Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[marplots]

You must not have been here earlier in the thread when people were admonished for knowing the more obscure definition of follow that implies pursue to catch.

Now it turns out that those same people (not you marplots) would have us believe that Z was one of those few.

ETA: And that Z used one definition in his 26th answer, and then the other one the 29th answer.

I should clarify. I do think he got out of his truck to see where Trayvon was going, and in that sense, did follow him. I would have. After all, I'm talking to the cops and I want them to know where the guy is when they arrive. My semantic game was only at the request of someone who made the word into a rhetorical jab.

So, I do think he changed his story, at least if the "following" refers to the same instance (he could have started to follow and then lost TM, so wasn't "following" when the confrontation happened).

The overarching problem with putting a lot of meaning on this discrepancy is that it makes GZ out to be some sort of legal beagle mastermind who is carefully choosing his words like some Clarence Darrow wannabe. I fall in the camp that he's just winging it, at least the parts he doesn't think are all that significant. Surely the forum is familiar with how stories are altered to fit the audience -- the same dress is "pretty pricey" when I'm talking to my girlfriend, but "a good buy" when talking to my penny pinching husband. It's so common, it's hardly noticed. If I'm worried the police will think I'm stalking someone, I might shade things toward the innocent side.

The critical thing is whether the "following" is material and whether George knew it was when he changed his story. I don't know that it is material. The question I would ask is why he would purposely lie about such a thing other than stupidity? What is the point?

I see a suspicious person.
I call the police to report them.
Of course I follow him. How else do I get to where the incident happened? What other purpose can I have for leaving my truck in the first place? Was I going to park my truck there overnight?

Why would this need a lie? The place to lie is later on when the confrontation happens. That's where it matters.

 

[This is The End]

I see a suspicious person.
I call the police to report them.
Of course I follow him. How else do I get to where the incident happened? What other purpose can I have for leaving my truck in the first place? Was I going to park my truck there overnight?

Great post up until there.

First of all, you wouldn't know any "incident" was going to "happen".

Second of all he would leave his truck at home, obviously. So, you have no purpose for leaving the truck.

If you are in your vehicle and/or in your home and you report suspicious activity outside, the police do not want you to leave your house or your vehicle.

Nor is it in your best interest to do so.

ETA: I just noticed that you may perhaps be trying to say why we know Z followed M, not that that is literally "of course Marplots would follow him".

Z has the excuse that he was under the impression that the dispatcher wanted him to keep an eye on the suspect by leaving the truck and following. Z was immediately told by the dispatcher that that was an incorrect impression and that he was merely supposed to keep an eye on the suspect as well as he could without following the suspect.

Again, not to make it look like I am nit-picking, the rest of you most was mostly right on. Like the below:

I fall in the camp that he's just winging it, at least the parts he doesn't think are all that significant. Surely the forum is familiar with how stories are altered to fit the audience -- the same dress is "pretty pricey" when I'm talking to my girlfriend, but "a good buy" when talking to my penny pinching husband. It's so common, it's hardly noticed. If I'm worried the police will think I'm stalking someone, I might shade things toward the innocent side.

Which goes along with what I was trying to say earlier:

As I said earlier, that one is arguably understandable. He is nervous and feels like he is being cornered. An innocent person could be expected to act the same way in that situation.

This, and the normal memory lapse, is in sharp contrast to the big changes and the big lies.

Some of us may want all lies to be chalked up to memory lapse and nervous reactions.

Some of us may want all memory lapse and nervous reactions to be chalked up as lies.

We need to remember that nothing is ever 100% and to concentrate on what we have solid evidence of.

 

[Bob001]

It was dark and raining... Do people where you live wander around aimlessly like that?

Zimmerman didn't call to report that he saw 'one black teen-ager walking down the street at 7 p.m.'.

Those deliberate fabrications by the media were debunked a long time ago, and your wishful repeating isn't going to change that.

From GZ's initial call to the police:

Dispatcher: Sanford Police Department. …
Zimmerman: Hey we've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a
real suspicious guy, uh, [near] Retreat View Circle, um, the best address I can
give you is 111 Retreat View Circle. This guy looks like he's up to no good, or
he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking
about.
Dispatcher: OK, and this guy is he white, black, or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black.

