home

George Zimmerman's Life and the Neighborhood Burglaries

Reuters has a lengthy profile (pun intended) of George Zimmerman's life and the burglary reports in the Twin Lakes community.

The burglary reports were posted on the City of Sanford's website and later removed, but not before they were reposted around the internet. You can read them here.

I've gone over the burglary reports several times, and checked their dates against Zimmerman's prior calls to non-emergency and the audio of the 6 or 7 prior calls published at the Seminole County Sheriffs Office. The last time I examined them was after the Affidavit for Zimmerman's arrest issued, because I was curious why the affidavit was worded so oddly:

....During the recorded call Zimmerman made reference to people he felt had committed and gotten away with break-ins in his neighborhood.

Why did the state cast it as a feeling, as if it was a misperception? So I checked. [More...]

Take a look at the report of a prior burglary on Feb. 7, 2012, just three weeks before the shooting of Trayvon Martin, where a suspect, Emanuel Burgess, initially got away.

Zimmerman was not the one who reported this burglary. The victim reported it, and two witnesses provided descriptions of the suspect. The victim said her home on Retreat View Circle had been broken into and her MacPro stolen. One of the witnesses who gave a description said he thought the person he had seen loitering at the victims' house had also stolen his bicycle.

The next day, Feb. 7, officers returned to 1540 Retreat View circle after getting a report that four suspicious persons on bicycles were hanging around the house. The report was not made by Zimmerman.

The cops approached the four suspicious guys on bicycles. One was a white male and three were black males. One witness identified one of the males as the one he thought had stolen his bicycle and had been hanging around Retreat View Circle the day before. He said "Burgess" hadn't even changed clothes.

In the report, the cops say they got permission from one of the suspects, Ransburg, who had a backpack, to search it. The stolen Macpro was in it. The cops decided to arrest all four. In the process, one ran away:

Myself, Ofc. Rivera, and Ofc. Hickley then tried to hand cuff all of subjects, however X took head long night, and ran through the Colonial Village apartments . Ofc. Hickley and myself secured the subjects, while Ofc. Rivera gave chase on foot after [X]. A short time later Ofc. Rivera advised that [X] had been apprehended in the Colonial Village apartment complex.

Seized from Emmanuel Burgess at the time of his arrest was a touch-screen phone used to deal in stolen property.

Here's the mugshot of his arrest on Feb. 7. Here are his charges.

Burgess was not caught on Feb. 6, 2012, the date of the burglary, so he got away that day. And he did run from police to the neighboring complex on Feb. 7. Does the fact that he didn't get away for all time justify the investigators' assertion in their affidavit that Zimmerman "felt" they always got away, as if it was an unwarranted belief? I don't think so.

Why would they write it up that way? It seemed to me they used the words "he felt" to cast it as a unjust perception rather than a fact, in order to strengthen their argument that Zimmerman was talking about Martin when he used the phrase "these a*sholes, they always get away" and "these f*cking punks."

It's all part of the "profiling" story the affidavit was selling, which as I wrote here, you can see is this:

Zimmerman, who also lived in the gated community, and was driving his vehicle observed Martin and assumed Martin was a criminal. Zimmerman felt Martin did not belong in the gated community and called the police. Zimmerman spoke to the dispatcher and asked for an officer to respond because Zimmerman perceived that Martin was acting suspicious.

....During the recorded call Zimmerman made reference to people he felt had committed and gotten away with break-ins in his neighborhood. Later while talking about Martin, Zimmerman stated "these a*sholes, they always get away" and also said "these f*cking punks".

....Martin attempted to run home but was followed by Zimmerman who didn't want the person he falsely assumed was going to commit a crime to get away before the police arrived.

There were many burglaries in the neighborhood. George Zimmerman, as part of his community's watch program, was aware of them. He talked to the victims and police about them. How many were resulted in arrests? Except for those cases, the others got away.

George Zimmerman didn't always call police because he was profiling. Compare the dates on the burglary reports to the dates of his prior calls. One example: Here's the burglary report of a break-in on August 3, 2011, near Zimmerman's home. It was the victim who reported it. Here's the report of Zimmerman's call to police that day. He says he's reporting someone who matched the description law enforcement gave him of the person described by neighbor-victim.

Every affidavit tells a story, and this one was about projecting motive onto Zimmerman. It's all his feelings, perceptions and assumptions, portraying him as someone who profiled people he unjustly "felt" and "assumed' were criminals. Whatever happened to objectively stating the facts? Apparently they don't count for much in the state prosecutor's office.

< New Season of American Guns on Discovery Channel | Thursday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Strikes me... (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by bmaz on Wed Apr 25, 2012 at 09:21:07 PM EST
    It strikes me that it matters not whether Zimmerman was actively involved in the previous reports. What matters is whether Zimmerman was aware of them and there was some greater "neighborhood" cognizance of them.  At this point, it is hard to believe he would not have been. That coupled with the black woman who said words to the effect of "Listen, you have to understand, what George was describing was, in fact real" is just, frankly, killer material for the defense. I liked the defense case before; I like even more now.  

    Agree and I was adding (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Apr 25, 2012 at 09:29:54 PM EST
    that to the post as you were writing this. See the part about the August 3, 2011 burglary report and August 3, 2011 911 call I just added.

    Parent
    How does it help? (none / 0) (#19)
    by expy on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 01:33:41 AM EST
    Seems to me that background only bolsters the prosecution's ability to demonstrate Zimmerman's actions. If Zimmerman's goal was to prevent other would-be burglars from getting away, then it just all the more likely that would have made an overt attempt to apprehend or stop Martin.

    Parent
    not at all (none / 0) (#21)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 01:53:48 AM EST
    he did what he was told was the responsible thing to do -- he called police dispatch to report a suspicious person.

    There are no prior instances of him chasing a suspicious person rather than contacting the police and requesting they check out the situation.

    We don't know yet what went awry after that. But there appears to be nothing in his history to suggest he would try to apprehend someone on his own.

    Parent

    Thanks (none / 0) (#39)
    by Darby on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 09:18:37 AM EST
    for this observation.

    Parent
    Not on Foot (none / 0) (#57)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 10:50:08 AM EST
    I don't think there are any other examples of Zimmerman pursuing a suspect on foot. There are at least two of him using his vehicle to pursue another vehicle, calling police at the same time. One occasion led to the arrest of a shoplifter. In the other case I think he accused the other driver of spitting at him, and the other driver filed a complaint against Zimmerman for tailgating.

    It is true that he did not attempt an apprehension in either case.

    Parent

    Exactly (none / 0) (#61)
    by Doug1111 on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 11:23:41 AM EST
    Exactly.

    I think all Zimmerman was trying to do was keep Trayvon in sight so that he could tell police where he was when they arrived.  That's what it sounded like his aim was on his 911 call.

    Even the chimerical DeeDee (whom Crump wouldn't even let reporters speak to directly but rather made a recording of her no doubt highly rehearsed answers to his questions to play for play along for access Gutman at the local ABC news station) said it was Trayvon who first verbally confronted Zimmerman by saying (she said) "why are you following me?"  (Pesonally I think that's a cleaned up by Crump version of what Zimmerman says Trayvon confronted him with: "You have a problem?")

    It certainly helps as to rebutting the profiling aspect of Crump's and from him Corey's narrative that in fact all but one of the preps of the many burglaries and attempted burglaries over the last year when seen and by far most were were black.  

    But that whole narrative is largely just emotional anyway. Not that emotions don't matter esp. with juries.  Considering race as one factor among several in profiling whether someone seems suspicious is not illegal, nor is following them for a reasonable amount of time due to suspicion.  Neither gave Trayvon the right to punch Zimmerman, break his nose, repeatedly bash his head against the cement sidewalk, and keep on punching him while pinning him down prone on the ground sitting on his chest while Zimmerman is screaming help directly to Johns, all of which (except for the beginning of the fight) eyewitness John saw and heard.  Another 13yo eyewitness who was further away corroborates part of that and contradicts none of it.  No eyewitness contradicts any of it.

    I can't see how this prosecution survives the immunity hearing.  If it doesn't Crump loses his opportunity for a civil suit payday since a civil suit will be barred.  

    Parent

    Chemerical? You're saying she's made up? (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Angel on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 11:37:24 AM EST
    And why should she speak to reporters?  The only people she has an obligation to speak with are the investigators.  

    Parent
    She refused to speak to any of the (none / 0) (#66)
    by rjarnold on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 11:42:24 AM EST
    investigators until April. Once the Martin family's lawyers announced her as a key witness, the investigators tried to talk with her, but she avoided them until some time in April.

    Parent
    Did I say anything about when she spoke (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Angel on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 11:49:53 AM EST
    with anyone?  I've read the timelines like everyone else.  I'm saying she isn't "made up" as he implied in his statement.  I also said she had an obligation to speak to the investigators - NOT THE REPORTERS.  Capice?  

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#92)
    by Doug1111 on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 12:33:40 PM EST
    she isn't made up but what she's had to say may very well have been by Crump "for the greater good of justice".  It's very suspicious that he didn't want reporters speaking to her, but hugely wanted them to hear a recording of her speaking to Crump.  Sure looks like a well rehearsed story to me.

    Parent
    She had no obligation to speak to (none / 0) (#73)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 11:55:39 AM EST
    investigators.  

    Parent
    I'm sure that's correct, although I believe she (none / 0) (#78)
    by Angel on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 12:02:44 PM EST
    had a moral obligation to talk to investigators. Still, she had no obligation to speak with the reporters, that was the point I was trying to make.

    Parent
    Not true (none / 0) (#93)
    by Doug1111 on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 12:34:49 PM EST
    They can subpoena her as can O'Mara.

    Parent
    Until Then (none / 0) (#96)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 12:40:17 PM EST
    Until someone gets a subpoena there is no legal obligation to talk to them.

    Parent
    Assuming facts not in evidence. Have not (none / 0) (#97)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 12:43:36 PM EST
    read she has been subpoenaed by anyone.  

    Parent
    I'm (2.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Doug1111 on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 01:09:43 PM EST
    just saying that Crump shielding her from even sympathetic reporters degree of "cross examination" questioning is suspicious to me as to how much of her story is made up by Crump.

    Parent
    Rampant fact free speculation and embellishment (5.00 / 0) (#74)
    by ks on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 11:55:49 AM EST
    It's remarkable what is allowed on this topic and what is not.

    But I remain interested in this part:

    "Neither gave Trayvon the right to punch Zimmerman, break his nose, repeatedly bash his head against the cement sidewalk, and keep on punching him while pinning him down prone on the ground sitting on his chest while Zimmerman is screaming...

    So, if the above is true, explain to me how Zimmerman managed to keep Trayvon from getting his gun, get his gun and shoot Trayvon?  According to the emotional narrative you've laid out here (you even have Trayvon sitting on Zimmerman's chest!?), that seems rather improbable.

    Parent

    I represented a law enforcement (none / 0) (#89)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 12:18:39 PM EST
    officer who was on his back with another man on top of him.  Officer's gun was out of the holster.  He shot the other man--but not in the chest.  Entry wounds were at man's side and at back of neck.  The man survived and is actually in pretty good shape now.  

    Parent
    I hear you (5.00 / 0) (#94)
    by ks on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 12:36:27 PM EST
    But, in your case, that's a trained LE professional and even then is sounds fortuitious.  Also, note the dramatic, and specific, details given to Z's story.  According to that, he's in no condition to do anything.  

    Parent
    What (none / 0) (#129)
    by Doug1111 on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 02:02:47 PM EST
    do you mean he was in no position to do anyting?

    That's ridiculous.

    You're evidently looking at this with a very prejudiced eye.

    Parent

    From the guy who claimed ... (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 02:12:58 PM EST
    ... this as fact:

    Neither gave Trayvon the right to punch Zimmerman, break his nose, repeatedly bash his head against the cement sidewalk, and keep on punching him while pinning him down prone on the ground sitting on his chest while Zimmerman is screaming

    ... this is pretty funny.

    You're evidently looking at this with a very prejudiced eye.


    Parent
    What indeed (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by ks on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 03:27:32 PM EST
    I said no condition not no position.  

    Also, YOU are the one claiming that Trayvon had Zimmerman pinned to the ground and was sitting on his chest.  

    Parent

    Not emotional at all. It's what the evidence (none / 0) (#95)
    by Doug1111 on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 12:40:03 PM EST
    points to what the truth was.  

    Eyewitness John saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman in a red sweater doing the things I said above. He didn't see the start of the fight though.

    That's what his brother told Piers Morgan he said happened.

    Don't know exactly how Zimmerman got to his gun first.  It's not implausible though.  Trayvon was busy using his hands in punching Zimmerman, who could have managed to push Trayvon partly leaning to one side. That would explain why Trayvon was face down on the ground but not on top of Zimmerman bloodying his sweater etc.  


