Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Dcdrac]

yes sorry Trayvon Martin knew I should have had that 2nd mug of coffee....

 

[Unabogie]

Go back and reread Noztradamus' post in #110

GZ has returned to his vehicle and is waiting for the police when TM approaches, knocks on the window and runs off and lays in wait for GZ to follow. That's an ambush.

You're very ignorant of the facts, then. That never happened. Unless you're saying George is lying and leaving it out?

 

[quadraginta]

Go back and reread Noztradamus' post in #110

GZ has returned to his vehicle and is waiting for the police when TM approaches, knocks on the window and runs off and lays in wait for GZ to follow. That's an ambush.

It would be if it happened that way.

Even if it did happen that way, though, now you've got Z, who has already been admonished not to follow and acknowledged that caution, who knows (as NW superhero captain) that not only is he not supposed to pursue, but he isn't supposed to be armed and do it, getting out of his vehicle again, with his gun, and following someone he now believes is hostile instead of waiting for the cops who are minutes away. That's an idiot.

Or someone looking for a confrontation.

If he's an idiot then Manslaughter is probably fair.

If he went looking for trouble, as you seem to be suggesting, then there's good reason to contemplate Murder II.

I don't think your scenario is in Z's best interest.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Personal attacks are all you have?

Pointing out your irrationality is not a "personal attack".

It used to be we had to wait to hear George's account. We could speculate that he told a coherent tale and talk about watermelon lean. Now we have his words, and I've pointed out to everyone how implausible his story is.

You've pointed out to everyone that you think his story is implausible. Since you find every aspect of it implausible including parts that are not remotely suspicious, that amounts to about 0.

The detectives clearly saw right through him and didnt buy his story either. Now he will have to account for what he did. Yep, I'm enjoying this part.

Once again you clearly hear what you want to hear, since it would appear that the police had different opinions on the matter. Its humorous that you've convinced yourself thepolice "saw right through him" because they followed normal investigative techniques. Its also humorous that suddenly serino is your hero whereas previously the police were incompetent.

 

[Unabogie]

Pointing out your irrationality is not a "personal attack".

You've pointed out to everyone that ^you think his story is implausible. Since you find every aspect of it implausible including parts that are not remotely suspicious, that amounts to about 0.

Once again you clearly hear what you want to hear, since it would appear that the police had different opinions on the matter. Its humorous that you've convinced yourself thepolice "saw right through him" because they followed normal investigative techniques. Its also humorous that suddenly serino is your hero whereas previously the police were incompetent.

Yep.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

So you agree that changing 2 locations to 1 can happen just in a normal memory lapse??

I think you are really asking two different questions. If the question is can a person that is telling the truth experience such a lapse, the incontrovertible answer is yes. As has been explained, that's the way memory works, and we have a mountain of evidence to know that. If you are asking if I think he is telling the truth about all aspects of the encounter, I don't know.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Yep.

Boy, you really proved me wrong there by highlighting the word you. Brilliant and insightful post!

 

[Unabogie]

Boy, you really proved me wrong there by highlighting the word you. Brilliant and insightful post!

Same to you.

 

[sgtbaker]

So you agree that changing 2 locations to 1 can happen just in a normal memory lapse??

I will say yes, that is very likely.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

If you take into account the little rant of GZ about 'them always getting away', the fact that GZ left the car then I don't think it's a stretch to assume that GZ was the aggressor.

Sure it can.... if you are mindlessly committed to GZ being innocent no matter what.

Hmm...I'm not the one who seems to think we should "assume" someone was the aggressor because it's "not a stretch". Likewise, not surprisingly, you miss the huge distinction between believing the evidence needs to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt versus your invention of "mindlessly committed to gz being innocent no matter what". I think the guy could be lying, show us the evidence andvthe contradictions. Wild unprovable theories driven by hatred of gz need not apply.

 

[sgtbaker]

George also says he walks his dog there, so that's evidence he knows that street.

