• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's possibly to be in a severe car crash and walk away from it, isn't it ?

Those two things are not at odds with each other at all.

Yes, that is possible. And what it means is that during the crash, you didn't suffer any severe trauma.

See, unless one has super powers, severe trauma causes humans to have severe injuries. It's a basic medical fact, and there's really no way around it.
 
Specifically, some of the new posters are disputing that George actually said he went immediately down to the ground after being punched. You and I went through this just a few weeks ago, so as you usually take George's side in things, you should chime in and confirm that I am correct. That would help move the discussion along.

Nothing he may have conceded to you is going to change my view on this.

I've been following and discussing this case (extensively) from days after it happened, and more than a year.

I'm not going to claim I've thought every thought or explored every angle (or I wouldn't be here to discuss it more) but when it comes to something like this? This isn't the sort of thing I can just be "corrected" on.

I believe George was inexact in his speech, and struggling to remember exactly what happened in the moments he was most disoriented, having just been punched in the face and having had his nose broken as a result.

I consider the possibility that he stumbled forward (southward) several feet in a half-aware, panicked and dazed attempt to flee from his assailant, before finally going down (and/or being pulled to the ground by Trayvon) and that he then later had trouble remembering that, or remembering to clearly express that, to be not just possible, but the best explanation of what we see in evidence.

Witness 11 heard words exchanged (as GZ describes) at the T, and then describes the interaction transitioning from a verbal exchange to a physical fight, which then moved southward.

GZ's keys are in the grass at the T.

The evidence fits his account. Those who latch onto completely minor, completely expected variations and detail-drift in his attempt to recall the events, and paint them as lies, are being neither honest nor fair.
 
The option you missed is this:

Rare Truth referred to grass stains, dirt stains, and scuff marks.

Yes, he opined that he thought there should be some:
You'd think there might even be a few grass / dirt stains or scuffle marks on the back of the pant cuffs as he struggled to get free, what with the holding him down, pounding his head and telling him "tonight you're going to die ************" and all...
.

Cylinder referred to actual grass and moisture.

You'll note the dissimilarities.

Yes, one person referred to evidence described by someone on the scene, the other just used his imagination.
 
He remembered every phrase uttered

Then why did he sometimes include the word "homie" after "You got a problem?" and other times not?

George also words what he thinks TM said a bit differently each time, I think. Like sometimes it's "you got one now" vs. "well you've got one now" etc... correct me if I'm wrong on that.

Point is, no... he doesn't remember every phrase uttered. Not exactly, not perfectly.

Btw I consider the "you're gonna die tonight ______" piece to be perhaps the most likely thing to be a lie, in what he says. By no means does that imply I don't think it's POSSIBLE. I do think it's possible TM said that. Just saying, if I had to place a bet on one thing that's a lie... that'd be where my money was.

Because I don't believe Trayvon intended to kill George that night.

I believe Trayvon was tired of getting in trouble, having been suspended repeatedly... and had just about had it with adults being the bearers of more problems for him with his parents, or getting in the way of what he wanted to do. I believe George was the last straw, and when this person (whom he saw was on the phone) was keeping an eye on him, I think Trayvon likely knew exactly who was on the other end of that phone, and when he saw that GZ was now out of his truck, exposed... I think he made the rash, split second decision that he could go teach this guy a lesson with a quick knockout punch, and then return home.

I think when the one punch knockout didn't happen as planned, he improvised very poorly. But I don't think he ever intended to kill GZ. If he said "you're gonna die tonight" at all, I suspect it was bluster.

This is all my speculation. I wouldn't want anyone to think I'm presenting it as anything other than that.

Ultimately I don't think there's any getting around the obvious conclusion that GZ has a poor memory and was struggling with recalling the exact details about everything from that night, both things which had a direct bearing on his legal culpability and things which were entirely trivial.
 
I'm buying it.