    Parent

    No, it's just your speculation (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by ks on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 01:56:07 PM EST
    That you are trying to dress up as "...pointing to the truth".  Much like your comments about Trayvon's friend.

    Parent
    Wrong. (none / 0) (#130)
    by Doug1111 on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 02:03:30 PM EST
    I was responding to (none / 0) (#28)
    by expy on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 04:14:01 AM EST
    the observation that:
    What matters is whether Zimmerman was aware of them and there was some greater "neighborhood" cognizance of them

    Zimmerman is caught on tape referring to "a$$holes" that always get away and "punks".

    I just don't see how it matter whether or not his opinion was grounded on actual events in his local community. It seems to me that evidence that other burglars got away, or that young black men burglarized other homes, or that Zimmerman's bike was stolen off his front porch only provides more potential support for a prosecution arguments as to Zimmerman's motives.

    In any case, I don't see that any of this would be admissible or relevant at trial.  

    Parent

    State of mind (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 08:59:03 AM EST
    Zimmerman's state of mind will be a big issue at trial, and it's an exception to the general rule against hearsay evidence.

    That being said, the fact that Zimmerman was aware of these other crimes, along with his statements to the dispatcher (i.e. "f***ing punks", "these a$$h0les, they always get away") clearly indicate, IMO, that Zimmerman believed Martin was one of those "punks" or "a$$h0les" that "always get away".  The alternative - that Zimmerman was not referring to Martin but was referring only to those other suspects while discussing Martin with the dispatcher - makes no sense.

    I think all of these statements as well as evidence that he was aware of these prior crimes will be admitted.

    Parent

    Not exactly (none / 0) (#64)
    by Doug1111 on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 11:39:15 AM EST
    I see no evidence from the 911 tape or elsewhere that Zimmerman was convinced Trayvon was on a burglary or scouting mission, rather he suspected or strongly suspected he might be.  He based that on him wandering around looking at houses he said, appearing to be possibly on drugs, taking his time in the rain, and yeah probably also on his being a young black guy in a hoodie, though he didn't say that.  

    There's nothing illegal about taking that last into consideration as a factor. It's especially understandable given the history of a large number of burglaries and attempted burglaries in his neighborhood all committed by young black guys when the perps were seen, which was most of the time.

    Parent

    You keep saying ... (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 12:55:11 PM EST
    ... Zimmerman's actions (apart from, arguaby, the shooting) weren't "illegal".

    I'm still trying to find someone who's arguing they are.

    BTW -

    I see no evidence from the 911 tape or elsewhere that Zimmerman was convinced Trayvon was on a burglary or scouting mission, rather he suspected or strongly suspected he might be.

    What's the distinction?  What is the difference between Zimmerman being "convinced" that Martin was "on a burglary or scouting mission", versus he "suspected" or "strongly suspected" he was?

    All of the things you mentioned indicate that he believed it was likely that Martin was doing something wrong, let alone the fact that he called the police in the first place.  Then there's the fact that, while describing Martin's actions, he said "These assholes. They always get away." and "..f#^king punks".

    Parent

    The difference (2.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Doug1111 on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 01:16:25 PM EST
    is Zimmerman's state of mind.

    It's even less likely that he'd be the first one to punch in the fight if he wasn't sure Trayvon was on a burglary mission.

    I'd like someone to explain to me a plausible scenario given what we know about the facts where Zimmerman would want to start the physical fight.

    As I've said even DeeDee says that it was Trayvon who started the verbal confrontation by hearing him on his cell phone say to GZ "Why are you following me?"

    We don't even have any other instance from the many times when GZ has phoned in suspicious looking characters where he followed one closely on foot and at least on instance where he told the dispatcher he didn't want to get too close or something like that.  

    Zimmerman had zero history of confronting those he suspected in any way but only observing them and sometimes following them after calling police.

    Parent

    Apart from the hair-splitting ... (none / 0) (#134)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 02:09:57 PM EST
    ... between Zimmerman being "convinced" that Martin was doing something wrong and Martin "suspecting or strongly suspecting" Martin was doing something wrong, how do you reconcile the fact that Zimmerman - while describing Martin's actions to the dispatcher - "These assholes. They always get away." and "..f#^king punks"?  You don't think that shows that Zimmerman was convinced that Martin was doing something wrong?

    Parent
    Trayvon's State of Mind (none / 0) (#194)
    by Raoul on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 05:01:41 PM EST
    "He wasn't just suspended from school and up at Sanford kicking it and having a good time," said Horton. Martin had only been to Sanford a handful of times.

    His fateful walk to the convenience store for a bag of Skittles and an iced tea on the evening of February 26 happened only because the teenager pleaded to leave the apartment, said Horton.

    "The only reason he got a chance to go to the store is because he begged his dad to go," he said. At the time, his father and his fiancée had gone out to dinner and to watch a basketball game, leaving Martin at the townhouse, according to Martin family spokesman Ryan Julison.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/30/us/trayvon-martin-profile/?hpt=hp_c3

    Parent

    They Get Away (none / 0) (#87)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 12:17:28 PM EST
    Not A 911 Call.

    The a**holes remark sounds like Zimmerman has jumped to a conclusion about Martin. Also 'punks', if that is what he said.

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#65)
    by Doug1111 on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 11:41:38 AM EST
    I think they will all be admitted as well.

    As will most of the information in the long Reuters article about Zimmerman's having grown up in a household where two black kids were frequently babysat by his grandmother, and his mentoring of two black kids, and his attempt to get justice for a homeless black man who was assaulted by a police officer's son. All state of mind.

    Parent

    I deleted my comment (5.00 / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 25, 2012 at 09:47:26 PM EST
    I can't talk about this with you anymore J.

    I'm done for keeps this time.

    I hope that's not true. (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by indy in sc on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 02:33:50 PM EST
    I get (and share) your frustrations, but we need you to keep commenting from your perspective.  Jeralyn's posts and comments serve a very important function and a necessary pov, but so do yours as a counterbalance.

    I hope you keep telling us your perspective, because your opinion is respected around here (if not always agreed with) and this is a case where more analysis rather than less can only be helpful.

    Parent

    February 26, 2012: date Zimmerman (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 25, 2012 at 10:49:42 PM EST
    fatally shot Martin.  Hard to see how Zimmerman was justified in following Martin because of what occurred 3 weeks prior.  

    totally. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by jpe on Wed Apr 25, 2012 at 11:24:50 PM EST
    the existence of a string of robberies has no relevance to whether Zimmerman might be keeping an eye out for robberies.

    Parent
    "Keeping an eye out" (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by shoephone on Wed Apr 25, 2012 at 11:28:35 PM EST
    with a loaded gun. Brilliant.

    Parent
    Nothing (3.00 / 4) (#115)
    by Doug1111 on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 01:20:46 PM EST
    illegal about it.

    If Trayvon hadn't started the fight and continued brutally beating Zimmerman including bashing his head repeatedly against the cement sidewalk having completely dominating Zimmerman pinning him down while on top him, which GZ's screamed repeatedly help to eyewitness John, he'd be alive today.

    If he stopped at a punch or two he'd only be prosecuted for assault and battery and gotten a suspended sentence that in most states would be expunged when 18 since he's not yet an adult.

    Parent

    Your comments need to be (4.33 / 6) (#137)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 02:13:48 PM EST
    prefaced with "once upon a time," as what follows is nothing more than a fairy tale.  

    There is no evidence - other than what Zimmerman is alleged to have said - that Trayvon started anything, much less a fight.

    John didn't see anything from the beginning, so even he has no idea how what he saw fits into what was happening.  He has said that what he saw when he made the call is not what he saw when he returned to his vantage point.  If I showed you a snapshot of something, you could probably build a story around it, but that wouldn't mean it would be a representation of what really happened.

    The only thing I think we can state with any certainty is that if George Zimmerman had stayed in his car, and waited for police after he made the call to the non-emergency number, Trayvon Martin would be alive today.

    For the life of me I do not know why comments like yours are allowed to stand as if they are fact, and not summarily deleted for misrepresenting what few facts we actually know.

    Parent

    Nothing in the comment (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by Doug1111 on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 03:05:25 PM EST
    you're objecting to stated anything that's contradicted by the facts we do have.

    There isn't proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Trayvon started the fight, which has the burden of proof backwards and is hardly required, but I think there is a preponderance of the evidence we have so far that he did.

    Even DeeDee says she head on Trayvon's cell phone that he initiated the verbal confrontation by demanding "why are you following me?" to which she says GZ responded "what are you doing around here?"

    Why would GZ start a physical fight?  It make zero sense.  He didn't sound mad at Trayvon on his call to the police dispatcher, just suspicious.  He knew the police would be there soon.  He'd taken gun classes before getting his concealed carry permit and would know that starting a physical fight when armed is a very dumb and dangerous thing to do.  What did happen could happen with all kinds of burdensome repercussions at the very least, as has occurred and occurred even prior to his arrest.  Worse the attacked could wrest the gun away and shoot him.  Zimmerman had never even verbally confronted any other of the many other many suspicious characters he'd called into police, sought to detain them, or questioned them, according to the Reuters article. Further Trayvon far from the angelic and harmless looking little 12 yo or so boy that Team Travon's Crump utterly misleadingly fed to a happy to go along mainstream media, was 6'2" and 160+ lbs athlete to Zimmerman's 5'8" 170lbs.

    Trayvon on the other hand had reason to be mad a Zimmerman.  He likely felt "dissed" at being profiled, suspected and followed. It's been my direct and indirect experience that many young black males are quick to feel dissed esp. by non blacks.  He was also on the phone with a girl he may have wanted to impress.  He didn't know police would be there shortly, or that Zimmerman was armed.  

    I just find it much more likely than not that it was Trayvon who started the physical fight, and not just the verbal confrontation according to DeeDee.  I think the judge will too at the immunity hearing.

    Parent

    Because he said "if" (none / 0) (#152)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 02:48:36 PM EST
    Doug1111  gave a potential factual scenario and said if that is what happened, Zimmerman did nothing illegal.

    We don't know yet if that is the scenario Zimmerman will rely on, but it is consistent with what police told the Orlando Sentinel Zimmerman said, and Sanford  Police later said in a statement the Orlando Seminal account it is consistent with what Zimmerman said.

    bq.. Zimmerman reportedly told officers he shot Martin in self defense after the teen approached him from behind, punched him and bashed his head into the sidewalk.

    Sanford police said the report was `consistent' with their evidence.  Acting police chief Captain Darren Scott said they've launched an investigation as to who leaked the information to the press.

    p. The commenter said "if" twice as to those allegations. As to the part about what Martin would have been charged with and sentenced to had this been the scenario, he said "in most states" and I don't readily have the answer, but I believe in Florida, an adjudication of guilty for any criminal offense makes the criminal record ineligible for sealing or expungement. As to whether Florida gives withheld adjudications for assault and battery, and whether he would have been treated as an adult or juvenile if charged with assault, I don't have any idea.

    Parent

    No. That is misreading (5.00 / 5) (#167)
    by Towanda on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 03:21:31 PM EST
    the sense of this sentence construction:  "If Trayvon hadn't started the fight and continued brutally beating Zimmerman. . . ."

    That "if" is not used hypothetically in this construction.  That is, the sentence confuses because it is ungrammatical, with not only the misplaced "if" but also the negative case in "had not."

    But once you cut through the clutter of the ocnfusing poor grammar -- I do this for a living -- the following is what the sentence says, if  written grammatically (still a deplorably run-on sentence, but I have added some punctuation, anyway):

    "Trayvon started the fight and continued brutally beating Zimmerman, including bashing his head repeatedly against the cement sidewalk, having completely dominating Zimmerman, pinning him down while on top of him, and GZ screamed repeatedly 'help!' to eyewitness John.

    "If Trayvon had not done so, then. . . ."

    That is, in other words, the commenter is stating that Trayvon Martin "did so" -- did a brutal beating that is only alleged, did dominate in a conflict that is only alleged, did pin down Zimmerman as also only alleged, was on top as also only alleged -- and the commenter also is stating that Zimmerman was the one who screamed, as also is only alleged.  After all of those statements of allegations not yet established as facts, then and only then does correct construction of the statement lead to an "if."

    In sum, the statement is that allegations at this point of a series of actions are facts, and they are not -- nor are they stated as speculation, opinion, etc. -- and they rather seem to favor one side of the story, the story of the survivor that still is only hearsay, anyway.

    Parent

    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#201)
    by Mr Tuxedo on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 05:12:56 PM EST
    There is a crucial and substantive difference between "If Trayvon hadn't started the fight" and "If Trayvon started the fight."