That's evidence that he walks his dog there. My community is set up like this; there is a main road that is the shape of a circle. Four mini-subdivisions surround the circle, each on a different road. I use that circle road, every single day to drive out of my neighborhood. For a change of scenery, I walk down to the circle to run, because it is exactly a quarter mile. I know the name of one road, the one I live on. I hope I am never in a situation where I would have to recall the names of the other roads because, well, I've never bothered to look at the road signs.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Note that you say "going to the racetrack" is the activity instead of running in the race! That's not gonna just squeak through without people noticing!

I'll make this simple.

The specific activity is a track&field sprint race between 10 runners.

Those 10 runners are "physically involved" in that specific activity during the race.

Everyone else, including the people in the stands, everyone else, is not physically involved in that specific activity.​

Do you agree with that or not?

If not, please elaborate.

I do agree. Therefor, George was not involved with the specific activity of acting suspicious and wandering about like TM. He was engaged in a different activity, being the eyes and ears of the police.

See, when you make the specific 'physical activities' arbitrary, it's easy to make the point whichever way you want.

 

[WildCat]

Seriously, have you ever watched Randi's videos proving how bad our memory is when talking to a pscychic? There was one where he had a woman get a psychic reading. She was supposed to tell the psychic every time she got something wrong. Then he listens to the recording and counts how many times they psychic got something wrong. The woman's answer was in the low tens. James Randi said he counted something in the 40's guesses the psychic got wrong. We do not have perfect memories. Our brains don't always remember things in the correct order.

And that's just it, the posters here decrying the "inconsistencies" in Zimmerman's story are harping on minor details that are well within the range of honest mistakes due to fallible memory. There's nothing there as far as I can tell that shows any material inconsistencies.

Ask anyone to report an experience several times over several days, and you will get different variations with each telling, it's just the way memory works.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

GZ clearly states he was telling the "John" to help, and that matches exactly with "Johns" initial witness statement. Someone care to explain that away ?

For all the inconsistencies people are pointing out, I would like to focus on at least once consistent element ... will someone help me understand what the scenario was where:

TM was screaming in fear the entire time, as his mother and father have claimed.

AND

GZ tells the story of how he is under TM, and pleads to "John" to help, which agrees with what "Johns" initial witness statement said.

 

[WildCat]

At best the man was a bumbling well intentioned wannabe police officer amatuer the worst case scenario for a Neighbourhood Watch operative.

At worst he was a self appointed bumbling wannabe Dirty Harry

Either way his actions certainly led to a tragedy.

In this thread i beleive it has been forgotten who the victim is here

Traynor Martin

You rail against Zimmerman for not knowing the streets in his community and find that as evidence to convict him of homicide, yet here we are hundreds of pages into this thread and you can't even get Trayvon Martin's name correct.

Memory is a funny thing, eh?

 

[johnny karate]

I will say yes, that is very likely.

Really? So when faced with inconsistencies in the testimony of an accused murderer we know is dishonest, the most likely scenario is that those inconsistencies are due to innocent lapses in memory?

February 26th NEN call:

Dispatcher: Are you following him.

Zimmerman: Yeah.

February 29th interview with Investigator Serino:

Zimmerman: I wasn't following him. I was just going in the same direction he was.

How about that one? Just another perfectly innocent memory lapse?

 

[Bob001]

.... 19:11:16 Zimmerman: Hey we've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a real suspicious guy, ~~~~ the best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle.

19:12:00 Dispatcher: Okay—you said it's 1111 Retreat View? Or 111?Zimmerman: That's the clubhouse…

Just an observation here: Note that these events occurred just after 7 p.m. on a Sunday. In most areas, that's a time when a lot of people are on the streets: They're coming home from whatever they did during the day, going shopping (like GZ himself), visiting friends, going out for the evening, etc., etc. Does anybody think it says a lot -- and nothing good -- about GZ's state of mind that he felt compelled to call the police just because he saw one black teen-ager walking down the street at 7 p.m.? This was a suburban townhouse development, not a farm road in Idaho. Why wouldn't people be walking around? I would be willing to cut GZ some slack if he saw somebody lurking in his own backyard at 3 a.m. But it really sounds like GZ was hunting for trouble with no good reason.