Zimmerman was not a medical professional nor a wrestling referee attempting to give the most exacting description possible. "Slam" is exactly what 99.99% of regular English speaking people would use to describe someone grabbing the sides of your head, or your shoulders, and pushing you hard into the concrete beneath you, such that your head endured pain and injury as a result.

Even if the velocity your head achieved wasn't all that great, or the injury which resulted wasn't life threatening, and wasn't accompanied by a fractures and/or a concussion.

He was using the term "slam" in a completely normal, common way.



I don't think phonebook is tethered to what GZ says being 100% true, and I am certain I'm not. I think he's being more realistic about the limitations of human memory, and the conventions of normal human speech.

I don't even rule out that there is a measure of exaggeration or even a few outright lies mixed into what GZ is saying. I just happen to feel that the evidence backs him up sufficiently to accept his story as being substantially the truth, at least on conditional basis.

If you're wishing GZ had been more exact and careful in how he described things, I hear you. I wish that too, and I am sure you GZ himself must be wishing that hardest of all right about now. More importantly, I'm sure he's wishing he hadn't talked whatsoever prior to retaining legal counsel.

His sloppy, overly conversational and overly comfortable posture toward the police (I do believe he viewed himself as on the same "team" as them to some minor degree) and his agreement to tell the same events multiple times, really set himself up for exactly what you and so many others are doing now.

Which is being entirely unreasonable, unrealistic, and unfair in how you are approaching his "variations" or as some prefer to call them "lies" - I have no doubt whatsoever that you are perfectly familiar with people speaking in a casual way and not being exact in their word choices and in their descriptions. Or attempting to paint the broad strokes of events as recollections come to them, sort of in a "stream of consciousness" fashion.

I happen to have a rather poor memory (in many, not all, respects) myself, and though I've never been diagnosed with ADD or anything like that, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if many doctors would feel I qualified. I absorb and recount information in a way significantly different from most people I know, and I can personally assure you that there ARE people who end up with the kind of detail-drift and inconsistencies/variations GZ's accounts have, without any sort of malice, deception, or conscious will behind them whatsoever.

Of course, I can't know that is what is going on with GZ for a certainty. I merely know for a fact that it's possible that's what's going on.

As for the possibility that he's being deliberately deceptive? I will say again, I don't believe if that was his agenda he'd be likely to agree to so many endless interviews and re-interviews and reenactments, etc etc without an attorney present. That's not definitive, of course. I just think it's telling.

I just want to point one little thing out, and then I'll wrap this post up. When he's doing his walkthrough reenactment with the detectives, he claims that he told the dispatcher the make, model, and color of his vehicle while on the call. He did not. So we're confronted with a couple of possibilities about why he said that this was part of the phone call:

1.) He's being casual in how he recounts the call to police, and he's letting thoughts which occur to him there, on the scene, with the detectives, become intermingled with recollections from the night before, and is conveying things he THOUGHT at the time as if they were things he SAID.

2.) He's misremembering, and thinks he remembers saying that. This option isn't entirely incompatible with option 1.

3.) He's lying, and is attempting to paint himself in a better light by claiming he told the dispatcher his vehicle was a silver Honda Ridgeline. If you want to choose this option I would ask you to present an idea as to what benefit this lie could have for him, because I personally cannot think of one. At all.

If you acknowledge that it's likely he wasn't lying in this instance, but rather just being a bit sloppy with his memory and paraphrasing things to the detectives... conveying ideas as though they were actual things spoken when they weren't... and just generally being less than exact in how he conveys things... I think you have to acknowledge that his may also be the case with a lot of these other things many of you are currently framing as "lies" - if you wish to be consistent, honest, and fair.

Very well said. I have tried to argue that memory isn't perfect each time we retell an event, we add and delete details, as well as our memories being tarnished by outside influences. As logical and detailed as your response is; as much as it acknowledges the likely possibility that you don't know all the facts and you are just aligning his behavior with what you know to be the human memory, you will likely just be painted as "pro-Zimmerman".
 