    Parent
    Wow - I think you need to revisit the (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 03:29:34 PM EST
    meaning of "if" as used by Doug in that comment, because this:

    If Trayvon hadn't started the fight and continued brutally beating Zimmerman including bashing his head repeatedly against the cement sidewalk having completely dominating Zimmerman pinning him down while on top him, which GZ's screamed repeatedly help to eyewitness John, he'd be alive today.

    is not presented as a potential factual scenario - not as I read it, anyway, and not, I imagine, as most people would read it.

    And, just so I know, aren't new commenters limited to a certain number of comments?


    Parent

    Heh, (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 04:10:56 PM EST
    Shut this guy down, quick. He's not toeing the party line! We want to believe what we want to believe.

    Why not just pile on by spam rating him with a bunch of 1's like so many other people here.


    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#202)
    by Mr Tuxedo on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 05:17:10 PM EST
    And, just so I know, aren't new commenters limited to a certain number of comments?

    Clearly your rhetorical question was not posed "just" for the purpose of verifying what you do or don't know about the commenting policy. That's an undemocratic, rather authoritarian impulse you gave expression to there.

    Parent

    and she makes the decisions. That said, I think she misread the post in question here. Not that that really matters, we're mostly just a bunch of anonymous internet blowhards with too much time on our hands...

    Parent
    Hard to see why neighbors can't protect themselves (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by lousy1 on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 08:20:26 AM EST
    The propriety of following Martin has nothing to do with the outcome.

    Could GZ legally walk walk and observe any activities in a public area? Of course.

    Were his reporting and observing compatible with a civic responsibility to the greater public good? Appears so.

    Its obvious that a fresh report of the location of the subject is more valuable than a vague one.

    Was his suspicion disingenuous? Certainly no evidence presented so far supports that contention.

    Common sense indicated that a malicious man would and could do a lot better job of framing an voluntary shooting while making his 911 call.

    Parent

    exactly (3.00 / 2) (#155)
    by michele on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 02:55:05 PM EST
    Not to mention that one of the recent burglaries was a hot prowl, meaning the perps entered the apt when residents were home. Very scary!


    Parent
    It's also (2.00 / 4) (#116)
    by Doug1111 on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 01:24:31 PM EST
    often said that Trayvon wasn't doing anything criminal.  He may well have been looking for a burglary of opportunity or been casing houses for later.  No good evidence that he was but none that he wasn't either.  

    Parent
    Oh, please (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 01:35:36 PM EST
    Proving a negative?

    I want you to walk to the store in your neighborhood and buy something.  Then walk home.

    Now what "good evidence" do you have that you weren't "looking for a burglary of opportunity or been casing houses for later".

    Parent

    Trayvon (1.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Doug1111 on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 02:10:36 PM EST
    had plenty of time to make it to the townhouse where he was staying with his dad from the time that GZ was on the phone with police to when the fight broke out.  It wasn't very far from where he was when Zimmerman called the police.  Maybe 150 years at most. Trayvon must have been wandering about, as Zimmerman says he was, looking at all the houses.  

    Parent
    We get it Doug. You've got it all figured out. (5.00 / 3) (#138)
    by Angel on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 02:15:37 PM EST
    It's like you were there that night!  Unless you are privy to some special inside information that hasn't been shared with the rest of us, your comments are nothing more than speculation - just like everyone else's.  The problem with this situation is that the one person who could help us all understand exactly what happened is dead.

    Parent
    Seriously? (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 03:16:05 PM EST
    So your argument is that, because Martin had "plenty of time" to make it to the townhouse after he fled from Zimmerman, this proves Zimmerman's suspicion that Martin was "wandering about" before (or, at most, 41 seconds after) Zimmerman called police?

    Parent
    We will know more (none / 0) (#209)
    by ding7777 on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 05:35:05 PM EST
    when the 7-Eleven tapes are released that shows what time Trayvon left the store and what he condition he was in (drug like as Zimmerman said?)

    Parent
    Zimmerman's Non-Emergency Police Call (none / 0) (#36)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 08:46:08 AM EST
    Zimmerman made a non-emergency police call, not a 911 call.

    There are two ways to verify this.

    One is to listen to the dispatcher answer the phone, and compare with how the actual 911 dispatchers do so.

    The other is the call logs. In the heading for each report, after 'Call Source:', you see either '911' or 'TEL'. 'TEL' indicates a non-emergency call.

    In the bond hearing, the investigator gets this right, and on at least two occasions a lawyer is corrected by the investigator or corrects himself.


    Parent

    He doesn't need justification (2.00 / 5) (#68)
    by Doug1111 on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 11:46:30 AM EST
    Following Trayvon for a reasonable period of time because he was suspicious of him was not illegal.  It's particularly understandable in that his neighbors had very much wanted him to be on and then captain of the neighborhood watch.  He'd been helpful to many of his neighbors in that and other ways before.  They looked to him for his help.

    Trayvon's committing assault and battery and then aggravated felony assault and battery on GZ because it pissed him off that he was being followed was however very much illegal.

    Parent

    But you do need justification (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by Towanda on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 12:10:20 PM EST
    for your final paragraph, which you state as fact, but it is pure speculation.  And appalling.

    Parent
    It's not pure speculation. (3.00 / 2) (#99)
    by Doug1111 on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 12:51:48 PM EST
    It's what Zimmerman said happened.

    It's also supported by the circumstantial evidence.

    Zimmerman did not sound mad at Trayvon on his non emergency police call, he sounded suspicious of him.  He knew police were coming since he'd called them to five minutes before the shooting.  Trayvon was 6'2" and 160+ lbs to Zimmerman's 5'8" 170lbs. Also it's really stupid to get into a physical fight with someone when you have a concealed handgun.  What did happen could happen causing at the least all sorts of grief for you, or worse the person you punch may discover it and use it on you.  Zimmerman had taken lessons in gun use before getting his concealed carry permit.

    Zimmerman had called in many other suspicious persons to the police, probably most of them black and hit none of them, nor followed any of them closely as opposed to in his car or farther away.  He hadn't tried to physically detain any of the other persons he suspected or called into the police.

    Trayvon on the other hand did have reason to be mad at Zimmerman.  He likely felt "dissed" for being racially profiled, suspected, and followed. Trayvon didn't know the police were coming or that Zimmerman was armed.  

    DeeDee, Trayvon's friend even says she heard TM on his cell initiating the verbal confrontation by demanding of GZ "why are you following me?"

    It's FAR more likely that Trayvon started the physical fight as well as the verbal confrontation, as Zimmerman claims.

    I think that definitely meets the defense burden of showing it's more likely than not at the immunity hearing that will be occurring.

    Parent

    1. How do you know (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Towanda on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 02:24:38 PM EST
    what Zimmerman said?  He has not spoken to any media.  Hold the Presses, you have a scoop here!

    1.  How you do know what Zimmerman said happened is what happened?  Call the Judge, cancel the trial!

    You don't know.

    And TL allegedly is against speculation, at least when it is not in Zimmerman's favor, but I hope  that fairness would apply, either way.  And TL's rule laid down on this is that you are to preface your opinion with, stunningly, "in my opinion. . . ."  Usage of iffy verbs and other qualifiers also helps.  Try it.

    Parent

    police confirmed (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 03:04:18 PM EST
    what the Orlando Sentinel reported Zimmerman told police is consistent with what Zimmerman told them.

    Zimmerman reportedly told officers he shot Martin in self defense after the teen approached him from behind, punched him and bashed his head into the sidewalk.

    Sanford police said the report was `consistent' with their evidence.  Acting police chief Captain Darren Scott said they've launched an investigation as to who leaked the information to the press.

    Of course that doesn't mean it's what happened, and while I tend to agree with much of Doug1111's analysis, it would be preferable to put more qualifiers in his comments to make it clear he's providing his conclusions and opinions based on information from public records and Florida law.

    I haven't read all of his comments, but it doesn't seem like he is relying on hearsay accounts of Zimmerman's father or brother who, like the Martin family lawyers , have an agenda. In the case of what DeeDee said, the only details have been provided by Martins' lawyers, so there isn't anything else to go by. Since the prosecutors relied on her statements at the press conference announcing the charges and in the affidavit for arrest, opinions based on her statements as reported by the Martins' are a fair topic and have been debated here since they surfaced.

    In other words, and again, I haven't read all his comments, Doug111's opinions don't seem based on speculation, but they could be more clearly stated as being his theory, opinion and conclusion.

    Parent

    Dee Dee's Voice (none / 0) (#164)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 03:19:09 PM EST
    ABC News has a few sentences in Dee Dee's own voice.

    Parent
    We have two sources (none / 0) (#184)
    by Doug1111 on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 04:34:00 PM EST
    for what George Zimmerman said.

    One is what the Orlando Sentinel said he said apparently leaded to them by someone in the Sanford police, and which the Sanford police later said was consistent with what he told them.

    The other is what Zimmerman's brother and father have told the press.  Of course that's hearsay and wouldn't be admitted in a court but this isn't a court.  They have a reason to try to be accurate as to what he told them but that doesn't mean they necessary have managed to be totally. It's harder to accurately remember in all details what you're told by someone that what you lived through traumatically. So I don't necessarily weight the details they say all that much.  Of course they're biased but then so too is George Zimmerman himself, DeeDee and Trayvon's mother.  

    Parent

    What on earth (2.33 / 3) (#101)
    by Doug1111 on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 12:53:37 PM EST
    is appalling about it other than that it runs counter to Team Trayvon lawyer Crump's media spin narrative.  It's what the evidence suggest by some margin.

    Parent
    You characterisation of the side that you do not (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by vicndabx on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 03:52:42 PM EST
    agree with (apparently) as "Team Trayvon Lawyer Crump media spin narrative" is, IMO, offensive.  I hope; should you ever be in a situation where a family member is killed under questionable circumstances, that you receive better treatment than that which you are apparently capable of.  Hopefully you wouldn't be in a situation where you were kept waiting for answers.

    Characterizing this as being about "sides" and "teams" not only diminishes the discourse here, it encourages the divisiveness you are complaining about.

    Parent

    I think (3.50 / 2) (#188)
    by Doug1111 on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 04:41:47 PM EST
    Crump has been so misleading about many things to the media as to amount to dishonesty.  That's what bothers me, not his vigorous pursuit of his client's interests.

    What's his excuse for peddling pictures of Trayvon when he was about 12 years old and angelic and harmless looking to the media for weeks as the Trayvon that was shot in late February?  What's his excuse for saying Trayvon was 140 lbs when police estimated or weighed him at 160, and leaving out that he's 6'2".  He also did his best to seal Trayvon's school records also in an attempt to paint a misleading picture of him.  That last is more commonly done, but it's still a Team Trayvon move.  

    I think but can't prove that Crump is all about a civil lawsuit payday and or fame in the black community as a go to lawyer rather than thinking it's likely Zimmerman will be convicted.  To win at civil trial in a case like this is nearly essential that the state arrest and try Zimmerman.  In doing so they'll be doing most of the work a civil lawyer such as Crump will need done as well.  

    At civil trial there will be a preponderance of the evidence standard rather than beyond reasonable doubt.  

    Parent

    Ridiculous (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 12:57:43 PM EST
    Trayvon's committing assault and battery and then aggravated felony assault and battery on GZ because it pissed him off that he was being followed was however very much illegal.

    You're making this claim as though it's a fact, rather than your opinion.

    Parent

    It's my conclusion of what (1.00 / 2) (#132)
    by Doug1111 on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 02:07:09 PM EST
    was far more likely than not, based on the available evidence.

    It's not some starting prejudice, unlike many of those who are utterly unprepared to be persuaded that Zimmerman was very unlikely to have started the physical fight.

    It stated the evidence for why I think that several times on this thread, and it's never challenged when I lay it out in detail, only when I refer to my conclusion as here.

    Parent

    You state it as a FACT (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 02:16:45 PM EST
    The objection is the the fact that you're stating it as a fact, rather than something that is simply your opinion.

    You may want to refer to prior threads where Jeralyn indicated that these types of accusations are not permitted.

    Parent

    Wasn't what (1.00 / 0) (#160)
    by Doug1111 on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 03:09:44 PM EST
    I was doing.

    I wasn't misrepresenting opinion as fact.

    I was stating my conclusion as to who likely began the fight, based on the evidence, which I've presented in detail several times on this thread.

    You need to make distinctions guy.


    Parent

    Your entire comment (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 03:29:49 PM EST
    He (Zimmerman) doesn't need justification.  Following Trayvon for a reasonable period of time because he was suspicious of him was not illegal.  It's particularly understandable in that his neighbors had very much wanted him to be on and then captain of the neighborhood watch.  He'd been helpful to many of his neighbors in that and other ways before.  They looked to him for his help.

    Trayvon's committing assault and battery and then aggravated felony assault and battery on GZ because it pissed him off that he was being followed was however very much illegal.

