 that you are very emotionally involved in this topic.
It’s also clear from your own words that you have not inquired into the underlying detail. You seem to be starting that now, but only relying on a single source – Mike’s blog.
It’s very clear that I have investigated the detail at the time – from multiple sources – and have documented that in a blog that I wrote up at the time. I don’t have a horse in this race. I did this as an intellectual exercise. It was triggered by seeing “jumped out of the bushes” alongside a photo of the ground that showed nothing like I had imagined from the text headlines.
I’m only back discussing the matter now because I noticed that Mike had raised to topic again. I had forgotten all about it. It was just an exercise.
What I find in this blog are some people who are doing the equivalent of chanting tribal slogans.
For example nobody who had made the slightest effort to think about the matter could possibly claim that Zimmerman headed back to his truck after “You don’t need to follow him. – “OK”.
Zimmerman got out only to get an address that was demanded of him? Nope. Listen to the NEN call.
And yet, some people keep coming up with nonsense like that. It seems that they are simply repeating what someone else said. And that person hadn’t a clue. :(
There is a blank refusal to consider anything that might throw the slightest doubt on the ‘Zimmerman cool calm protector of society GOOD – Martin the violent drug-addled thug BAD’
Zimmerman is a gentle peace-loving soul https://people.com/crime/george-zimmerman-aggravated-stalking-charges/
What on earth has Fulton/Stanley got to do with what happened that night?
The girl who reported a conversation with Martin on the night might not be the brightest, so smear her to the maximum extent to try discredit what she says.
It’s simple. Anyone who’s evidence does not support Zimmerman is lying and v.v.
Martin’s phone
It was found soaking wet and powered down. Looks like Sanford PD tried to power it up and get in too many times, so it locked and became a brick. Eventually it was passed to a specialist outfit who hacked into it. The data recovered was available to the defense. The objection from the prosecution was that the defense would cherrypick old content to paint Martin as blackly as possible so as to influence/distract the jury.
Data for that last day was not found in the phone. The reason seems to be that when the phone died in the wet, the RAM memory (where data is initially collected) had not yet been written to the flash memory. That updating happens at intervals. This is because constantly writing flash memory will decrease its lifetime. I’m not sure about the updating schedule for that phone model, but end-of-day, RAM memory full or controlled shutdown would be typical triggers. If the phone dies unexpectedly, the RAM loses its data. Flash memory does not need power to retain data.
But, there is something that could be very helpful here – Zimmerman’s phone. If Martin’s phone could prove a double-back and ambush, then Zimmerman’s phone could prove that he never went South of the T-junction. It could prove where he went and when, Right?
Oh! It seems not. For some reason, the defence didn’t put that up.
It would have been important to put that up because of the timeline that Zimmerman’s account does not explain.
Now you say that there is evidence that Martin “left a couple things” on the back porch and then came back to the T.
Really? What evidence?
To be evidence, it would have to be “some things” that we **know** he was carrying on his walk from the store to ‘home’.
All we know is that he had Skittles and Iced Tea. There is video evidence of him buying them. He didn’t dispose of them on the way because they were found near his body.
Your theory is very strange. Martin decided that he would ambush Zimmerman. Last he saw, Zimmerman was in the truck on the street. Even if he looked back before he lost sight of it, and noticed the truck door opening before he le had no idea where Zimmerman might be when he got back, but hey! Let’s not let logic get in the way.
He ran down to the house and left “some things” (that we don’t know he had on him). Left those things because he wanted his hands free to beat up Zimmerman.
Ah! But why did he carry the Skittles and the iced tea back up? They’re going to be an impediment to a good beating-up.
Ooooh! I know! He was going to start the attack by opening the Skittles and throwing fistfuls of them at Zimmerman. Poor Zimmerman would fall to the ground with his body riddled by Skittles.
Or maybe… Martin planned to spend a long time beating Zimmerman. He’d need to keep his strength up, so he had the Skittles for sustenance. He’d need the iced tea to wash them down, and sustained beating-up is thirsty work.
Sling, your sarcasm is unattractive.
For someone so studied on the matter, your claim that he had iced tea betrays you.