Yes, one person referred to evidence described by someone on the scene, the other just used his imagination.

Great. Then you and Cylinder should have argued that, instead of bringing up something Rare Truth didn't say and pretending she did.
 
Nothing he may have conceded to you is going to change my view on this.

I've been following and discussing this case (extensively) from days after it happened, and more than a year.

I'm not going to claim I've thought every thought or explored every angle (or I wouldn't be here to discuss it more) but when it comes to something like this? This isn't the sort of thing I can just be "corrected" on.

I believe George was inexact in his speech, and struggling to remember exactly what happened in the moments he was most disoriented, having just been punched in the face and having had his nose broken as a result.

I consider the possibility that he stumbled forward (southward) several feet in a half-aware, panicked and dazed attempt to flee from his assailant, before finally going down (and/or being pulled to the ground by Trayvon) and that he then later had trouble remembering that, or remembering to clearly express that, to be not just possible, but the best explanation of what we see in evidence.

Witness 11 heard words exchanged (as GZ describes) at the T, and then describes the interaction transitioning from a verbal exchange to a physical fight, which then moved southward.

GZ's keys are in the grass at the T.

The evidence fits his account. Those who latch onto completely minor, completely expected variations and detail-drift in his attempt to recall the events, and paint them as lies, are being neither honest nor fair.

Witness 18 says the opposite. She claims the fight happened further south and then afterwards George walked up towards the T.

But the debris field, as I've said here, tells a different story. George was not carrying his keys as he was hunting for the suspect. He had his flashlight. Remember, he was on the phone, so one hand held that. The other hand held the flashlight, as he explained. So when the fight started, he was holding the flashlight. That fell first. And it just happened to have fallen right next to the phone of the victim, which exactly matches Witness 8. After he shot the victim, he got up, frisked him (witnesses saw this) and then he walked up to the T. It's my contention that he got out his keys and tried to use the small flashlight to search for a weapon. And when the police arrived (they found him near the T and not near the body) he dropped his keys so as not to get shot.

You version of the story doesn't explain why all of the evidence is down 50 feet from the T while ONLY the keys are up near the T. And they weren't at the T exactly. They were south of the small tree. So none of the evidence fell where George claimed the entire fight happened.
 
Because I don't believe Trayvon intended to kill George that night.

Then you are at odds with what Zimmerman claimed.

The lot of you can rationalize all you want. Zimmerman said what he said, and he'll be held accountable for that in court. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how it plays out.
 
Very well said. I have tried to argue that memory isn't perfect each time we retell an event, we add and delete details, as well as our memories being tarnished by outside influences. As logical and detailed as your response is; as much as it acknowledges the likely possibility that you don't know all the facts and you are just aligning his behavior with what you know to be the human memory, you will likely just be painted as "pro-Zimmerman".

Based on this, do you concede that perhaps Zimmerman might not have actually been in reasonable fear for his life because his memory of the event is expected to be unreliable?

Or is that a data point you are dead certain he remembers accurately?
 
After he shot the victim, he got up, frisked him (witnesses saw this) and then he walked up to the T.

Wouldn't frisking TM substantiate "reasonable fear for his life"? Wouldn't that give weight to his assertion that he considered TM a threat to his life, implying he thought TM might be armed?

A lot of this evidence, I haven't looked at in a while (months in some cases) can you remind me of what it is you're using as definitive proof that Zimmerman walked all the way back up to the T afterward, and that he was taken into custody there? Is that primarily Witness 18?

You version of the story doesn't explain why all of the evidence is down 50 feet from the T while ONLY the keys are up near the T. And they weren't at the T exactly. They were south of the small tree. .

It doesn't? Seems pretty accounted for to me...