    Not a single qualifier or word indicating this was speculation or opinion, as opposed to fact.

    Parent

    A Real Suspicious Guy (none / 0) (#14)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Wed Apr 25, 2012 at 11:38:24 PM EST
    Hard to see how Zimmerman was justified in following Martin . . .

    Who has defended Zimmerman's decision to follow Martin? Some obscure contrarian blogger, perhaps. I honestly don't remember if I've seen such a thing.

    Whether Zimmerman had good reason to call in a suspicious activity report is another matter.

    because of what occurred 3 weeks prior.

    Was Zimmerman supposed to know that Martin lived in Miami, and had only been in Sanford for a few days?
     

    Parent
    Zimmerman calling law enforcement (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 25, 2012 at 11:44:23 PM EST
    on a non-emergency line to report seeing someone in his gated community he did not recognize:  no problem.  

    Parent
    Reuters story (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by SuzieTampa on Wed Apr 25, 2012 at 10:51:30 PM EST
    On the earlier thread today, I mentioned how this Reuters story also goes into his background. I hope this won't be off-topic because it's from the same story. The fact that he had an Afro-Peruvian great-grandfather, whose mother (Z's grandmother) lived with his parents, him and his siblings also will make it harder for people to paint Z as a stone-cold racist. Too bad the media didn't do these interviews in mid-March. But it's so much easier to cover news conferences and marches than to track down sources.  

    Afro-Peruvian Great-Grandfather? (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by indy in sc on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 09:21:02 AM EST
    That has got to be one of the biggest stretches I have seen in trying to argue against the possibility of racial animus playing a part in this.  How many people even know their great-grandparents names?  That his grandmother (daughter of the great-grandfather) lived in the house doesn't make the argument any stronger.  

    What makes anyone think that because a person is a minority (in whole or in part) that they cannot harbor racial prejudices?  Sadly enough, black people can and do racially profile other black people.  

    I don't know what George Z was thinking that night (none of us do), but I don't think racial animus is ruled in or ruled out by his own racial make-up.  

    Parent

    Racial profiling (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Doug1111 on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 11:57:18 AM EST
    Racial profiling is not illegal.  

    When not combined with probable cause for other reasons as well it can get evidence gathered by law enforcement officers thrown out, but that's it. Even there it's allowed as a factor in many many circumstances.  

    All that's besides the fact that there's no evidence that Zimmerman weighted race very heavily in his belief that Trayvon looked suspicious.  He didn't recognize him and as the neighborhood watch captain he probably recognized most or all of the people living there.  He was looking around at house GZ said rather than walking purposefully to somewhere.  He was taking his time in the rain.  GZ said he seemed to be on drugs.

    Parent

    Racial Profiling, Legal ? (1.00 / 0) (#119)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 01:29:49 PM EST
    That makes no sense, obviously anything one thinks isn't illegal, but when combined with an act, it most certainly is illegal in an areas that have hate crime statutes.

    So in this case, the profiling, while not illegal, will certainly determine if the act was legal.

    Obviously GZ saw something that made him suspicious, the question was is what, and so far race doesn't seem to be it.  But then again, there doesn't seem to be a reason as to why this kid was looking suspicious to GZ.

    We aren't dummies, a kid at night at a distance can only have so many profiles, which one did GZ use ?  

    I have rights too, and one of them is not to have a man with a loaded gun approach me because he thinks I look guilty.  I have a right to not get shot because some idiot thinks he is Dirty Harry.

    And the fact of the matter is GZ would be guilty of murder in every state but Florida and Alabama.  So don't act like he didn't do anything wrong just because this odd law might allow him to justify it.  93% of this country's residents live in areas where this act is considered murder.

    Parent

    Do Not Approach (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 01:39:31 PM EST
    I have rights too, and one of them is not to have a man with a loaded gun approach me because he thinks I look guilty.

    In a public area, you have no right not to be approached by anyone, unless you have a restraining order against that particular person.

    And the fact of the matter is GZ would be guilty of murder in every state but Florida and Alabama.

    Wrong twice.

    It's a myth that Zimmerman's defense at trial wold depend on SYG. He has an ordinary justification claim that should win him acquittal in any American jurisdiction.

    Over twenty states have some variant of SYG.

    Parent

    Unravel the Myth... (5.00 / 0) (#133)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 02:08:06 PM EST
    Without SYG the cops would not have let him go, which of course would have made this a standard case, instead of a media circus.  He has a date in front of a judge to argue SYG.  How are those myths ?   They are the basic for pretty much every angle of this trial.  Even the defense is going to argue it in front of a judge, they are not myths.

    Surely you aren't suggesting the standard self-defense applies.  What is 'ordinary justification' anyways.

    And I do have a right not to get shot by some idiot who thinks I look guilty, which is what I wrote a sentence or two later.

    And one has to assume that if he was going to question the kid, he wasn't going to just let him walk away if he didn't feel like telling him anything, which of course he has not right to do.

    Parent

    First of all (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Doug1111 on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 02:29:33 PM EST
    he was arrested by all common understanding of that term.  He was taken down to the police station involuntarily, no doubt Mirandized, and questioned for seven hours until 3am before he was allowed to go free without being charged for the time being while police gathered more evidence. That's what would have happened in NYC as well on the facts the police had at that point. Note that Zimmerman's injury, Trayvon's lack of injury aside from the gunshot wound, and eyewitness John's statement to them corroborated GZ's story, while no eyewitness contradicted it.  

    Some ear witnesses subsequently contradicted it but only on the basis of jumping to unwarranted conclusions as to whose voice they heard screaming help.

    Parent

    No evidence (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Doug1111 on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 02:32:58 PM EST
    "And one has to assume that if he was going to question the kid, he wasn't going to just let him walk away if he didn't feel like telling him anything, which of course he has not right to do. "

    There's no evidence at all that GZ either wanted to or did question Trayvon, at least until Trayvon verbally confronted him, according to DeeDee.  According to the Reuters article he'd never questioned, fought with, or sought to detain any other of the many suspicious characters he'd called police about before in his capacity as voluntary neighborhood watch captain, a service his neighbors were very happy and greatful that he was willing to perform for them.

    Parent

    Myth, Raveled or Not (none / 0) (#154)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 02:53:27 PM EST
    Without SYG the cops would not have let him go . . .

    We don't know that. A lawyer who comments at Bloggingheads says prosecutors often prefer to delay making an arrest while building a case, especially when the suspect is co-operative.

    Corey had the case for three weeks before charging and arresting Zimmerman.

    In any case, when Zimmerman was arrested doesn't affect his justification claim at trial.

    He has a date in front of a judge to argue SYG.

    No, he has a date to argue that he and his lawyers can prove justification by a preponderance of evidence. If he wins, he will be immune to prosecution or civil action (unless the state appeals and wins). If he loses, the prosecution proceeds as it would have before SYG.

    The immunity hearing is a consequence of the same 2005 legislation that enacted the principle of SYG, and the entire law is commonly known as SYG. However, the immunity hearing is logically distinct from the SYG principle. A defendant claiming justifiable use of deadly force in Florida is entitled to such a hearing, regardless of whether the justification claim depends on the SYG principle. I'm sorry, I know that's confusing.

    You have to distinguish the SYG principle from the legislation that is named for it. The SYG law includes provisions that have no logical connection to the SYG principle.

    What is 'ordinary justification' anyways.

    Jury Instruction.

    And one has to assume that if he was going to question the kid, he wasn't going to just let him walk away if he didn't feel like telling him anything

    One may assume whatever one wants. I don't assume Zimmerman wanted to question Martin, or to illegally arrest him.

    Parent
    Who May Appeal? (none / 0) (#179)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 04:21:58 PM EST
    An interesting legal question just occurred to me. If Zimmerman wins the immunity hearing, can the Martins appeal, with or without the state, because the immunity ruling blocks their civil claims?

    Parent
    I very much doubt it. (none / 0) (#180)
    by Doug1111 on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 04:24:43 PM EST
    It would have to be the prosecution that would appeal it and in the American system the prosecution ordinarily can't appeal an adverse ruling.

    Parent
    When does the defense get the discovery (none / 0) (#182)
    by Darby on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 04:30:44 PM EST
    Is it before the syg hearing? I don't understand why the prosecution isn't showing all their cards now? I thought they are required to by Florida law?

    Parent
    Appealing Immunity (none / 0) (#196)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 05:05:45 PM EST
    Prosecutors can't appeal convictions because of double jeopardy. That's the only restriction I know of on appeals by prosecutors.

    Losing an immunity hearing leaves the defendant no worse off, so no jeopardy attaches.

    I know the state can appeal an immunity ruling. I'm just wondering if private parties can also have standing to do so.

    Parent

    the martins cannot appeal (none / 0) (#181)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 04:27:38 PM EST
    a ruling in the criminal case. They aren't a party to the criminal case. The parties are the State and Zimmerman.

    Parent
    Apples/Oranges (none / 0) (#197)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 05:07:09 PM EST
    The immunity hearing isn't the criminal case.

    Parent
    Nope. (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Doug1111 on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 02:19:16 PM EST
    "but when combined with an act, it most certainly is illegal in an areas that have hate crime statutes."

    Frankly you don't know what you're talking about.  Weak fuzzy thinking.  

    Something which would otherwise be a crime becomes a hate crime when racial animus is a large part of the reason for committing that crime.  

    Suspecting someone in part because of their race, their approximate age, their sex, what they're wearing, as well as how they're acting and whether you recognize them as living in the area, is neither in itself a crime, not does it indicate that any fight a person somehow got into or any shooting for self defense or not was a hate crime.  Racial profiling doesn't necessarily indicate racial animus.  

    The truth is that everybody or very nearly everybody does racial profiling (including by self admission Jesse Jackson) in certain situations when they don't have much to go on and it could be dangerous or very dangerous.

    The police also racially profile white in some instances.  That is if they see a white guy or guys driving in a poor ghetto neighborhood they're gonna have heightened suspicion that they're there to buy or have bought drugs.

    The left leaning mainstream media like to make it seem that racial profiling is not only immoral but also illegal, but it isn't.


    Parent

    Wrong again (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Doug1111 on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 02:24:23 PM EST
    21 states have stand your ground laws similar to Florida.

    But stand your ground isn't even involved here, simple self defense is, which every state has.

    Zimmerman could flee before he resorted to a gunshot, which he no doubt didn't want to kill Trayvon, only stop him from smashing his head against the concrete sidewalk, which can kill you or put you in a coma, the last two of which are great bodily injury.  

    States without SYG provisions tend not to have immunity hearing before trial though. This prosecution is gonna get thrown out there because Zimmerman can show by a preponderance of the evidence that he didn't start the physical fight, and that he was acting in reasonable fear of suffering immanent death, great bodily injury, or a violent felony.  

    Parent

    error (none / 0) (#149)
    by Doug1111 on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 02:39:54 PM EST
    *couldn't flee before he resorted to a gunshot

    Parent
    Doug, this comment should be stated (none / 0) (#162)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 03:15:19 PM EST
    as your opinion.

    Parent
    Racial profiling (none / 0) (#153)
    by Doug1111 on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 02:49:30 PM EST
    From the Reuters article:

    "    Though civil rights demonstrators have argued Zimmerman should not have prejudged Martin, one black neighbor of the Zimmermans said recent history should be taken into account.

        "Let's talk about the elephant in the room. I'm black, OK?" the woman said, declining to be identified because she anticipated backlash due to her race. She leaned in to look a reporter directly in the eyes. "There were black boys robbing houses in this neighborhood," she said. "That's why George was suspicious of Trayvon Martin." "

    Parent

    the state is not alleging (none / 0) (#161)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 03:13:36 PM EST
    Zimmerman racially profiled Trayvon. They claim Zimmerman profiled Trayvon as a criminal. There is no reference in the affidavit as to race, and that is a clear indication they won't raise the issue.

    There is no evidence of racial profiling by Zimmerman. Or that Zimmmerman would not have found Trayvon's actions suspicious had he been white. Zimmerman told the dispatcher Trayon was acting suspicious and said why: he's standing out in the rain, he's acting like he's high on drugs or something, he's just staring around.  He may not have realized Trayvon was on the phone talking to someone since he was using a headset and his phone wasn't visible.

    Profiling -- for any reason-- is not illegal when done by a private citizen. It's police who aren't allowed make decisions based on factors such as race.

    But all available information points to race not being an issue in the legal case against Zimmerman.

    Parent

    Of course, black people can profile (5.00 / 2) (#217)
    by SuzieTampa on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 06:57:07 PM EST
    other black people. But this case became a cause celebre because Crump and a public relations executive in Orlando made it all about white racism toward black people. That's why there's been so much discussion of whether Zimmerman should be described as white, Hispanic, white Hispanic, half-Hispanic or the son of a white father and a Hispanic  mother. As in this very thread, some people blame white Southern racism for everything that has happened.