You admit that none of the people commenting, including yourself, know where either George or Trayvon were for several minutes. Please explain how they came upon each other, if Trayvon was not looking for trouble.
Exactly. The “iced tea” thing is a real tell. It was a “leak” from the start — based on INCORRECT info — that could then be used to trace who was leaking to who. But beyond that, you’re right about the sarcasm. Oh I can throw around sarcasm with the best of them, but I generally try to keep it light-hearted, and will usually throw in a winky-face emoticon or something. But Sling seems to be taking it to another level. Also, he is basically ignoring half my questions/comments, and only picking out the ones he wants to argue about. And THIS comment just has me totally confused:
“It’s also clear from your own words that you have not inquired into the underlying detail. You seem to be starting that now, but only relying on a single source – Mike’s blog.”
Where Sling got THAT from, I have no idea… since it’s precisely the opposite of what I’ve been saying. I’ve been DEEPLY involved in all this, including minute details, for many years now. And as for the relying on a single source (Mike’s blog), again, Sling apparently isn’t reading my comments closely, because I specifically said I had NOT followed the case here at this blog. I even apologized to Mike recently for that fact… that I wish I HAD known about this place back then.
As I said before, I got my info from a few other places, most notably The Conservative Treehouse (despite my not being remotely “conservative” when I first discovered that place). I’ve since found them to be wonderful people. But one thing I’ll note that I find VERY interesting: Even though Sundance at the Treehouse, and Mike here at this blog didn’t work together (as far as I know), and came at the research from different angles, they both wound up with nearly identical conclusions on many various aspects. I think that tells you something about the VALIDITY of those conclusions.
Anyway, I’m responding to you instead of Sling because, like you say, he seems to be losing interest in keeping it civil.
Dear Jello333:
I did not work with the Conservative Treehouse on this case. I did link to them from time to time for reader’s benefit, but to my knowledge, they never returned the favor. Of course, they were not required to do so. I also linked to Andrew Branca’s coverage at Legal Insurrection, and he was kind enough to return the favor.
While I generally agree that one should not rely on a single source for most things, I work very hard to rely only on credible sources, and provide links for all information that did not originate between my ears. When I’m speculating based, for example, on media accounts, I’m careful to make that known.
Ultimately, the testimony in the Zimmerman trial almost entirely vindicated my conjecture. And my reporting on that trial faithfully reproduced the evidence that acquitted Zimmerman, as it must if actual justice rather than social justice was the standard.
I’ve always appreciate those that comment on this scruffy little blog, but as I told Sling and others years ago, the kinds of by-the-second speculation in which they engaged could never be verified and would not be a factor in any trial, and it was not. What was absolutely clear was that Zimmerman only tried to keep Martin in sight. Martin had more than enough time to run away and never again be seen or identified, and chose to do otherwise. Even Rachel Jeantell’s testimony confirmed that Martin approached and challenged Zimmerman, not the other way around.
Zimmerman was acquitted against all odds because he really was innocent. Some people still can’t accept that reality and must substitute their own.
I like that you said George “really was innocent”… that’s what I tell people too. Was it West or O’Mara (can’t recall which one), that during the start of the trial commented that the evidence would show not only that George was “not guilty” beyond reasonable doubt (which is all that was required for acquittal), but it would go much further… it would show that he was actually INNOCENT. I really liked when he said that for the whole world to hear. (Now that I think about it, I think it was O’Mara.)
Mike,
I am intrigued by your assertion that “Even Rachel Jeantell’s testimony confirmed that Martin approached and challenged Zimmerman, not the other way around.”
This is news to me. Can you link to the transcript of her evidence that led you to this conclusion.
Also
“What was absolutely clear was that Zimmerman only tried to keep Martin in sight”
No. “keep in sight” involves not losing sight of. Following from a *safe* distance is standard procedure.
Once Martin disappeared around the back of the house, there was no sight and there was no safe distance.
If I were Martin and had decided to attack Zimmerman, I would first of all have attempted to drag him out of his truck. Failing that, I would have waited at the back of the first house. That position would be the very closest to Zimmerman if he followed up the path. Any other position would involve approaching him over a distance.