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html

It's entirely GZ's perception, NOT a statement of fact, that TM is "up to no good....walking around." TM and his father were staying at the father's fiancée's house. It was not his own home. He was walking back from the store, and if he looked like he was "walking around" maybe he wasn't sure of the right route. Maybe he made a wrong turn. Maybe he just looked around to see what kind of area he was staying in. You think nobody ever walks in the rain? Some people even like it. The point is that seeing somebody walking down the street in a townhouse development at 7 p.m. on a Sunday is not such weird, rare, suspicious behavior that it merits a call to the cops. It says a lot about GZ that he thought otherwise, and it's hard to believe that he would have thought the same way if he had spotted a middle-aged white guy carrying a grocery sack. And since you asked, where I live, in a big city, people are "walking around" at all hours of the day and night, even in the rain, and if they get shot to death we call it murder.

 

[marplots]

... snipped out this part to clarify.

Second of all he would leave his truck at home, obviously. So, you have no purpose for leaving the truck.

If you are in your vehicle and/or in your home and you report suspicious activity outside, the police do not want you to leave your house or your vehicle.

Nor is it in your best interest to do so.

ETA: I just noticed that you may perhaps be trying to say why we know Z followed M, not that that is literally "of course Marplots would follow him".

I really was saying I would have done what Georgie did for that specific action. At least I would have if I thought the person I reported to the police was, well, worth reporting to the police (which I don't think TM was).

I'm applying what I hoped was a "reasonable man" standard. However, after slogging through this entire thread, I accept that my version of "reasonable" is far from universal. Still, the few times I've called the cops on someone (or something) I felt I was already involved and committed. In hindsight, following TM at all turned out to be a bad idea, but I'd have done the same, if for no other reason than not wanting to look like a jerk when the cops arrived.

The closest parallel I can think of is calling in a drunk driver while traveling on the expressway. I see a car swerving repeatedly across lanes of traffic. I call in the incident and try to get the plate number. And I follow -- at as safe a distance as I can manage. Even if the car pulls off the expressway. I grant this is dangerous, but I want to be there for the denouement. Maybe they'll need me as a witness or something.

"Are you following him?"
"Yeah."
"We don't need you to do that."
And now I'm thinking, but not saying: "Well, it's no trouble at all, I'll do it anyhow to be helpful."

Note, the difference between, "We don't need you to do that" and "Stop following him." That's where my reasonable man pegs it.

The point for me that separates getting involved and not getting involved comes with the 911 call. Once that happens, I feel like there's a kind of duty to follow through. Would that duty be broken off at some point? Certainly. I'm pretty far from being heroic. It's just that the same impulse that has me calling in the first place gets the ball rolling.

I think the reason the neighborhood watch material mentions not getting physically involved is precisely because others share the same instinct I have about such things -- in for a penny, in for a pound. The cops tell you not to do it because they are pretty sure that otherwise you would.

Please understand I am not trying to justify anything that happened that night. I'm trying to put myself in the same situation and ask whether GZ's actions were what I might do. For the "follow" part, they were. After that, I don't know. I want to hear what comes out at trial.

 

[johnny karate]

Why would this need a lie? The place to lie is later on when the confrontation happens. That's where it matters.

The need for the lie is obvious. Zimmerman was crafting a narrative in which he did nothing wrong, and instead was an innocent victim.

At the time of the NEN call, he had no idea how things would turn out. So at that point, he had no reason to lie about what he was doing.

In the aftermath, he realized admitting he was following Martin could undermine his narrative and make him look like the aggressor, so he tried to walk it back.

 

[marplots]

The need for the lie is obvious. Zimmerman was crafting a narrative in which he did nothing wrong, and instead was an innocent victim.

At the time of the NEN call, he had no idea how things would turn out. So at that point, he had no reason to lie about what he was doing.

In the aftermath, he realized admitting he was following Martin could undermine his narrative and make him look like the aggressor, so he tried to walk it back.

If that's so, it comes under the "stupid lie" exception. What reason, other than following, does he have for leaving the truck in the first place? Did he provide an additional lie to cover that? (Here my lack of detailed analysis of released interviews is showing.) That's a real, not rhetorical question. Did GZ explain in the second case why he got out of his vehicle? It seems like one lie would need a second, supporting lie.

 

[crimresearch]

From GZ's initial call to the police:



http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html

It's entirely GZ's perception, NOT a statement of fact, that TM is "up to no good....walking around." TM and his father were staying at the father's fiancée's house. It was not his own home. He was walking back from the store, and if he looked like he was "walking around" maybe he wasn't sure of the right route. Maybe he made a wrong turn. Maybe he just looked around to see what kind of area he was staying in. You think nobody ever walks in the rain? Some people even like it. The point is that seeing somebody walking down the street in a townhouse development at 7 p.m. on a Sunday is not such weird, rare, suspicious behavior that it merits a call to the cops. It says a lot about GZ that he thought otherwise, and it's hard to believe that he would have thought the same way if he had spotted a middle-aged white guy carrying a grocery sack. And since you asked, where I live, in a big city, people are "walking around" at all hours of the day and night, even in the rain, and if they get shot to death we call it murder.