    Although I don't see African Americans claiming Z as black,  some do consider someone with a black great-grandfather to be black. Example: Alexander Pushkin.

    Because the 2nd-degree-murder charge rests on Z having a depraved mind, I think it matters -- at least in the court of public opinion -- whether Z was known to be racist or known to be anti-racist.

    People may want to check out Crump's other big case, involving the death of Martin Lee Anderson. That also drew attention as a racist incident, but those involved were acquitted, and the DOJ decided that the boy's civil rights weren't violated. But his family got at least a couple of million dollars.  

    Parent

    there have been unsolved burglaries (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by desmoinesdem on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 03:54:19 AM EST
    in my neighborhood, but I wouldn't want any of my neighbors making a habit of following "suspicious" strangers with a loaded gun.

    If I got a concealed weapons permit (easy to do in my state) and started following strangers around, how long would it be before someone I followed "confronted" me in a way that made me feel "threatened" enough to shoot? Probably not long.

    Right now Iowa code contains "duty to retreat" language, but if we adopted "stand your ground" like the NRA and Iowa legislative Republicans want, I could probably get away with killing a random stranger who rubbed me the wrong way.

    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Doug1111 on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 12:02:47 PM EST
    You couldn't.

    You'd have to show a reasonable belief that you were in imminent danger of losing your life, suffering great bodily harm, or a violent felony (such as rape).

    The word reasonable is very important.

    That's one hell of a distance from feeling just "rubbed the wrong way".

    Parent

    incremental escalation (1.00 / 1) (#193)
    by desmoinesdem on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 05:01:32 PM EST
    If I follow someone larger/heavier/stronger than me, and that person confronts me, and an angry conversation ensues, it wouldn't be hard for me to demonstrate that I had reason to feel threatened.

    When I wrote about this issue at the Iowa politics blog Bleeding Heartland, a longtime Polk County prosecutor told me that he has learned in 22 years of work that nine times out of ten, both people involved in a violent altercation feel justified in their actions.

    He is very worried that the "stand your ground" legislation would tie the hands of police and prosecutors when faced with any number of confrontations that become deadly through "incremental escalation." For instance, a fender bender leads to angry words or profanity, which leads to a clenched fist, which leads to someone pulling out a gun, which makes the other person feel compelled to grab a tire iron. Suddenly both people have "reasonable" grounds to feel so threatened that they are entitled to act with deadly force to protect themselves.

    Parent

    Why haven't we heard anything from (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 06:39:01 AM EST
    some representative of the watch program?

    Is it because George Zimmerman was the watch program and no one's hearing from him now?

    Is there still a community watch program?  If so, how many in the community are part of it?  Do they regularly patrol, or has the patrolling stopped since the Martin shooting?

    Was anyone else who reported crimes or suspicions of crimes also part of the watch program?  Were reports of possible crimes or suspicious persons called in by people identifying themselves as watch members, or just as residents of the community?  

    Did the watch program participants meet on a regular basis?  How often did they meet with law enforcement?  Who was in charge of setting up schedules for patrols?  Did people patrol alone or in pairs?  Did they patrol every day/night?  If not, how often did these patrols occur?

    Can't wait to hear how these questions get answered.

    Anne, I have wondered the same. (5.00 / 0) (#32)
    by Angel on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 07:28:19 AM EST
    I read the Reuters profile and learned that the neighbors asked Z to form a NW program.  Have yet to see what exactly that program entailed other than Z passing around some index cards with the phone numbers and emails for himself and his wife.  Were there any other residents enlisted for membership? Was there any training?  How did they communicate to the neighborhood?  Did they have shifts?  What exactly was their stated protocol if a watch member saw something suspicious?  So many questions and so far so few answers.  

    Parent
    Given (3.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Doug1111 on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 12:04:50 PM EST
    the numerous well publicized death threats to Zimmerman, I imagine no one is voluntarily doing neighborhood watch duty now while emotions are still running high about this shooting.

    Parent
    You go ahead and imagine that (5.00 / 0) (#123)
    by sj on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 01:48:42 PM EST
    Or, you can try and find out what "they" are actually doing.  Then you might understand the question.

    Parent
    Then address the questions I raised (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 02:22:44 PM EST
    about the program at the time of the shooting - I notice you avoided addressing that completely.

    How many people were part of the program?  Was the HOA involved in setting rules and procedures?  What kind of training did watch members receive?  Did they patrol alone or in pairs or small groups?  What was their policy about following suspicious persons?  What was their policy about being armed while on patrol?  Was there a schedule so that community members knew who was on patrol and who to call if they saw something out of the ordinary?

    Go ahead - take a stab at explaining why there has been absolutely zero information about the community's watch program.  We don't have to know who - by name - was a part of it, so don't run and hide behind "death threats" as being the reason no one is even asking these questions.


    Parent

    Don't know (none / 0) (#150)
    by Doug1111 on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 02:42:04 PM EST
    I don't know anything more about their community watch program than was in the long Reuters article.

    They gave the impression that Zimmerman was at least most of it.

    Parent

    two comments: (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by cpinva on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 06:59:06 AM EST
    1. for a "gated" community, that place sounds like a sieve, with pretty much anyone getting in who wants to. i hope those owners didn't pay a premium to live there, they got taken to the cleaners.

    2. as ms. merrit, a class "A" attorney, well knows, prior acts, absent being dispositive to the issue at hand, ordinarily aren't allowed into evidence. she attempts to wriggle around this unfortunate truth by conflating events to which she readily admits mr. zimmerman had no part in, but might have been aware of, with the instant case. the two (or more) are hardly mutually inclusive. of course, in citing the particular instance, she conveniently omits salient facts: none of the parties in question was found to be armed, with more than a macbook.

    "others" get away all the time, everywhere, making his community little different from every other one on planet earth. which makes him seem more delusional than rational. and, of course, in the instance cited, the alleged perpetrators didn't "get away", they were caught. presumably (following ms. merrit's "logic"), mr. zimmerman would have been aware of that as well.

    yeah, i fail to see this as compelling evidence on mr. zimmerman's behalf. more compelling is him being armed, and failing to simply await the arrival of the police, already on their way. mr. zimmerman simply sits in his vehicle, the police arrive, and that's pretty much it. sadly, his poor judgment led to a tragic ruin of two young lives.

    Obviously (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Doug1111 on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 12:07:38 PM EST
    you're not a lawyer.

    Unless he punched Trayvon first (and there's no evidence that he punched him at all) Zimmerman did nothing illegal before the gunshot.  

    The funeral director said there were no marks of a fight on Trayvon's body, other than the gunshot wound.

    Parent

    Not sure I follow (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by RKF on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 10:06:26 AM EST
    Not sure I follow the reasoning of the opening post.

    If I'm reading correctly, please correct me if I'm wrong, he seemed to be saying that Zimmerman's suspicions regarding Trayvon were reasonable in light of his knowledge of recent burglaries. Thus, the affidavit incorrectly used the term "profiled", which should not have been used.

    But I think the past episodes actually support use of the term "profiled" in the affidavit. Zimmerman had no knowledge that Trayvon had robbed anyone.  In fact, he didn't even have a backpack, or need to carry stolen goods. Consequently, it appears that Zimmerman presumed he was "getting away", and a "fuc=*& punk" on the basis of no more than he was a young black male, which, in my understanding is the definition of profiling.

    I suppose it's possible that he had specific reasons for believing that Trayvon somehow acted similarly to previously arrested individuals. But given his lack of specific knowledge of them, that doesn't seem possible. That comparison, he would seemingly have to know something more about the prior individuals in what had caused the police (or the other caller) to be suspicious.  

    To say that knowledge that other young black males have committed crimes makes one naturally suspicious of all other young black males strikes me as profiling.


    Zimmerman gave other reasons (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by rjarnold on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 10:42:37 AM EST
    for why he felt he was suspicious of Martin. He said that he "looks like he is up to no good", that he was "on drugs or something" and "it's raining, and he's just walking around, looking about." And when he was asked about the race, said "he looks black", so at the time he first found him suspicious, wasn't certain he was black. So he gave 3 other reasons for why he felt Martin was suspicious, before he could even tell for sure he was black.

    Parent
    So what (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Doug1111 on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 12:09:52 PM EST
    Considering race as one factor in being suspicious of someone isn't illegal.

    Hell considering it a major factor isn't either in a civilian.  

    Parent

    Profile (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by michele on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 12:21:58 PM EST
    the term "profile" is a cop term, a verb, to profile.

    I have profiled many people in my high crime neighborhood by observing their BEHAVIOR and detailing these behaviors and the suspects' description to dispatch via the NON-Emergency line (same as GZ) i.e. corner drug dealing or people casing the neighborhood looking for an opportunity to commit burglary.

    Racial profiling is a definite animal.

    In high crime black neighborhoods claims of racial profiling are common, making it uncomfortable and challenging for residents to report suspicious activity that might prevent crime.

    A typical example is the street level craps game. It is a simple truth that shootings/homicides are associated with craps games, yet most residents are unwilling to call it in since they are uncomfortable "harassing" black youth. Just a few weeks ago, three guys were hit by gunfire in a drive-by at the craps game, it was 6pm and lots of people were out and about. The victims did not actually live in the area, but return and use that "corner" because of its history and that residents are not likely to question their presence.

    If you live in a high crime area and been involved in community policing problem-solving actions it is easy to see through attorney Crump's strategy and manipulation by using the term "stalking" instead of a multiple of other verbs.

    Did my son "stalk" the perps who robbed him the last time, when he carefully followed and observed which apt building they disappeared into?

    I do not own or need a gun. However, most of the suspects I have profiled are packing, local data supports that assertion.

    In the Reuters story a black resident talks about the "elephant in the room"  reminding people that the suspects in the recent burglaries happen to be black.

    The other elephant is the attitude of "what you looking at" some black teens adopt,likely an extension of resentments and frustrations with police harassment or racial profiling.

    However, this attitude can create undue tensions and a hostile relationships between teens and adults. It is simply not true that one can avoid mistreatment by using the correct code words to engender mutual respect. Some of the kids react hostility regardless of how reasonable and respectful an adult acts.

    Just yesterday, I walked out of my front door down the stairs to the garage. Two teens were hanging out up my stairs. I said 'hi, can I help you?" in a soft voice. But that was not good enough, and one of the teens hollered the typical stuff of b..... this b..... that as he left.

    Parent

    edit (none / 0) (#151)
    by michele on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 02:46:45 PM EST
    Hey Jeralyn, as a long time reader but new to posting, is it possible to edit your post after publishing.

    Edit, should read "racial profiling is a different animal."

    Parent

    No, you cannot edit after posting. (none / 0) (#166)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 03:21:03 PM EST
    sorry Michele (none / 0) (#177)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 04:17:00 PM EST
    Even I can't edit comments. You can preview before you post though.

    Parent
    Zimmerman gave other reasons (none / 0) (#54)
    by rjarnold on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 10:42:37 AM EST
    for why he felt he was suspicious of Martin. He said that he "looks like he is up to no good", that he was "on drugs or something" and "it's raining, and he's just walking around, looking about." And when he was asked about the race, said "he looks black", so at the time he first found him suspicious, wasn't certain he was black. So he gave 3 other reasons for why he felt Martin was suspicious, before he could even tell for sure he was black.

    Parent
    The Feb 2 Call that's Mentioned seems important (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by dgwohl on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 11:10:14 AM EST
    On that day, he called the police, waited in his car, and by the time they arrived the suspect was gone. So it makes sense, to me, that this time he'd feel the need to at least try to remain aware of the suspect's whereabouts until the police arrived...

    Walking Home (none / 0) (#110)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 01:12:12 PM EST
    Remember this was just somebody walking home.

    I disagree

    Did the police deploy helicopters and bloodhounds for previous 'suspicious person' reports at The Retreat at Twin Lakes?

    Following a suspect is a bad idea because it's dangerous. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't help for the police to have the most recent possible sighting.

    Work on timelines shows Martin had plenty of time, to get home or to leave the neighborhood through the nearby back gate, before police arrived.

    If Martin was afraid of being tracked to his home, and distrusted Sanford police, his best course of action would probably have been to leave the neighborhood and get to a busy street, where there would be witnesses to anything that happened, and open space to see if anyone was following. Then he could have called his father to pick him up on the way home from the restaurant.

    Parent

    What are you talking about? (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by sj on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 05:07:54 PM EST
    Did the police deploy helicopters and bloodhounds for previous 'suspicious person' reports at The Retreat at Twin Lakes?
    Do you want to source that claim, please?

    And obviously you have never visited a friend in an apartment complex where all the units seem to be interchangeable and you are approaching from an atypical area.  I've gone off track by over two blocks and then was really confused as to where I was.