Dear Sling:
Update 32.2 (https://statelymcdanielmanor.wordpress.com/2013/06/28/the-trayvon-martin-case-update-32-2-week-1-the-narrative-spontaneously-combusts/) contains some of her testimony, particularly the portion where she testified that she heard Martin confronting Zimmerman, and saying: “what you following me for?” In update 11 (https://statelymcdanielmanor.wordpress.com/2012/06/13/the-trayvon-martin-case-update-11-the-dee-dee-interview-kaboom/) the transcript of her interview with Bernie DeLaRonda, she first confirmed that it was Martin that confronted Zimmerman, but he said: “What you doing ’round here.”
I don’t think that I mentioned the name of the drink in my blog. That would be because the name is completely irrelevant. I would have paid it no attention.
What Martin bought that night is only relevant if someone claims that he must have gone to the house to leave “some things” on the back porch.
I did a search today to double-check on what “things” Martin was known to be carrying, and the report mentioned tea.
It doen’t matter if the can has tea, coke or watermelon juice. All that matters is that it’s a can of drink, that would logically have been left , together with the Skittles at the back porch if he had gone there and then turned back with the intention of confronting whoever it was that had been following him.
To make a big fuss of the name of the drink is just to create a smokescreen to distract from the actual point.
I don’t “admit” that nobody knows where they were for several minutes. I state it as a fact.
Other would disagree. They would say that they know where Zimmerman was. They can’t actually prove it. There is no evidence apart from Zimmerman’s word. Unfortunately, Zimmerman’s word as evidenced by his walk-through video is wildly at odds with the elapsed time.
How would they have come together? Here’s an option.
Martin has noticed some guy in a truck stalking him. Even when he walks by the truck, the guy makes no attempt to make contact.The guy’s a weirdo. Could be dangerous. Martin takes to the path and turns down the central area. He goes to ground near the top. If he continues on down, the guy might think of driving down a way and come between the houses to intercept him. There are lights here and there along the way. They would silhouette him as he passed them. Just stay still and wait.
Then he sees the weird guy arrive up at the top on foot,
He’s talking to a girl on the phone. He’s told her about the weirdo. Then his voice goes low. He says the guy is getting near. Then it seems the guy had found him. He asks “Why you following me?”. The guy doesn’t explain. He says “What are you doing around here?”.
Then there’s a scuffle.We don’t know what happened exactly. The phone dropped where the scuffle started. One witness talks of seeing two people running.They end up outside John’s house.
Even if it was Martin who got physical first, Zimmerman would have a big problem. Against all procedures of NW, against the NEN “We don’t need you to do that” he had started down the path looking for Martin. Now there’s a dead guy. He’s going to look reckless. The circumstances would indicate that Martin was justified in believing that Zimmerman was some sort of weirdo threat. Zimmerman had provokes the confrontation.
So… create a story that he was jumped up at the T-junction. Absolutely never went searching. Address, back to truck, ambushed.
What was driving Zimmerman? Why would he go searching?
Here’s something I wrote back in 2012
http://zimmermanscall.blogspot.com/p/speculation.html
One more point, mainly to Sling:
I see that a large part of your focus is on the time period between the end of the NEN call and the start of the first 911 call. That’s about 2 1/2 minutes, and you seem to believe that gives George plenty of time to go “searching for” Trayvon. Sorry, but I just don’t see it that way.
I don’t find it at all weird that George may have taken, say, 1 1/2 minutes to walk a little to find an address, maybe stand there for several seconds, slowly walk back the way he had come, maybe messing with his flashlight some more in the process. And if at about that point he was confronted by Trayvon (with at few words exchanged before the physical part beings). I don’t think it taking another minute or so before the first 911 call being made and connected is strange at all.
Basically my point is: While you seem to think that the 2 1/2 minute gap means George must have been doing XYZ… I don’t think that’s true at all.
The long delay between the end of the NEN call and the first 911 call does not in anyway prove what Zimmerman did in that time of course. What it does prove is that Zimmerman’s account of his actions in the Walk-through video can not possibly be true.