In other words, Zimmerman did *not* call the police to 'report a black person' in his neighborhood, he made no mention of race until directly asked.

He didn't say that being black was suspicious, he didn't say that being there was suspicious.

Second, I didn't ask if you lived in a big city, I questioned your blanket assertion that lots of people in that gated community must have been out walking around.

And of course, how could anyone from where I live know anything about murder without you to lecture us on the 'mean streets'?



Your selectively editing out what GZ actually said to fabricate motives for him, says a lot more about you than it does about him.

 

[Unabogie]

If that's so, it comes under the "stupid lie" exception. What reason, other than following, does he have for leaving the truck in the first place? Did he provide an additional lie to cover that? (Here my lack of detailed analysis of released interviews is showing.) That's a real, not rhetorical question. Did GZ explain in the second case why he got out of his vehicle? It seems like one lie would need a second, supporting lie.

Yes, he claimed he only got out to look for a street sign on the other side of the row houses, which was where he just saw the kid by pure coincidence. But he assures us he wasn't following him. That goes with what Johnny said about changing the narrative so he can look innocent of any provocation.

 

[marplots]

Yes, he claimed he only got out to look for a street sign on the other side of the row houses, which was where he just saw the kid by pure coincidence. But he assures us he wasn't following him. That goes with what Johnny said about changing the narrative so he can look innocent of any provocation.

Thank you. I see I have been remiss in doing my homework. Do you have to get out of the truck to see the street sign? Was the truck shut off? Would I turn off my engine if I was just getting out for a second to check on something? Would I even go out in the rain instead of driving to the next landmark? I'm thinking stupid lies will be shown to be such. I hope his lawyer helps him out with the truth, whatever that may be.

Can we conclude from this that George may lie in his perceived self interest, but he's not a very sophisticated liar? I'd buy that.

Now I really want to see this go to trial. I need a large chart to look at; you know the kind, the kind they draw up so dumb jurors (and me) can get it.

 

[Mumbles]

Yes, he claimed he only got out to look for a street sign on the other side of the row houses, which was where he just saw the kid by pure coincidence. But he assures us he wasn't following him. That goes with what Johnny said about changing the narrative so he can look innocent of any provocation.

More strangely, he looks for a street sign on Retreat View Circle in order together an exact address, but then moves to meet the cops next to his truck, which is parked on Twin Trees Lane, which is the address that the dispatcher asked him for. If he wanted to provide a useful address, he merely needed to look across the street from his truck, and had no need at all to move towards the bizarre hostile guy who had (supposedly) circled his truck and ran back and forth.

 

[Mumbles]

That's a relatively easy conclusion to come to, when you established, long before the statements were released, that he is a liar. It sounds to me, based on the first interview, that he stopped at the clubhouse to make the call and Trayvon walked past him. He followed Trayvon around the corner, to down by the T. That's when Trayvon came back to check him out, this is when Zimmerman says, "he's checking me out."

Except in his own police call, immediately before saying "he's coming to check me out", Zimmerman states that Martin is next to the clubhouse. Thus, unless he's very confused, there's no way that Martin is re-emerging from behind the townhouses. That's one of the major problems with his re-enactment.

 

[Noztradamus]

More strangely, he looks for a street sign on Retreat View Circle in order together an exact address, but then moves to meet the cops next to his truck, which is parked on Twin Trees Lane, which is the address that the dispatcher asked him for. If he wanted to provide a useful address, he merely needed to look across the street from his truck, and had no need at all to move towards the bizarre hostile guy who had (supposedly) circled his truck and ran back and forth.

Even if he decided to go to the T-walkway, before he reached it he would see, almost directly in front of him, the House on the Corner

http://i311.photobucket.com/albums/kk453/TalkLeft/zimmerman/03front1211.jpg

 

[Cylinder]

But, I believe alot of that depends on whether or not Z goes for an immunity hearing.

The immunity hearing does not affect the establishment of a self-defense claim at trial.

Peterson v. State

We now hold that when immunity under this law is properly raised by a defendant, the trial court must decide the matter by confronting and weighing only factual disputes.   The court may not deny a motion simply because factual disputes exist.   Here, the trial court did what was required.   Petitioner is not precluded from submitting the matter to the jury as an affirmative defense in his criminal trial.