    I'm not saying definitively Martin was confused.  But your scenario about X number of minutes assumes that he knew exactly where he was and exactly where he was going.  That is a very, very big stretch.  To the point where you are pretty non-credible.  You might do just fine "on the stand" but I think you would have a harder time on foot.  In the dark.  In an unfamiliar neighborhood.  Where all dwellings look the same.

    If I was on a jury, and I heard an attorney try to account for a person's whereabouts down to the minute, under those conditions, the attorney would lose credibility with me.


    Parent

    Zimmerman's opening remark (5.00 / 2) (#205)
    by 12345 on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 05:28:21 PM EST
    Sorry to come so late to this thread, but unless I missed it, nobody seems to have focused on the fact that Zimmerman began his phone call to the police dispatcher by remarking that there had been a lot of break-ins (or burglaries) in his neighborhood recently.

    If the prosecution is trying to establish a certain state of mind -- and it is my understanding that proving the 2d degree murder charge requires proving a certain state of mind was governing the defendant's actions -- then this remark is not inconsequential to the prosecution's case.

    I seem to recall reading that in previous phone calls to the police, Zimmerman also began the call by offering that there had been a lot of break-ins recently in his neighborhood.  So perhaps it can be viewed as just a "pro forma" remark.  But otherwise, a jury might believe that Zimmerman's framing his own phone call that way, justifying his reasons for calling, is an indication that his observations were skewed that night by a predisposition to "see" indications of criminal behavior ("he's up to no good") where none, in reality, existed.

    Re "cornered" (5.00 / 0) (#212)
    by Mary2012 on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 06:04:04 PM EST

    Would ABC possibly mean blocking Trayvon's path?  If he's headed toward his home, and if GZ keeps moving to block -- that might count as "cornered"...

    KS I just found (5.00 / 0) (#215)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 06:46:35 PM EST
    and deleted the comment you are objecting to.

    Yeah, well. my neighborhood had dozens (4.25 / 4) (#12)
    by shoephone on Wed Apr 25, 2012 at 11:27:43 PM EST
    of break-ins and burglaries over a four-year period. DOZENS. My neighbors and I called 911 if we saw someone in the act, or saw someone that looked very suspicious. But none of us ever followed anyone, much less with a loaded gun. Imagine that.

    Like BTD, I'm done with commenting on this episode of Murder in the 'Hood, but for very different reasons.

    Sheep are shorn (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by lousy1 on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 11:52:20 AM EST
    Perhaps if your neighbors were mp proactive your burglary rate would diminish

    Just out of curiosity how did you confirm that all your neighbors refuse to follow suspected individuals and gather intelligence (vehicle etc)?

    How do you know that none of them are armed?


    Parent

    With all due respect, (none / 0) (#16)
    by prittfumes on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 12:10:59 AM EST
    no "Murder in the 'Hood" has been proven in this case.

    Parent
    with "all due respect" (none / 0) (#30)
    by cpinva on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 06:46:04 AM EST
    yes, it has been:

    no "Murder in the 'Hood" has been proven in this case.

    the only question remaining to be answered is if it was a legally justified murder. mr. zimmerman has already confessed to the act itself.

    Parent

    Mr. Zimmerman has (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by prittfumes on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 07:49:46 AM EST
    confessed to killing Trayvon Martin. What evidence proves that this was a "murder in the 'hood"? Every killing is not murder.

    Parent
    Nope (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by Doug1111 on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 11:59:52 AM EST
    A legally justified killing due to self defense is not a murder.  It's a legal homicide but not a murder.

    Parent
    The problem here is that (4.00 / 3) (#187)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 04:41:03 PM EST
    many people have already decided in their minds what happened: A racist thug hunted down and murdered a poor innocent little boy who was just coming home from the store with candy. In the words of a prominent African-American politician, the police told Zimmerman to "Stand down, leave him alone!" But instead Zimmerman "...hunted [Trayvon] down like you hunt a rabbit." Once someone agrees with that version of reality, any other possible scenario is considered an affront and an attack on Trayvon.

    From upthread:

    These "scenarios" heaping even more accusations against Martin are disgusting.

    Is it even remotely possible that Martin got mad that Zimmerman was watching him? I would get angry if someone profiled me. But what would I do about it? Run away while I had the chance? Or tap into my inner gangsta and make him wish he'd never crossed paths with me? If Martin actually had the chance to go home once he was out of Zimmerman's sight, but if, if, if he went back instead and started a physical fight, then wouldn't it be better for all of us to know the truth? Or are we just so much more comfortable with the standard meme most of us have been taught since childhood that we'll shut down anyone who contradicts our version of these events?

    Doug1111 has presented a very plausible explanation of what went down that night, and as a result people here have attacked his opinions, spam rated his comments and even suggested the moderator make him stop posting. Are his ideas really that painful? It's one thing to disagree, but reading the comments in this thread make me think that many people have an enormous emotional stake in this incident. For some reason, it's extremely important that it coincide with their version of reality. Is it possible that both Zimmerman and Martin acted like confrontative jerks that night? That Zimmerman could have and should have made different decisions, and so should Martin? In spite of everything Zimmerman did, could Martin have made a choice that would have kept him alive? Or is it true that he was "hunted down" and murdered and had to desperately defend himself? A better question might be: How can we determine what happened when everyone is already so polarized and immovable in their opinions?

    One thing's for sure: It's gonna be VERY hard to get an unbiased jury in this case.


    Thanks. (3.00 / 2) (#192)
    by Doug1111 on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 05:01:08 PM EST
    And yes getting unbiased black jurors on a jury to hear this case is gonna be very difficult indeed.

    There are certainly whites and Latinos biases on this as well, but far more who have open minds on it.

    I feel I do.  Though I know far too much about this case from what has emerged from the media and bloggers digging than would be appropriate to let me on a jury deciding it.  Jurors are as near as possible supposed to know only what's presented in court and to be able to weight that with an open mind.

    Parent

    I challenge anyone (2.33 / 3) (#191)
    by Doug1111 on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 04:57:39 PM EST
    who thinks Zimmerman started the physical fight to give me a plausible reason, given his police call and what Reuters reported were his prior ways of acting when he reported suspicious persons, why he would want to do so, or even follow Trayvon closely as opposed to keep them in sight so he could tell the police he knew were arriving soon, where he was.

    He doesn't sound mad at Trayvon but rather suspicious on his police call. He knows they're coming soon.  He took gun classes before getting his concealed carry permit.  He'd know that getting into a physical fight was a very dumb thing to do when armed.  He'd know what did happen could happen and that that would be a world of bother from him at the very very least.  He'd know that who he foundcoulld discover and take his gun.  Trayvon was 6" taller than him and about the same weight and in shape.  

    Trayvon had reason for being mad at Zimmerman since he probably felt "dissed" for being profiled, suspected and followed.  Hell lots of black commenters here and elsewhere have it seems been outraged not only at unarmed with a weapon beyond his hands Trayvon being shot, but also at his being profiled and hence they feel "dissed".

    You see (3.00 / 2) (#208)
    by Doug1111 on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 05:32:25 PM EST
    time and again nobody does.

    Given what we know about the facts of this case and what Reuters says about how Zimmerman handled the many previous cases of his phoning into police suspicious characters in his community, it's simply highly implausible that Zimmerman either confronted Trayvon or started the physical fight.  It's far more plausible that Trayvon did.

    Parent

    One thing that stands out to me is that (none / 0) (#6)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 25, 2012 at 09:57:28 PM EST
    we don't know how much of the language like 'felt' and 'assumed' they got from talking to Zimmerman at the scene. We have no idea what  he told them about his motives.

    Also, which suspect did he think Trayvon Martin might be? He was not in a pack of kids with bikes.

    I want to hear his reasoning in his own words, preferably from an interview that night. I agree the affidavit is spun to tell a story.

    Suspects (none / 0) (#7)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Wed Apr 25, 2012 at 10:31:26 PM EST
    It's clear from the tape of Zimmerman's police call that he wasn't claiming that Martin matched the description of a particular suspect.

    It's also clear that Martin wasn't 'walking down the street' for more than a few, if any, of the first fifty seconds of that call.

    I'll quote myself from an earlier thread, because I think this point bears repeating until it becomes familiar, like the realization that Martin had time to get home.

    If Martin was 'walking down the street', he would have been walking south on the stretch of Twin Trees Lane that leads to the main entrance.

    Only a short section of that stretch would be visible to Zimmerman, his view of the rest blocked by a house. From the moment Zimmerman saw Martin, it shouldn't have taken anywhere near fifty seconds for Martin to reach the western bend in Twin Trees Lane and start walking east toward Zimmerman. For some of that time he must have been standing still or 'walking around'.

    After Zimmerman said Martin was walking toward him, it was about another thirty seconds before Martin seemed to pass Zimmerman's truck. That would suggest Zimmerman parked just after coming around the bend. Some reconstructions have him parked on the bend itself.

    The last point is important, because the further east Zimmerman was, the shorter the stretch of road north of the bend that would be visible to him.

    I think Martin was 'walking around' south of the club house, between the club house and the pond. From there he could look across the pond at the backs of several houses. The innermost circle of houses is arranged around the pond with their backs to it.

    Parent

    Zimmerman's State of Mind (none / 0) (#10)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Wed Apr 25, 2012 at 11:09:04 PM EST
    One thing that stands out to me is that we don't know how much of the language like 'felt' and 'assumed' they got from talking to Zimmerman at the scene.

    O'Mara grilled Gilbreath on that. Part of his answer isn't very clear, but he seems to be conceding that all the conclusions about Zimmerman's state of mind were based on the police call tape, rather than any other statements by Zimmerman.

    O'MARA: Zimmerman felt that Martin did not belong in the gated community and called the police. Did you get that from your conversations with Mr. Zimmerman?

    GILBREATH: I have never spoken to him.

    O'MARA: From his sworn statements?

    GILBREATH: From his non-emergency dispatch.

    .
    .
    .                      

    GILBREATH: When talking to the police dispatcher, I believe he indicated that he was suspicious.

    O'MARA: Did he use that word?

    GILBREATH: Without reviewing it right now and reviewing all the stuff we have, I can't honestly say if he used that word during the dispatch tape.

    O'MARA: And they informed Zimmerman that an officer was on the way and to wait for the officer, correct?

    GILBREATH: I believe so.

    O'MARA: And you would have gotten that from the 911 tape that has been heard?

    GILBREATH: The non-emergency tape, yes.

    O'MARA: Non-emergency, sorry. Now, I'm curious, you then say Zimmerman made reference to people that he felt had committed and gotten away with things in the neighborhood. What was that that gave you that indication?

    GILBREATH: I think he said the second line that you -- before you stopped, part of that is included in that statement.



    Parent
    GZ knew the right thing to do Feb 2, 2012 (none / 0) (#17)
    by Mary2012 on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 01:06:06 AM EST
    So, why didn't he do the same thing February 26th?

    From the article:

    On February 2, 2012, Zimmerman placed a call to Sanford police after spotting a young black man he recognized peering into the windows of a neighbor's empty home, according to several friends and neighbors.

    "I don't know what he's doing. I don't want to approach him, personally" Zimmerman said in the call, which was recorded. The dispatcher advised him that a patrol car was on the way. By the time police arrived, according to the dispatch report, the suspect had fled."

    -------------------

    The fact of the matter is that there is a reason for protocol, it's nothing that was arrived at 'willy-nilly' over the course of history and if Zimmerman had followed it February 26th, he wouldn't be in the situation he now finds himself.  


    From what is "known" (none / 0) (#20)
    by Mary2012 on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 01:36:28 AM EST
    -- we've been discussing the mechanics of what happened that night from what is "known", i.e., reports of statements/accounts, calls to 911/411,and so forth.  

    It seems safe to say GZ didn't stay in his vehicle, for example.  

    Parent

    Yeah, but that doesn't mean he -approached-... (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Gandydancer on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 03:43:17 AM EST
    ...Martin. He almost certainly tried to regain sight of Martin (a logical conclusion from his request to the dispatcher that the arriving officers call him -- and the dispatcher signed off on it, which puts the lie to the Affadavit), but both DeeDee and GZ seem to have TM approahing GZ.

    Parent
    What does Trayvon's friend say that (5.00 / 0) (#27)
    by Mary2012 on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 04:05:48 AM EST
      makes you think Trayvon approached GZ?

    Why are you calling her "DeeDee" -- is that her name?

    Parent

    Dee Dee (none / 0) (#38)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 09:01:54 AM EST
    One of the ABC reporters who has had contact with the telephone 'friend' uses that name for her. It has come into general usage.

    Parent
    nice way to diminish her (5.00 / 0) (#47)
    by sj on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 10:02:59 AM EST
    and make her seem insignificant.  Use a nickname.