“I don’t find it at all weird that George may have taken, say…”
Well of course you don’t. If you found it even a tiny bit strange, you’re at the top of a slippery slope. It’s better not to think about the logic, the distances, the time and the circumstances. It’s best not to look at the maps or the photos of the area. It’s best not to watch Zimmerman walk that ground in the walk-through video.
“I don’t find it at all weird that George may have taken, say, 1 1/2 minutes to walk a little to find an address”
Try 26 seconds to walk slowly as far as the sidewalk. That’s long it took him.
Give him say 10 more to look at a house number beside him
“, maybe stand there for several seconds”
No. Think! Why did he go there? To get an address that he could give to the incoming cops when they rang him on arrival at the gates. He doesn’t maybe stand there for several seconds. He waits there until they call him and then get to him.
“, slowly walk back the way he had come”
No. If he actually went there, he went there to stay there until the cops arrived.
If he gets frustrated after 2 minutes or so and decides to head for his truck, he’s going to walk as fast as possible. If the cops ring after he leaves RVC, he will no longer be able to tell them exactly where he is. He did at least manage to give directions to his truck earlier, so he could give them again. He needs to get to that truck fast or the cops will have to wait around until he gets there.
He describes none of this in his walk-through.
“While you seem to think that the 2 1/2 minute gap means George must have been doing XYZ… I don’t think that’s true at all.”
What the gap means is that Zimmerman was not doing what he said he was doing. He was doing something else. The gap in itself is no guide to what the something else was.
However…
A witness reports two people running.
Martin’s phone is found a distance South.
Someone talking on the phone with Martin hears. “Why you following me for?” – “What are you doing around here” and noises like phone dropping and “Get off”.
Indicates that Zimmerman in that time gap went South down the path some way…… BUT OH NO!!! That would mean that he was following – which the dispatcher told him he didn’t need to do.
Pingback: The Trayvon Martin Case, Update #53, Resting In Power, Episode 2 | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: Force Farce | Stately McDaniel Manor
Mike,
When I said that I was “intrigued” by your assertion that “Even Rachel Jeantell’s testimony confirmed that Martin approached and challenged Zimmerman, not the other way around.”, I was thinking this ….
Last I heard, O’Mara suggested to her that Martin had attacked Zimmerman.
Her reply was “That’s retarded Sir”
Accordingly, any assertion that her testimony indicated the opposite deserves her reply. To avoid repetition of “retarded”, let’s shorten it to “What Jeantell said”, or “>WJSWJSWJSWJSWJSWJS<’s
Listen to the NEN.
2:54 Dispatcher: Alright George we do have them on the way. Do you want to meet with the officer when they get out there?
Zimmerman:Yeah.
Dispatcher: Alright, where you going to meet with them at?
Zimmerman attempts to give directions to his truck.
Zimmerman: Um, if they come in through the, uh, (knocking sound) gate, tell them to go straight past the club house, and uh, (knocking sound) straight past the club house and make a left, and then they go past the mailboxes, you'll see my truck… [unintelligible,as the Dispatcher breaks in – but it could be a description … (Zimmerman had a silver Honda Ridgeline)
(( It could be that the Dispatcher has become impatient with Zimmerman's directions. Now he wants a simple answer.))
3:18 Dispatcher: OK What address are you parked in front of?
Zimmerman can’t give an address. Estate has three streets. Retreat View circle around the perimeter. Twin Trees Lane and Long Oak way in the middle.
Neighborhood Watch captain, whose has a primary function of directing cops to a location does not know the name of at least one of the three streets. But OK…. He’s incompetent.
3:39 Dispatcher: Okay do you want to just meet with them right near the mailboxes then?
Zimmerman: Yeah that's fine.
Dispatcher: Alright George, I'll let them know to meet you when they're out there, okay?
(( This is sensible. It is a clear meeting point. The Dispatcher does not know that Zimmerman has gone into the dark after Martin. Zimmerman, given that he has been aware that Martin could be so close as to overhear his home address, would be well advised to get out of there ASAP. ))
3:48 Zimmerman: Actually could you have them, could you have them call me and I'll tell them where I'm at?