1.) GZ is punched and dazed near T, starts stumbling/fleeing forward/southward and drops keys at the moment of the punch or just after.
2.) GZ, with TM just behind him attempting to bring him to ground, move nearly the full distance southward before GZ ends up on the ground, and TM mounts him. Some items are shed by both parties during this movement.
3.) Remainder of items (the bulk) are shed at or near final confrontation location. Struggle during assault accounts for some additional movement south, Trayvon getting up after shot and stumbling accounts for a bit more.
4.) Trayvons phone is thrown away from his body by EMT's as per standard procedure when using a defibrillator (speculation on my part) putting it further south than any other item.

George was not carrying his keys as he was hunting for the suspect. He had his flashlight.

Is this anything more than pure speculation? If George was returning to his truck, as he claims, it makes all the sense in the world he'd have his keys out, in hand, at the ready to use the remote unlock feature when he got in range.

Witness 18 says the opposite. She claims the fight happened further south and then afterwards George walked up towards the T.

I will make it a point to listen to Witness 18 again soon, it has been quite a while. After I do, I'll try to give some more thoughtful response to that point.

So none of the evidence fell where George claimed the entire fight happened

I really think it's disingenuous to say that George claims the entire fight happened at the T... you know for a fact that during his on scene walkthrough the next day, he did indicate a movement of the confrontation southward. I don't see how you can latch onto the fact that in previous interviews, the night before (the most traumatic night of his life, mind you) he didn't properly account for that... and then try to pin so much onto that fact.

To try to say that's equivalent to him "claiming the entire fight happened" there. I just don't consider that an honest characterization, at all. I'm sorry if it's rude of me to say that.
 
Then why did he sometimes include the word "homie" after "You got a problem?" and other times not?

He stopped saying that when Serino challenged him on it. After that, he started leaving out the more inflammatory language.

George also words what he thinks TM said a bit differently each time, I think. Like sometimes it's "you got one now" vs. "well you've got one now" etc... correct me if I'm wrong on that.

That's far different from the drastic change in the video walkthrough. I'm not saying he has a photographic memory. Just that his story was consistent and include the damning claim that he was hit once, immediately fell backwards onto the ground, and never got up. That could not have happened and he told that story 3 times before changing it.
Point is, no... he doesn't remember every phrase uttered. Not exactly, not perfectly.

Btw I consider the "you're gonna die tonight ______" piece to be perhaps the most likely thing to be a lie, in what he says. By no means does that imply I don't think it's POSSIBLE. I do think it's possible TM said that. Just saying, if I had to place a bet on one thing that's a lie... that'd be where my money was.

Because I don't believe Trayvon intended to kill George that night.

And yet you're willing to forgive such an egregious lie that almost no one believes is true?

Do you also doubt that Trayvon tried to smother him with his hands and in fact stopped his breathing? Do you also doubt that Trayvon went for the gun? Because if you do, then George is lying about many things in order to gin up a fear defense. I don't see how you can handwave that away.

I believe Trayvon was tired of getting in trouble, having been suspended repeatedly... and had just about had it with adults being the bearers of more problems for him with his parents, or getting in the way of what he wanted to do. I believe George was the last straw, and when this person (whom he saw was on the phone) was keeping an eye on him, I think Trayvon likely knew exactly who was on the other end of that phone, and when he saw that GZ was now out of his truck, exposed... I think he made the rash, split second decision that he could go teach this guy a lesson with a quick knockout punch, and then return home.

And yet the witness on the phone with him says he was scared of the creepy, armed man who never identified himself. In fact, if anyone was thinking "last straw", it's the guy who cussed "*********** punks, ******** who always get away". That's the guy who made the rash, split second decision to chase down the ******* and prevent him from getting away..

I think when the one punch knockout didn't happen as planned, he improvised very poorly. But I don't think he ever intended to kill GZ. If he said "you're gonna die tonight" at all, I suspect it was bluster.