    Parent
    Yeah... (5.00 / 0) (#49)
    by ks on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 10:12:41 AM EST
    Also, you can put friend in quotes as well.

    Parent
    that's the name (none / 0) (#172)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 03:47:48 PM EST
    used by ABC's Matt Guttman, whom the Martin family lawyers allowed to listen to her call to them. It's not diminishing her. It's the only name he had.

    Guttman has always referred to her by that name.

    Crump doesn't disagree that's her name. From a CNN transcript of an interview with him:

    I'm Soledad O'Brien.

    People from across this nation are here in our audience tonight to talk about this case and the questions that it raises. Questions that cut to the heart of a country that promises liberty and justice for all. Let's take a look at some of the evidence that we do know. You have talked to a young woman named Dee Dee, Trayvon Martin's girlfriend.

    BENJAMIN CRUMP, MARTIN FAMILY LAWYER: What she heard was not him coming to identify himself as any neighborhood association captain or anything like that. He said, what are you doing around here? As to suggest that he didn't have a right to be here.



    Parent
    I understand that (none / 0) (#189)
    by sj on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 04:48:55 PM EST
    That doesn't change the fact that using a nickname treats her less than seriously.  It does diminish her by putting her into the category of "just" a teenager who uses a childish nickname.  

    If they want to respect her privacy, I can get behind that.  If it's done in a way that proffers dignity and not teeny-bopper status.

    Parent

    I think Trayvon approached Zimmerman (none / 0) (#44)
    by Darby on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 09:48:21 AM EST
    because of the proximity of the shooting to Zimmerman's car and the point at which he lost sight of him.
    I can't see how Zimmerman spoke with the dispatcher for almost 2 minutes after he lost sight of Martin and appears to stop running, yet their altercation took place in approx the same place.

    How do you account for Martin having a 2 minute head start on Zimmerman, yet the altercation happened relatively close to Zimmermans car? By close I mean, if I am reading the map correctly, Zimmerman was parked in front of a building, got of his car and ran for a short bit before losing Martin, and the shooting happened  behind that same building.

    That is not say if Trayvon circled back and asked Zimmerman what the heck he was doing is any kind of justification for being shot.

    IOW, regardless of whom approached whom, I think the more important question, is whom attacked whom and if Z felt his life were in jeopardy.

    Parent

    More suspect speculation (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by ks on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 10:22:14 AM EST
    All this "2 minute head start" and "he had time to get home" stuff is fairly amusing spin.  Of course Trayvon knew that Zimmerman had lost sight of him and could have...oh wait..  We don't know that at all.

    Parent
    You have heard the tape (none / 0) (#127)
    by Darby on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 01:57:05 PM EST
    There is a  a close to two minute gap from when he stops running unil he hangs up with the dispatcher. At least as
    Evidenced by the wind noise and gz panting.

    Parent
    Stop it... (5.00 / 0) (#128)
    by ks on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 02:02:15 PM EST
    Which of course means that Trayvon "had a two minute head start" because he knew that Zimmerman had stopped running and/or following him.  Right....

    Parent
    I have no idea (none / 0) (#145)
    by Darby on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 02:30:10 PM EST
    What your point is

    Parent
    Sure you do (5.00 / 0) (#165)
    by ks on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 03:20:36 PM EST
    You are just avoiding it.  It seems others have gotten it.  

    Parent
    I agree as to which is the more important question (none / 0) (#211)
    by Mary2012 on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 05:58:02 PM EST
    I just earlier answered the approach question (according to my opinion, right or wrong) in more detail below in another post but essentially I was going by accounts of what Dee Dee said, i.e., that Trayvon was trying to lose Zimmerman; he succeeded in doing so and then all of a sudden, Zimmerman was back and he cornered Trayvon.  

    I also agree the injuries and whether he really felt his (GZ) life was in jeopardy are also more important questions.

    Parent

    Alternate Theory (none / 0) (#40)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 09:20:07 AM EST
    Looking at a map of the area, Zimmerman could have driven his truck west and then north on Twin Trees Lane, turned right on Retreat View Circle, and driven around to the eastern leg of Retreat View Circle, where the cut-through sidewalk comes out.

    If Zimmerman suddenly decided to do that, and meet the police there, it would make sense for him to tell the dispatcher to have the officer call him on arrival. Then he would take the sidewalk east to Retreat View Circle to get a house number, then walk back westward to his truck.

    Accounts of Zimmerman's statements to police are that he was attacked on a sidewalk while returning to his truck after getting an address or finding a 'street sign.' The 'street sign' version is mentioned by the investigator at the bond hearing.


    Parent

    Where is the "house number" version? (none / 0) (#43)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 09:44:03 AM EST
    Zimmerman's father said he continued to walk down the sidewalk so that he could get an address and specifically because "there was no street sign".  This matches the statement Zimmerman gave to the police, as evidenced by the investigator's testimony.

    Is there some other evidence that he was looking for a house number?

    Parent

    see the transcript of the call (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 04:12:54 PM EST
    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: Where you going to meet with them at?

    Zimmerman: If they come in through the gate, tell them to go straight past the club house, and uh, straight past the club house and make a left, and then they go past the mailboxes, that's my truck ...[unintelligible]

    Dispatcher: What address are you parked in front of?
    Zimmerman: I don't know, it's a cut through so I don't know the address.

    The dispatcher then inquires as to Zimmerman's address, which of course is not where he is and has nothing to do with where the cops should go when they arrive. The dispatcher then says:

    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 around there okay?

    Zimmerman: Actually could you have them call me and I'll tell them where I'm at?

    He had tried several times to explain to the dispatcher where he was and the dispatcher didn't get it. Example:

    When you come to the clubhouse you come straight in and make a left. Actually you would go past the clubhouse.

    Dispatcher: So it's on the lefthand side from the clubhouse?

    Zimmerman: No you go in straight through the entrance and then you make a left...uh you go straight in, don't turn, and make a left

    He didn't know where the suspicious person had run off to,  and may have decided it was safer  not to be standing by the mailboxes waiting for police to arrive but in his truck.  He may have decided he could explain his truck's location better to the police when they arrived at the complex than he could the dispatcher, who didn't get it when he had previously tried to explain.

    He may have been looking for a street address to give the police when they came, or he may just have been walking back to his truck.

    In my view, the transcript doesn't show he continued to follow Trayvon after the dispatcher said he didn't need to, or that he intended to continue looking for Trayvon.

    Parent

    Signs, Addresses, Numbers (none / 0) (#46)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 10:00:34 AM EST

    I'm just thinking that Zimmerman would know the sidewalk cut-through came out on Retreat View Circle, so all he really needed to complete the 'address' would be the house number.

    I'm also puzzled that there would be a 'street sign' so far from the nearest intersections.

    Parent

    Presumably, he would know (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 10:25:02 AM EST
    I'm just thinking that Zimmerman would know the sidewalk cut-through came out on Retreat View Circle, so all he really needed to complete the 'address' would be the house number.

    I'm also puzzled that there would be a 'street sign' so far from the nearest intersections.

    That, along with the fact that there were only 3 streets in the development where he lived, would explain why the street sign explanation may be dubious, but it doesn't explain why Zimmerman and his father both said he was looking for a "street sign".

    Parent

    Against a Popular Theory (none / 0) (#45)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 09:53:06 AM EST
    There's a problem with the theory that Zimmerman's sudden decision against a mailbox meeting indicates he was still after Martin. If Zimmerman was hell-bent on not letting Martin 'get away', he would have cut the call short and started running again. He stayed on the phone for another minute and a half, during which Martin could have been getting a huge head start.

    Listening to that part of the call, I think Zimmerman speaks as slowly and deliberately as he does earlier in the call. I hear no sign of impatience in his voice.

    Zimmerman's decision against the mailbox meeting sounds spur-of-the-moment, not the result of a fixed determination against letting Martin 'get away'.


    Parent

    Not a problem (5.00 / 0) (#58)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 10:53:52 AM EST
    There's a problem with the theory that Zimmerman's sudden decision against a mailbox meeting indicates he was still after Martin. If Zimmerman was hell-bent on not letting Martin 'get away', he would have cut the call short and started running again. He stayed on the phone for another minute and a half, during which Martin could have been getting a huge head start.

    Zimmerman could just as easily stopped running because he didn't think he would be able to keep up with him, or because he lost sight of him.  In fact, right around the same time that the wind/breathing noise stops Zimmerman changes his description from present tense ("He's running" - 2:08) to past tense ("He ran." - 2:35), suggesting he could no longer see him.  Not to mention his comment about a minute later ("It's a home. It's XXXX - oh, crap, I don't want to give it out.  I don't know where this kid is." - 3:40), which indicates he's still looking for Martin.

    Parent

    Zimmerman Stopped Running (none / 0) (#62)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 11:35:03 AM EST
     
    In fact, right around the same time that the wind/breathing noise stops Zimmerman changes his description from present tense ("He's running" - 2:08) to past tense ("He ran." - 2:35), suggesting he could no longer see him.

    I wouldn't call 27 seconds later 'right around'.

    If he lost sight of Martin, that was all the more reason for him to run to the last place he saw him.

    Remarkable coincidence that just when the dispatcher said Zimmerman didn't need to follow Martin, and Zimmerman agreed, Zimmerman stopped running for some other reason.

    ("It's a home. It's XXXX - oh, crap, I don't want to give it out.  I don't know where this kid is." - 3:40), which indicates he's still looking for Martin.

    It indicates no such thing. It suggests that he hasn't gotten back in his truck and is close to some houses.

    I don't mean that anything excludes the possibility that Zimmerman is looking for Martin at this point. I just don't see anything that excludes the possibility that he isn't.

    Parent

    It's not 27 seconds (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 12:15:28 PM EST
    Here's an unredacted version of the call.

    "$hit, he's running" - 2:08 (sounds of him getting out of truck, followed by wind noise while talking)

    Dispatcher:  "We don't need you to do that (follow him) - 2:27

    "He ran" - 2:39

    Wind noise stops - 2:41

    The wind noise stops immediately (1-2 seconds) after Zimmerman starts describing Martin's movement in the past tense (i.e. "He ran").


    Remarkable coincidence that just when the dispatcher said Zimmerman didn't need to follow Martin, and Zimmerman agreed, Zimmerman stopped running for some other reason.

    No "coincidence" at all.  The wind noise stops @ 14 seconds after the dispatcher told him "We don't need you to do that".  It stops 2 seconds after Zimmerman starts using the past tense to describe Martin's movement.

    If he lost sight of Martin, that was all the more reason for him to run to the last place he saw him.

    What makes you think he didn't run to the last place he saw him?

    It indicates no such thing. It suggests that he hasn't gotten back in his truck and is close to some houses.

    "I don't know where this kid is" - doesn't indicate he's looking for Martin, but indicates he "hasn't gotten back in his truck and is close to some houses"?  What?!?  He's specifically referring to the fact that he can't locate Martin.  That statement says nothing about his location (either close to his house or not back to his truck) or even whether he was returning to his truck.  It does indicate that he can't find Martin, the implication being that he is looking for him.


    I don't mean that anything excludes the possibility that Zimmerman is looking for Martin at this point. I just don't see anything that excludes the possibility that he isn't.

    Probably because that would be a logical impossibility - proving a negative, particularly when you're talking about "possibilities".

    Parent

    Unredacted Tape (none / 0) (#117)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 01:25:12 PM EST
    Thanks for the tape. I've been wishing for that.

    I've listened to it a couple of times, and I think you may be right. The moment Zimmerman stops running may be later than I previously thought.

    Parent

    Your last statement (none / 0) (#98)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 12:43:40 PM EST
     Zimmerman's statement (".... I don't want to give it out....") you know means he was still looking for him?? How fo you make that leap??

    Seems to me it means he doesn't know where Martin is and doesn't want to give out his own address because Martin could be close enough to hear.


    Parent

    Wow - nice clipping of the quote (5.00 / 0) (#107)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    You kinds missed the part that was in italics for emphasis - "I don't know where this kid is"

    Seems to me it means he doesn't know where Martin is and doesn't want to give out his own address because Martin could be close enough to hear.

    Yeah, I understand why you'd "leap" to that conclusion.

    Parent

    it doesn't change anything (none / 0) (#114)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 01:19:18 PM EST
    How does that show Zimmerman was still looking for him?

    Oh wait - it doesn't.

    Parent

    Of course it doesn't (1.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 01:31:32 PM EST
    Which is why you decided to omitted half the quote.

    Oh, ...

    ... wait ...

    Parent

    Hilarious (3.00 / 2) (#131)
    by ks on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 02:04:58 PM EST
    I guess it's ok for posters here to "edit" quotes to create an impression but not the media.  Heh.