Ooookayyyy!
Not the mailboxes, not at the truck (as you assert), but somewhere as yet unknown.
Call ends. Definitely did not say he was turning around. Definitely did not say he would meet them at his parked truck.
Two minutes thirty seconds later, the first 911 connects.
"Martin had more than enough time to escape and never be seen again,”
Going by what had already happened, going to ground not far from the T would be the best option. He’s left the road before, but the creepy stalker guy had twice driven on past him and then intercepted him. The guy might do the same again – drive down to the end of Twin Trees Lane and park where he can see right up the path – and more dangerously, right by the back porch of the house that he's trying to get to. Best plan is to stay up there and wait things out.
" but hid and ambushed Zimmerman, breaking his nose and knocking him to the ground, where Martin straddled him, rained blows down on him in Mixed Martial Arts “ground and pound” style–according to a credible eyewitness–and repeatedly beat his head against the concrete sidewalk upon which he lay.”
Wrong!
Zimmerman claims he was attacked at the T. If he was knocked to the ground then, he would have to wriggle on his back, with Martin on top, for some 40 feet along the grass – which was soaked with rain.
John Good is very clear on what he saw when he put a foot out his door. It was so dark that he just saw one object. Became two, one on top but both horizontal. The they moved to the path. The one was more upright, straddling th eone below. It was too dark to see hands, but he could se ”downward movements from the shoullders”, like restraining the one beneath or punching.
He had only said MMA-like to indicate a type of straddling position. He has no expertise-knowledge of MMA. He’s seen some on TV.
Even O’Mara, reading the transcript of Serino’s oral interview has John saying ”kinda MMA” and Serino suggesting ”ground and…” and then John picking up on that to say ”like ground and pound”.
John is insistent that he didn’t see punching.
He explains that he only talked about the one below struggling to get up because he thought that trying to get up would be a normal thing to do.
He did not see MMA ground and pound.
He did not see any head-pounding.
Zimmerman ended up with a bent nose, some bruising to his face and some slight cuts on the back of his head that just needed washing and a few plasters.
Had he not had a gun, the cops arrived very quickly after the shot, so he might not have got further damage.
Had he not had a gun, I wonder if he would have gotten himself into the situation in the first place.
”Zimmerman, screaming for help, was unable to deliver a single blow or defend himself, and when Martin told him he was going to kill him, had every reason to believe him. He fired a single shot from his lawfully carried handgun, stopping the attack and killing Martin.”
Nobody heard Martin say he was going to kill him. If Zimmerman actually did go for his phone when they came face to face, it would have been reasonable for Martin to believe under the circumstances that the creepy stalker guy – who would not explain why he was following him – was going for a gun.
Just in that short summary you have in the Force Farce post, you make assertions that have no evidence to back them up. Even worse, in the case of ”meeting at the truck” the solid evidence is that this was explicitly not true. You also ignore John’s actual evidence on the stand.
“Zimmerman, given that he has been aware that Martin could be so close as to overhear his home address, would be well advised to get out of there ASAP.”
Why? Because Zimmerman thought he was black and therefore should reasonably assume him to be violent?
“and park where he can see right up the path – and more dangerously, right by the back porch of the house that he’s trying to get to. ”
I guess you have given up on your assertion that it was too dark for Zimmerman to see anything.
While you want to focus on everything that Zimmerman could have done differently, you want to discount the things Trayvon could have done differently. If Trayvon had survived the shot, he would most likely been arrested and tried as an adult.
Nothing to do with him being black. Zero. Zilch.
It has only to do with…
0:55 Dispatcher: “He’s near the clubhouse?”
Zimmerman:”Yeah. Now he’s coming towards me”.
Dispatcher: OK.
Zimmerman: He’s got his hand in his waistband. And he’s a black male.
Dispatcher: How old would you say he looks?
Zimmerman: He’s got button on his shirt, late teens.
Dispatcher: Late teens. Ok.
Zimmerman: Somethings wrong with him. Yup, he’s coming to check me out, he’s got something in his hands, I don’t know what his deal is.