Hang on there. It did work. Perfectly. According to George, he fell right back on his ass and never got up. If you don't believe George, again, then why are we here? Even in your scenario, if all Trayvon wanted was a single good blow for truth and justice, he got that. He punched the creepy man, he fell down IMMEDIATELY, and was therefore satisfyingly taken care of. But George claims that's when Trayvon tried to murder him. Glad we agree that's bullcrap.

This is all my speculation. I wouldn't want anyone to think I'm presenting it as anything other than that.

Ultimately I don't think there's any getting around the obvious conclusion that GZ has a poor memory and was struggling with recalling the exact details about everything from that night, both things which had a direct bearing on his legal culpability and things which were entirely trivial.

He recalled plenty of details. What's funny is that no one actually believes his details. They just want to claim all of his wrong details and incredible dialogue are just immaterial to the question of how he came to shoot an unarmed kid.
 
Wouldn't frisking TM substantiate "reasonable fear for his life"? Wouldn't that give weight to his assertion that he considered TM a threat to his life, implying he thought TM might be armed?

Well no, that's just him looking for a way out of what he just did.

A lot of this evidence, I haven't looked at in a while (months in some cases) can you remind me of what it is you're using as definitive proof that Zimmerman walked all the way back up to the T afterward, and that he was taken into custody there? Is that primarily Witness 18?

And the policeman who came upon him.


It doesn't? Seems pretty accounted for to me...

1.) GZ is punched and dazed near T, starts stumbling/fleeing forward/southward and drops keys at the moment of the punch or just after.
2.) GZ, with TM just behind him attempting to bring him to ground, move nearly the full distance southward before GZ ends up on the ground, and TM mounts him. Some items are shed by both parties during this movement.
3.) Remainder of items (the bulk) are shed at or near final confrontation location. Struggle during assault accounts for some additional movement south, Trayvon getting up after shot and stumbling accounts for a bit more.
4.) Trayvons phone is thrown away from his body by EMT's as per standard procedure when using a defibrillator (speculation on my part) putting it further south than any other item.

He never claimed he was chased southward. Even in his walkthough he's grappling the whole time. But in the first three versions of his story, that never happens. How is it that you are willing to ignore that fact?

#4 is just completely something you made up.


Is this anything more than pure speculation? If George was returning to his truck, as he claims, it makes all the sense in the world he'd have his keys out, in hand, at the ready to use the remote unlock feature when he got in range.

Because he said so. He was carrying his phone and his flashlight. He was concerned it was dark, remember?

I really think it's disingenuous to say that George claims the entire fight happened at the T... you know for a fact that during his on scene walkthrough the next day, he did indicate a movement of the confrontation southward. I don't see how you can latch onto the fact that in previous interviews, the night before (the most traumatic night of his life, mind you) he didn't properly account for that... and then try to pin so much onto that fact.

To try to say that's equivalent to him "claiming the entire fight happened" there. I just don't consider that an honest characterization, at all. I'm sorry if it's rude of me to say that.


You're just wrong on this. He said it over and over. One punch, down to the ground, mounted and in a fight for his life.

He doesn't get to present a new story and expect us to forget the original version, does he?
 
Then you are at odds with what Zimmerman claimed.

Zimmerman interwove speculation into his account. Such as when he speculated that Trayvon emerged from the bushes, despite not seeing it. It's him trying to make sense of how Trayvon reappeared there, at a time when he wasn't aware Trayvon had a temporary residence near that spot which might make for a more logical origin point.

When it comes to Zimmerman's belief or expressed belief that TM intended to kill him? How can he know that? He didn't have a direct connection to TM's brain. He's clearly speculating. Even if TM did say "you're gonna die tonight" there's no way for GZ to know if that was bluster or an expression of actual intent.

What matters is what GZ believed and what was reasonable for him to believe in that moment, with a large stranger on top of him, preventing his escape, and unresponsive to his screams and lack of fighting back. He was expressing in the clearest way a person can that he did not wish to participate in a "fight" - yet the one sided assault continued (according to his version and the evidence about who had injuries and who didn't) - if this person then also made a move, or was perceived to have made a move for his weapon? And/or said a threat? That just makes it even more clear.