Pre-trial the defense may assert, by motion, statutory immunity to the charge. The judge will hold an evidentiary hearing to determine, by a preponderance of the evidence, if the defense has proved its claim to immunity. If the court denies the motion the matter is sent to a jury trial. At some point near the end of the jury trial, the judge will ask for proposed jury instructions. The defense at that time will make the claim for the self defense instruction. If the state objects to that instruction, the judge will have to review the testimony to see if some evidence was presented to support that instruction. It makes no difference in this instance if the judge believes the evidence at all - that's a matter for the jury. The sole question is if the evidence was presented and if that evidence meets the requirements of the statute.

 

[Cylinder]

Looking at George that night, the next day, and then a few days later in the walk through, is that credible? Do the lack of marks on Trayvon's hands and the lack of blood from George make sense?

"I would say maybe 45% [of his head and face] were covered in blood. He had a substantial amount of dried blood on his cheeks and on the back of his head."

Statement from SFD Firefighter/EMT Partick O'Rourke

Zimmerman was cleaned with peroxide before any photos were taken. The only pre-treatment photo was released by the state in the form of what appears to be a multi-generation copy of a plain paper printing of that photo.

SFD Rescue paramedic audio statement

Cuts and abrasions to his face and nose
Cuts on the back of his head
Informed SPD that Zimmerman needed to be transported to hospital and needed some stitches. SPD advised that they would transport.

Asked to describe Zimmerman's injuries

Laceration to back of head
Abrasions on forehead
Deformity on nose
Abrasions on cheek and face
Blood on arms amd hands


SFD Firefighter Livingston

Blood on face
Possible broken nose
Some blood had dried on back of head which was cleaned off (Ed:In hindsight, this was a mistake. The dried blood should have been documented first.)
Complained of dizziness and pain during treatment.
Advised SPD that Zimmerman may need transport to hospital.

SFD Firefighter/EMT O'Rourke

Interesting sidenote: It was this paramedic who probably led to the claim that SPD did not try to identify Martin for after the event. O'Rourke states in the interview that "He was a John Doe til several days later."

Laceration to back of head
Fractured nose
Cleaned blood from head and face - a "signifigant amount" of dried blood. "It took a while to clean him up."
45% of head and face covered with blood.

 

[Cylinder]

For everyone attributing every inconsistent statement by Zimmerman as lies, were the police lying about Martin's clothing? What about the drink that was found on Martin's body?

Unlike Zimmerman, the police are trained in observation and recording a crime scene, right?

 

[Rare Truth]

The immunity hearing does not affect the establishment of a self-defense claim at trial.

Peterson v. State
....

Perils of GZ going the immunity hearing route:

1. He almost necessarily has to take the stand. No one can testify to what Z felt, what he reasonably believed was fear of imminent death or great bodily harm.

2. Opens himself up to cross.

3. What is revealed in the immunity hearing can be used against him at a jury trial. Two whacks at the apple for the prosecution.

Can he refuse to testify at an immunity hearing? Sure. How much weight do you think the same judge who was duped by a "potted palm" primrose-path style will give that refusal?

I've predicted long ago there will be no immunity hearing. I'll repeat what I said then: Mark it. Not gonnah happen.

 

[Rare Truth]

"I would say maybe 45% [of his head and face] were covered in blood. He had a substantial amount of dried blood on his cheeks and on the back of his head."

Statement from SFD Firefighter/EMT Partick O'Rourke

Zimmerman was cleaned with peroxide before any photos were taken. The only pre-treatment photo was released by the state in the form of what appears to be a multi-generation copy of a plain paper printing of that photo.

SFD Rescue paramedic audio statement

Cuts and abrasions to his face and nose
Cuts on the back of his head
Informed SPD that Zimmerman needed to be transported to hospital and needed some stitches. SPD advised that they would transport.

Asked to describe Zimmerman's injuries

Laceration to back of head
Abrasions on forehead
Deformity on nose
Abrasions on cheek and face
Blood on arms amd hands


SFD Firefighter Livingston

Blood on face
Possible broken nose
Some blood had dried on back of head which was cleaned off (Ed:In hindsight, this was a mistake. The dried blood should have been documented first.)
Complained of dizziness and pain during treatment.
Advised SPD that Zimmerman may need transport to hospital.

SFD Firefighter/EMT O'Rourke

Interesting sidenote: It was this paramedic who probably led to the claim that SPD did not try to identify Martin for after the event. O'Rourke states in the interview that "He was a John Doe til several days later."