((Martin is still approaching. Probably getting very close. By the “his deal is”, Zimmerman’s voice has changed from a relatively dispassionate recounting to a concerned note.
”He’s got his hand in his waistband” is the one thing that Zimmerman repeats from the NEN in his walk-through. He sems to think it’s significant. Suspected a weapon?
Zimmerman later claimed that at this point. Martin circled the truck in a menacing manner. He didn’t mention this in the NEN for some strange reason – particularly when he says Martin is ”coming to check me out”, Dispatcher: says ”Just let me know if he does anything, ok?
Anyways, circling or not, Zimmermann, **safe inside his truck** sounds very nervous.
Shortly afterwards he’s out in the dark. He shows an awareness that this person that he was scared of a short while ago could so near to him be in the dark that he would be able to hear him give his home address to the despatcher.
That’s why he should have got out of there ASAP.
Plus according to NW guidelines (and as indicated by ”We don’t need you to do that”) he should not have been there in the first place.
My bad for ”*see* up the path”
We covered this above. In the dark, what can give you away is movement, shadows, passing in front of lights.
From Martin’s perspective. Some guy in a truck stopped and looked at him when he came out through thre grassy area (the well-used informal pedestrian entrance) and started up RVC. The guy then drove on around the corner and out of sight.
When Martin got as far as the Clubhouse, there’s the guy in the truck again.
He passes the truck and goes down Twin Trees Lane. The the truck appears again. Oookayy, definitely this creepy guy is stalking him.
He heads off the road and into the dark central area that leads down to the house.
Now what?
Based on events up to now, the guy could well drive on down and wait for him again. If the guy just waits at the end and Marin keeps going down, there are porch lights on here and there that might give him away. (this is the extent of *see up the path*
Even worse, if the guy goes down there and waits, he might even see which house he goes into.
If Martin went a bit down the path and hid in a dark porch, he did the most sensible thing. Whether the guy gets out of the truck and follows, or the guy drives down to the end, Martin is safest if he just stays still up there. The reason he would hide in a porch near the T would be that if the creepy guy followed on foot, Martin would be unmoving and hidden when the entered the area.
He could just stay there for however long until he say no sign of the guy following or appearing in his truck down the end.
You say: ”If Trayvon had survived the shot, he would most likely been arrested and tried as an adult.”
If Martin had survived, he might have told his side of the story.
He was there *perfectly legally*. On his way back from the store.
He noticed some creepy guy in a truck stalking him. He went into the dark central path and his in a dark porch. The creepy guy followed and found him. He asked the creepy guy ”Why are you following me?”. They guy didn’t explain. He said ”What are you doing around here?” and he reached for his waistband. (( Holy Sh!t . He’s got his hand on his waistband?? Where have we heard that before? ))
Martin explains that he believed that the creepy stalker guy was going for a gun. We know that cops sometime shoot people who reach for their waistband, so why should Martin not believe the creepy stalker is going for a gun?
That is actually a very reasonable story.
Now for Zimmerman. His story is that Martin just plain attacked him.
Who to believe?
There are no witnesses. There is a girl who was on the phone with Martin and backs up his story. Zimmerman has no one to back up his story.
Additionally, Zimmerman appears to a very stupid and reckless person. He has completely ignored standard procedure for NW by leaving his truck. He was not even reminded of these procedures by the ”We don’t need you to do that.”
Additional, how did Martin’s phone end up 47 feet South of the Tee?
Additionally, Zimmerman’s account of being decked immediately and straddled can not be true, given that John says they both ended up opposite his porch, with both being horizontal on the ground when he first saw them. This might just be him being confused., but it could also point to him avoiding admission that he went anywhere South of the T.
The balance would be in Martin’s favor, but it might be that neither would be prosecuted.
Forgot to add:
The story from Martin and the girl would be that when Martin asked “Why are you following me?”, the guy didn’t explain.
Well, Mr Zimmerman, why didn’t you tell him that you were neighborhood Watch?
Again, Zimmerman would look stupid. Being stupid and reckless isn’t illegal, but if is results in somebody being shot, it might carry some level of censure.