 

[Unabogie]

I will say yes, that is very likely.

This I find problematic and I'm concerned you're rationalizing this away.

Let me first touch on the other comment about him walking his dog:

Yes, I agree that it's plausible he didn't know his streets. While walking his dog and being the NW person should make that less likely, he shows he's not good with directions, so I'll grant you he could have been unsure about the address. Where I think he is lying is where he uses that as his reason for exiting the car "just to look for a street sign". In the NEN he says he's following Trayvon. And you can clearly hear him running. When he later claims he wasn''t following him and was only looking for a street sign, it's not plausible. And it isn't an innocent memory lapse since it's clearly self serving and affects his culpability.

On the issue of the "circling", there is no innocent explanation. In the NEN call, the only close contact he has with Trayvon is within about 15 seconds of the start of the call. That means one of two things:

1. He parked at the clubhouse as he says in the walkthrough and Trayvon was merely walking past the car on his way home.
2. He never parked at the clubhouse at all and made that up.

For Trayvon to have walked past the T, come back out onto the street in order to circle the car, George would have had to have started the call near the T. He clearly says this isn't how it happens and if it did, it drastically changes the nature of events.


Therefore, I think this proves the circling at the T, and Trayvon coming back out onto the street from behind the row houses, never happened. I think there is ample evidence that this is impossible and therefore George made it up. If he made up something as inflammatory as Trayvon circling his car, and included such detail as how he turned the corner, but came back out to the street while George waiting with his windows rolled up, in fear, is this defensible?

ETA: I think the most reasonable choice is option #1 above. Trayvon really did walk past his car with his hands in his waistband, holding his drink. This is just a demonstration of George's bad judgment, but it fits the facts. I think he added the part about circling his car to embellish his tale, and unfortunately for him, this embellishment is easily discredited, which is why I keep coming back it as one of the worst of his lies.

 

[johnny karate]

... the evidence needs to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt...

Since this has become the new favorite meme of the Zimmerman fans, I'd like to point out that at this time and in this setting it's a stupid standard.

First of all, I don't recall seeing anyone assert Zimmerman is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of murder, and should therefore be convicted. What seems to be the consensus is the belief that he will be convicted or plead down to manslaughter based on an interpretation of the evidence thus far not being favorable to him.

Secondly, determining "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" is a legal standard that applies to a court of law after all the evidence has been presented and the prosecution has made their case. We have yet to see all the evidence or hear the prosecution's case, so it's kind of silly to demand that rigid legal standard be applied now.

Furthermore, this is not a jury room in which we are deliberating the case. This is a discussion forum in which we casually express our opinions. Some of us think Zimmerman is guilty of a crime. Whether he is eventually convicted of that crime is a whole other matter, but that has no bearing on this discussion here and now.

The evidence may turn out to be insufficient to prove guilt of any crime beyond a reasonable doubt, or the prosecution may fail to successfully make their case. But that won't necessarily mean Zimmerman is innocent (unless anyone here actually thinks O.J. didn't do it). And his guilt or innocence as a matter of fact rather than a matter of law is a perfectly valid issue to discuss.

 

[Unabogie]

For all the inconsistencies people are pointing out, I would like to focus on at least once consistent element ... will someone help me understand what the scenario was where:

TM was screaming in fear the entire time, as his mother and father have claimed.

AND

GZ tells the story of how he is under TM, and pleads to "John" to help, which agrees with what "Johns" initial witness statement said.

Maybe they were both yelling? I told you, in my scenario, George is attempting his version of a citizen's arrest. Trayvon may have punched him, and he felt justified in taking Trayvvon down. This would explain why the scene had moved 25' south from the T. So George was yelling for help, but not because he was being pummelled. He may have been telling the truth about begging for help subduing Trayvon, only that happened before the shooting, not after. Isn't that plausible? Trayvon was yelling for his own reasons, since he was being manhandled by this "creepy", "angry" guy for no reason. At this point, don't they both have reason to scream? Maybe they were.