Laceration to back of head
Fractured nose
Cleaned blood from head and face - a "signifigant amount" of dried blood. "It took a while to clean him up."
45% of head and face covered with blood.

No matter the pile-on of cherry picked baskets of bloody sounding beat downs - the fact remains they were minor injuries requiring some peroxide for a few minutes in the back of a squad car, none requiring so much as a bandage.

Within minutes of the incident, all vital signs were fine, and heart rate, blood pressure normal.

EMT report:

Patient Conscious
Breathing Quality Adult Normal 12-20 [which is normal, not panting or out of breath]
No External Hemorrhage noted; Mucuous Membrane Normal
Central Body Color Normal
Extremities Normal

Within Normal Limits (Airway, Breathing Quality, Accessory Muscle Use, Chest Rise, Radial Pulse, Skin Temp, Skin Moisture [not sweating], Skin Turgor [not showing signs of dehydration], Cap Refill [blood circulation is normal], Pupil Size and Reaction.

Cause of Injury [to Zimmerman]: Struck by blunt/thrown object. (9640) Mechanism of Injury: Blunt

Patient says he was assaulted and his head was struck on the pavement.

Pt’s GCS = 15 [Glascow Coma Scale, which is a level of consciousness scale and 15 is normal] and he is warm and dry with normal skin color.

Pt has abrasions to his forehead + bleeding/tenderness to his nose and a small laceration to the back of his head.

All injuries have minor bleeding.

Pt also denies LOC [loss of consciousness], neck/back pain, and he has + PMS [pulse motor sensory function] X 4 [in all extremities] with – paresthesia [no tingling]"
​

[That means his pulse, motor, and sensory functions were all okay and functioning normally]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/93951121/State-v-Zimmerman-Evidence-released-by-prosecutor

 

[Rare Truth]

Witness 13 here:http://media2.abcactionnews.com/html/zimmermanevidence/audio/W13_SPD02262012.wav

[If that doesn't open, it's W13_SPD02262012.wav on the righthand side of this link.
http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/ne...n-trayvon-martin-case-released-to-the-public]

...made this audio statement a little after an hour of the incident in the back of a police car.
He states it happened in the back of his townhouse and was on the scene before the police arrived.

He remarks Zimmerman's first statement was "He was beating up on me so I had to shoot him," and Z asked this witness if he had blood on his face.

This witness then says he's going to call 911. GZ tells him no, I already called them, GZ tells him to call his wife, ('tell her I just shot someone') -
then he (sort of) jokes with Z: "did you use a 9 or a 40?"
GZ: "ah, I used a 9."

And you can hear in this immediate witness statement -- the police came "a couple minutes later.".

Another interview with that immediate witness, here:
http://media2.abcactionnews.com/html/zimmermanevidence/audio/W13_SAO4%2003262012.wav

He describes Zimmerman at first as "like he got his butt kicked" and "a little out of breath" and then Z's demeanor was "get to the point," "matter of fact," and in agreement with the questioner, "no big deal."

This witness is remarking on a man who just literally some 60-90 seconds earlier had killed someone.

Trayvon would be pronounced dead some 10 minutes later.

 

[Rare Truth]

In other words, Zimmerman did *not* call the police to 'report a black person' in his neighborhood, he made no mention of race until directly asked.

He didn't say that being black was suspicious, he didn't say that being there was suspicious.
....

He didn't profile him because he was black, just that he fit the profile of the "**** ing punks" that were ******** that always got away.

One thing is clear: To Zimmerman, it was not an isolated incident. It was the culmination of mounting concern and frustration about crime in the subdivision where he was Neighborhood Watch captain.

Prosecutors say the unarmed 17-year-old from Miami Gardens, Fla., was an innocent victim of profiling. Zimmerman, charged with second-degree murder, says he fired during a struggle for his life.

In his video re-enactment for Sanford police the day after the shooting, Zimmerman explained why he found Trayvon suspicious.

Trayvon was in the yard of Frank Taaffe, a Neighborhood Watch buddy whose townhouse had recently been burglarized.

The teen was in the grass, not on the sidewalk, Zimmerman told officers.

"He was just leisurely looking at the house," Zimmerman said. "That’s what threw me off. It’s raining. I didn’t understand why somebody would be just stopping in the rain."
​

http://bostonherald.com/news/nation...rmans_mind-set_before_trayvon_martin_shooting : Statements reveal George Zimmerman’s mind-set before Trayvon Martin shooting

 

[Rare Truth]

Some may find this interesting viewing, some may not: http://imgur.com/a/bcAII