Sheeesh! All that investigating and blogging I did back in 2002. I had forgotten all about it.
I’ve only just now been back over the bulk of it. There is some hilarious stuff in there. I encourage you all to read it. I’ve just finished laughing at the Builders Following, for example.
Mike,
In your Force Farce post, you say :
“George Zimmerman called the police and remained on the line as Martin spotted him and sprinted off, disappearing between a long row of townhomes. ”
“Sprinted” – That’s way faster than just “running”, right?
Meanwhile over on the Hannity Show…….
HANNITY: Yeah. You said — then we get to the issue where you said to — on the 911 call that he’s running. You said that to the dispatch. Is there any chance in retrospect as you look back on that night and what happened, and the nation obviously is paying a lot of attention to this–
ZIMMERMAN: Yes, Sir.
HANNITY: — trying to maybe get into the mind-set, because we also have learned that Trayvon was speaking with his girlfriend supposedly at the time — that maybe he was afraid of you, didn’t know who you were?
ZIMMERMAN: No.
HANNITY: You don’t think — why do you think that he was running then?
ZIMMERMAN: Maybe I said running, but he was more —
HANNITY: You said he’s running.
ZIMMERMAN: Yes. He was like skipping, going away quickly. But he wasn’t running out of fear.
HANNITY: You could tell the difference?
ZIMMERMAN: He wasn’t running.
HANNITY: So he wasn’t actually running?
ZIMMERMAN: No, Sir.
Skipping.
There’s also some odd stuff with CCTV at the clubhouse.
So many Elephants in the Room
http://zimmermanscall.blogspot.com/p/elephants.html
Even O’Mara in his summing up was forced to accept a 2 minute plus gap after the NEN call ended. He offered that Zimmerman might have been “looking around”.
It would have been wonderful to see Zimmerman on the stand and being questioned by someone as skilled as O’Mara.
Try reading my Verdict and Juror B37 page.
http://zimmermanscall.blogspot.com/p/verdict-and-juror-b37.html
Seems jurors thought Zimmerman was guilty of something, but the jury instructions prevented them from acting on that.
Dear Sling:
I’ll just address your last comment. Of course they decided on the jury instructions. That’s our system. Innocent until proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
It’s very wise, from your viewpoint, to limit your response to legal technicalities. Your position does not come out well when considered against actual events on the night. Even you short Force Farce summary has glaring misrepresentations.
The jury found him Not Guilty of the charges that were permitted to be put to them. This does not mean that they considered him to be Innocent.
The defense managed to persuade the judge the Zimmerman could not be considered the Original Aggressor, as what he did was *not in itself illegal.*
They ended up being allowed to consider only the fight, and not Zimmerman’s actions leading up to it. All the defense had to do then was assert thjat Zimmerman ended up unable to get up from under Martin and retreat, and that he a reasonable fear for his life.
Six jurors:
Three believed he was guilty of something, but were not allowed a way of returning that.
One had decided on not guilty before deliberations, but still came out to criticize Zimmerman’s dangerous foolishness.
One juror had been challenged by prosecution after saying that
That’s basically four of six who did not believe that Zimmerman was innocent. Legal technicalities prevented them from expressing this.
He’s legally innocent, but morally guilty.
This is an interesting article relating to the laws involved
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/amy-dardashtian/zimmerman-trial-self-defense-law_b_3594741.html
What if Martin had managed to get the gun and shot Zimmerman (in self-defense)? He would probably have been found Not Guilty of any charges.
Dear Sling:
“legal technicalities?” Oh, that’s right. Donald Trump didn’t win the presidency because Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. The defense didn’t convince the judge of anything. She was an anti-Zimmerman partisan from day one, and it was a matter of presenting the evidence to the jury, who decide guilt or innocence based on the law. Anything else is Huffington Post conjecture. As I noted, this is how our system of justice works. You should be glad it does. If one day you are accused of a crime, would you prefer the jury could decide your guilt or innocence on anything other than the evidence and the law? “I don’t like the way that guys looks, so I’m voting guilty!”