    Parent
    It IS Hilarious (none / 0) (#156)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 03:00:54 PM EST
    Actually, the reason I "omitted half the quote" was because I was typing with one finger on a touch screen phone. By my point is still correct, and yours, well, is pure speculation.

    Here's your comment:

    It does indicate that he can't find Martin, the implication being that he is looking for him.

    Really?  It implies that?  No - the only thing it implies, is that he knows Martin is around somewhere, he considered him suspicious, and he didn't want to rattle off his address in case Martin could overhear him.

    Parent

    Guess that's your opinion (5.00 / 0) (#183)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 04:31:00 PM EST
    Mine is different.

    Your "point" is not correct, in that it's merely a different interpretation of why you believe Zimmerman meant.  You think his second statement ("I don't know where this kid is") the reason he didn't want to give out his address.

    I understand why you'd choose to believe that.

    Good luck figuring out that phone.

    Parent

    Agreed (none / 0) (#125)
    by Darby on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 01:54:11 PM EST
    Nothing to support the notion that he was still looking for him

    Parent
    There's no evidence (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by Doug1111 on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 12:14:12 PM EST
    that it was Zimmerman who approached Trayvon, rather than the other way around.  Zimmerman has said through his proxies that he was approached by Trayvon as he was headed back to his car.

    Even Trayvon's friend DeeDee who was talking to Trayvon on his cell phone says it was Trayvon who first verbally confronted GZ by demanding "why are you following me?"

    Parent

    According to Trayvon's friend (1.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Mary2012 on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 04:01:51 PM EST
    GZ cornered Trayvon.  She said Trayvon was trying lose GZ, he had, then all of a sudden (GZ) was back and cornered him (Trayvon).

    Trayvon's asking Zimmerman, "Why are you following me?" was a perfectly legitimate question to ask on his part.  It's not as though he punched Zimmerman; he didn't -- he asked him a question re why he (GZ) was following him.  Zimmerman got too close: instead of staying in his vehicle or following inconspicuously from a distance (and of course, he should've stayed in his vehicle), he got close enough that the person he was following was able to MERELY ask, "Why are you following me?"  If Trayvon was as you depicted him, he would've pounced on Zimmerman FIRST (caps for emphasis, not shouting).  That's not what he did.  He communicated verbally, "Why are you following me?"

    Since apparently GZ has "a right" to follow whoever he wants for whatever reason, I would imagine Trayvon should also have a right to ask, "Why are you following me?"    

    Once Zimmerman was caught in that manner (where the person he's following, asks him a question), all he had to do is say "I'm with neighborhood watch and I don't recognize you as being a resident of this (gated) community.  Do you live here? ..." maybe some small talk as well. Maybe he could've finessed it and kept the conversation going until the police arrived? Shown his neighborhood watch credentials, etc. I don't know -- he's the neighborhood watch guy with all the training. The fact of the matter is, simply put: he (GZ)was busted (i.e., caught... being inept? imo)

    Of course, this is how I'm viewing this.  It's  not rocket science, it's already been worked out: if you don't know how to handle yourself in the event such as the above, don't get out of your vehicle and attempt to follow.

    IMO, the tone of the voice on the non-emergency line (411?) comes across as (his tone) "Oh gee, I really wish you wouldn't do that, I really don't need that type of a headache tonight..." type of a tone. You all can say what you want that GZ had a right to follow Trayvon but if you listen to that voice.  

    BUT, did GZ, once busted, did he go the "I'm with neighborhood watch..." option?  No.  He either couldn't bring himself to be honest with a teenager that was lawfully going about his business albeit scared because he knew he was being followed.  No, what GZ did was demand "What are you doing here" (as though Trayvon had already done something wrong, imo).  A question Trayvon did not have to answer.

    Now, I don't know the layout of the gated community but it seems clear from his friend's account (imo; all of this is of course) -- and recall she said he was cornered -- he didn't & wasn't going to answer GZ's question and GZ picked up on that either by Trayvon starting to walk away OR forward to get around GZ.  And, that's when GZ decked him, imo.  Trayvon not only didn't answer GZ, he gave an indication he wasn't going to answer it.  

         

    Parent

    Cornered (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 04:39:09 PM EST
    GZ cornered Trayvon.

    ABC says that. They don't quote Dee Dee directly. The probable cause affidavit doesn't use that word.

    I don't know the layout of the gated community . . .

    I suggest you study the layout, and get back to us on how someone could be 'cornered' in the area where the fight happened.

    Parent
    Well said. (2.00 / 4) (#190)
    by Doug1111 on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 04:49:59 PM EST
    Its the anti Zimmerman crowd that keeps being inaccurate with the facts.

    DeeDee did not say cornered.

    As well I regard her statements with great suspicion.  She only came forward or rather was brought forward by Crump weeks after the shooting.  Crump had had plenty of time to coach her before she spoke to the media.  Only she didn't even speak directly to the media, they had no opportunity to question her.  She spoke to Crump who recorded it and played that for Gutman at the local ABC news station.  

    In contrast eyewitness John spoke to the police on his 911 call and directly to them that night.  He spoke to the Orlando Sentinel and a local news station the next day.

    In contrast as well Zimmerman spoke without an attorney three separate times.  They say his statements were by and large consistent and were consistent with the physical evidence and eyewitness statements.

    Parent

    I don't think (1.80 / 5) (#204)
    by Doug1111 on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 05:26:48 PM EST
    Trayvon was scared.  Get that little 12yo or so kid out of you mind.

    I think he was getting increasingly pissed at being "dissed" by being profiled, suspected and followed.

    DeeDee says he was scared but I think it was likely that that's what Crump told her to say and that he probably was anyway even if he didn't tell her that out of pride or something.  That is speculation, yes. But DeeDee didn't surface at all until weeks into this case after Crump had plenty of time and incentive to coach her.  Further Crump hasn't let the media speak to her or ask her questions at all, but instead made a recording of statements she made to him, and then played that over the phone to local ABC news reporter Gutman.  

    She says she told him to run, but that he said he wasn't going to run but rather walk fast.  If he'd been walking at even a normal speed he'd have had plenty of time to get back to the townhouse where he was staying with his father from the time when Zimmerman made his police call to when the fight began.  The distances were small.  See this:

    http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/evidence-that-trayvon-martin-doubled-back

    Parent

    I'm trying to imagine a 17 year old (3.00 / 2) (#210)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 05:39:49 PM EST
    responding to his girlfriend who just told him to run by saying that he'd rather walk fast.

    "Run honey, run! Get out of there!"

    "No, I'm just going to walk fast."

    Hmm, hmm.

    Nah. I think the lawyer has measured the distance against the 911 calls as well.

    /speculation


    Parent

    At most perhaps he was (1.80 / 5) (#206)
    by Doug1111 on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 05:29:44 PM EST
    a little scarred at the beginning of his noticing Zimmerman following him, is my opinion from the evidence.  With Zimmerman out of his truck and he could see how tall he wasn't, and with Zimmerman not trying to follow him closely it doesn't sound like from the police call GZ made, I think it highly likely that Trayvon realized he was being profiled, suspected and followed at a distance, and that that increasingly pissed him off.

    Parent
    How do you know (none / 0) (#42)
    by Darby on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 09:39:04 AM EST
    that in that case Zimmerman didn't get out of his car to try and observe where the suspect was headed? I am not sure what the difference if he observes a suspect from his car or from the sidewalk.

    Apparently at some point Zimmerman lost sight of that suspect, which is exactly what he reported to the dispatcher on the night Trayvon died.


    Parent

    O/T question and not sure how/ where to ask (none / 0) (#22)
    by Mary2012 on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 03:11:30 AM EST
    There are no "reply" buttons in "Reaction to GZ Bail Hearing" and "Court Unseals GZ file..." threads.

    It might just be my computer or are the threads now closed?

    Thanks.

    All our threads close (none / 0) (#23)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 03:22:49 AM EST
    automatically at 200 comments, so the reply button stops showing. Sorry.

    Parent
    Okay, no problem (none / 0) (#25)
    by Mary2012 on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 03:47:16 AM EST
    Thank you very much -- glad to hear it's not my computer, lol

    Parent
    Point I've made previously (none / 0) (#34)
    by vicndabx on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 08:04:18 AM EST
    if Zimmerman was aware of prior burglary reports, one would assume he would know the color of the perpetrators.

    George Zimmerman, as part of his community's watch program, was aware of [burglaries in the neighborhood]. He talked to the victims and police about them.

    Why is it OK for regular citizens to do what has been deemed "beyond the pale" for NYPD officers?

    IMO, a distinction w/o a difference.

    It would have been (none / 0) (#69)
    by rjarnold on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 11:49:45 AM EST
    completely inappropriate if race was the main reason he found Trayvon suspicious. However he gave several other reasons, and was uncertain of Trayvon's race when he first called the non-emergency line.

    Parent
    The other "reasons" ... (3.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 12:33:09 PM EST
    ... that you previously described are mostly conclusory statements as judged by Zimmerman, rather than facts which would form a basis for such a conclusion:

    1.  He "looks like he is up to no good" - based on what?

    2.  He was "on drugs or something" - again, based on what?

    3.  "It's raining, and he's just walking around, looking about". - More factual, but no details to support it.  Does "walking around" mean staying in one area or just walking down the sidewalk?  For how long?  What does "looking about" mean?  He is looking around as he walks down the street as opposed to walking with his eyes closed?


    Parent
    We don't know why he came to (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by rjarnold on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 12:59:41 PM EST
    those conclusions. The point was he felt that way and race was not a primary reason for finding him suspicious.

    Parent
    My point was ... (5.00 / 0) (#108)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 01:06:35 PM EST
    ... these were merely conclusion reached by Zimmerman, not reasons to be suspicious.

    Parent
    Ok (none / 0) (#111)
    by rjarnold on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 01:14:22 PM EST
    Well I think we can agree that he either had good reason for coming to those conclusions or he didn't. It's possible Trayvon wasn't doing anything wrong, but appeared suspicious.

    Parent
    Walking Around (none / 0) (#105)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 12:57:56 PM EST
    Does "walking around" mean staying in one area or just walking down the sidewalk?

    Martin couldn't have been walking down the sidewalk/street for fifty seconds. There wasn't enough street.

    Later Zimmerman said Martin was 'looking at all the houses'. To be in view of more than two or three houses at a time, I think Martin would have to be south of the club house, between the club house and the pond. He could look across the pond, not necessarily directly across but at any angle, and see the backs of the houses that surround the pond.


    Parent

    And? (5.00 / 0) (#118)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 01:25:55 PM EST
    Martin couldn't have been walking down the sidewalk/street for fifty seconds. There wasn't enough street.


    It's also clear that Martin wasn't 'walking down the street' for more than a few, if any, of the first fifty seconds of that call.

    I think Martin was 'walking around' south of the club house, between the club house and the pond. From there he could look across the pond at the backs of several houses. The innermost circle of houses is arranged around the pond with their backs to it.

    First of all, no one said Zimmerman observed Martin for more or less than fifty seconds (your own conclusion).  Secondly, we have no idea how long Zimmerman was observing Martin or where he began observing him.

    Finally, linking to your own comment which speculates where Zimmerman observed Martin "walking about" and that Martin could "look across the pond at the backs of several house" - suggesting he was, in fact, scouting houses for burglary, is a baseless allegation.  Even Zimmerman himself never stated Martin was looking at the back of several house, a fact he would certainly mention to the police.

    These "scenarios" heaping even more accusations against Martin are disgusting.

    Parent

    Inappropriate (1.00 / 0) (#86)
    by Doug1111 on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 12:15:58 PM EST
    perhaps, but not illegal.

    However there's no evidence that that is the case, just Team Trayvon's Crump spin to an eager to believe it media that it was.  

    Parent

    That's the point I was making (none / 0) (#102)
    by rjarnold on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 12:53:37 PM EST
    Got yah. (none / 0) (#200)
    by Doug1111 on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 05:08:29 PM EST
    Can you argue with a little (none / 0) (#67)
    by rjarnold on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 11:45:19 AM EST
    less emotion? I really have no idea what point you are getting at or what comment you are talking about or what this has to do with Clarence Thomas.

    WTF (none / 0) (#158)
    by vicndabx on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 03:04:53 PM EST
    how is this not delete-worthy?

    Name-calling, personal attacks and insults, racist comments or use of profanity by any commenter, whether they are by persons who agree or disagree with the views expressed by TalkLeft will not be tolerated and will result in the deletion of the comment and the banning of the commenter's ISP address, without notice.


    what comment are you referring to? (none / 0) (#185)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 04:34:57 PM EST
    Except (none / 0) (#198)
    by Doug1111 on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 05:07:18 PM EST
    if you're referring to me, I didn't do any of that.

    Parent
    This thread has closed (none / 0) (#216)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 06:47:26 PM EST
    It's over 200 comments. I'll put another one up soon.