Your fantasy about the judge is > WJS <
If she was what you said she was, she would, for example, have allowed technical evidence that it was Martin screaming in the 911 call, and would have allowed the jury to consider Zimmerman's very foolish actions before the struggle. She would also have allowed a lesser charge to be put.
The 'technicality' was that even though the confrontation was caused by Zimmerman's stupidity and disregard for NW standards and dispatcher advice, this was not in itself illegal.
Four of six jurors said that he was not entirely innocent, but were unable to reflect that in the verdict option they were given.
These are facts.
The Saint Zimmerman – courageous NW captain who did nothing wrong and got ambushed, MMA'd by the dangerous thug who doubled back – is a crazed fantasy.
If I were as brainless as Zimmerman, and my deep stupidity resulted in an avoidable death, I would be greatly relieved and if I were not penalized for this. I might even think that there was no case to answer – but that would be due to my stupidity.
The conjecture about what would have happened had Martin survived is just an exercise, but made valid points.
What would be his story?
He was there perfectly legally. He was simply on his way back from the store and noticed some creepy guy stalking him. He went into the dark area and hid there because he was afraid of the stalker following him to the house and his kid brother. The stalker found him.He asked the guy why he was following. The guy didn't explain and his hand went for his waistband. A gun! In fear of his life he punched the guy and a struggle ensued. He tried to hold the guy down and stop him from using the gun. This is what John clearly described in evidence. He saw Martin on top and pushing down. Jon did not see any hands or blows.
The gun went off.
a) Martin got shot, but not fatally
b) Zimmerman got shot, but not fatally
c) Zimmerman got shot dead
Analysis for a,b,c:
Girl on the phone confirms Martin's story of the creepy stalker. That Martin lowered his voice when he said the guy was getting closer. That Martin asked, but the guy didn't explain. Immediate struggle sounds and phone (which was found South of where they ended up) goes dead.
Zimmerman very clearly disregarded NW procedures and dispatcher advice. His story about what he did, and why he didn't return to his truck to meet the cops does not stand up to logic, or the 2 minute 30 seconds gap between his NEN call ending and the first 911.
Clearly it was unintended and unfortunate, but was entirely Zimmerman's fault.
With Martin dead, however, his 'side' was at a great disadvantage.
He didn't have a voice.
The (totally imagined) 'racial' thing was a massive distraction from a proper cold analysis of events.
Dear Sling:
Forgive me, but I’m not going to debate such issues. The case is long over. Trayvon Martin had a voice: the prosecution–a special prosecutor no less–who had as many assistant prosecutors and as many resources as the State of Florida could provide. They had all the time they needed. They had access to all of the evidence and presented it as they chose. I’ve written, in detail of the Judge’s blatant bias. Jury instruction are agreed to by all parties, and the state still could not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. George Zimmerman was acquitted.
Something about Sling’s comments, and especially his attitude, had seemed familiar to me. And now I think it may have dawned on me why:
In the first couple of months of the case (Spring of 2012), when I was still in the process of trying to gather non-mainstream-media info on the case, there was a certain site that I checked out a few times. Can’t recall the name, but I remember one of the founders of the site called herself something like Big Boy Dog. Everyone at that site was in the dark about the real facts of the case, and no matter how much people like me went there and tried to reason with them, it did no good. Eventually I just gave up, realizing that no amount of researched facts or even simple common-sense arguments had any effect on them. In fact, it just made them more and more angry, and they dug in their heals even more.
So anyway, the reason I bring this up is that I’m sure I’ve heard Sling’s name somewhere before, and he sure reminds me of the types I debated with at that site. Hmm…
Pingback: The Trayvon Martin Case, Update 57: The Cash Keeps Flowing | Stately McDaniel Manor
Okay, leaving aside all the BS about should he have gotten out of his car, was he on duty, etc etc. If the cops had arrived a second before the shooting which person would have gone to jail? Which of the two was the attacker and initiated the confrontation?
Dear robin halvorson:
Quite so. They would have found Martin astride Zimmerman, mercilessly beating him.
Pingback: Stand Your Ground Against Fake News | Stately McDaniel Manor