In that place, in that time... in that situation GZ found himself in? Completely reasonable to fear for his life. More than reasonable.

When it comes to things like "I felt like he saw my gun" and "die tonight" and the number of head slams... the severity of mouth-covering (which I believe was an attempt to silence his screams, not suffocate him, btw) etc etc...

What I think you have going on here is a flawed, human man who was in fear trying to make sense of what happened to him, in many cases assuming the worst... and embellishing. I don't even think that embellishing is necessarily conscious. I think this is how memory works. I think he was terrified and the natural way the brain works in situations like that, for a lot of people anyway, is to over-estimate one's peril.

There may have been all sorts of very understandable, normal motivations and feelings behind that:

1.) Embarrassment as a man for not fighting back more effectively, or at all.
2.) Feeling guilty that he'd killed someone.
3.) Trying to reassure himself he'd done the right thing.
4.) Trying to get the cops on his side, to understand his fear and his situation, trying to make it sound really bad so they won't think he's a wuss for screaming like that... or won't think he's a murderer for defending himself...

etc etc etc. All of these and more, very likely going on at a subconscious level, GZ completely unaware or mostly unaware of them. These and many more.

Based on this, do you concede that perhaps Zimmerman might not have actually been in reasonable fear for his life because his memory of the event is expected to be unreliable?

Or is that a data point you are dead certain he remembers accurately?

Human memory is wildly unreliable. Not just GZ's... everyone's. Perhaps GZ's more than most.

That's why the physical evidence is so important, and despite what some may want to claim, it is consistent, at least in a general sense, with what he describes.

Personally I feel it's FULLY consistent with what he describes, but I say "general sense" as a concession to some of you, because I do agree he may have wildly overestimated the number of head slams and otherwise exaggerated some of the aspects of what happened.

But I think what he describes is pretty close to what took place.
 
Last edited:
" ...Trayvon getting up after shot and stumbling accounts for a bit more."

Trayvon got UP after being shot? :eye-poppi
 
I don't have a clue what he was thinking or if he was thinking at all.

I guess the point I am getting at is this; the rabbit hole of that conversation goes back to someone calling the idea of him looking for a street sign, ridiculous. I am saying it doesn't sound all that ridiculous. Just using a little bit of deductive reasoning, we clearly hear him experiencing a mental block. He is having difficulty giving directions, on the phone, before he had any actions to defend or justify. If you believe his struggles with recalling mundane details are dishonest, I am really curious as to why you think that way. In my opinion, I cannot see any reason to lie, at this point. He has done nothing wrong and he has no actions to defend, but most importantly he lacks the benefit of knowing what is about to happen. So, without motive for lying (I would appreciate it if you offered one because Zimmerman must have lied because he is a liar, is a bit circular) I see no reason to not believe that he was honest in his confusion on the phone. From there, it doesn't really take a leap in logic to believe that he was honestly looking for the name of a road, so when the police called, he could give a name. It may not be a fact, that may not be the truth, but at this point I see to reason to assume it is a lie.
 
Trayvon got UP after being shot? :eye-poppi

Are you implying that's impossible? I assure you it's not.

Others have said it's impossible TM said anything after being shot in the heart - again, entirely false. Very possible. I'm aware of an instance where a man was shot in the heart and spoke about the same amount GZ claims TM did before expiring.

A young man in the kind of physical condition TM was in, could absolutely have enough energy level to do what GZ describes, including get up off him, stumble, and say things.
 
And yet the witness on the phone with him says he was scared of the creepy, armed man who never identified himself. In fact, if anyone was thinking "last straw", it's the guy who cussed "*********** punks, ******** who always get away". That's the guy who made the rash, split second decision to chase down the ******* and prevent him from getting away..
...

Or as Z's number one cheerleader, fellow Neighborhood watchman Frank Taaffe put it, it was "a perfect storm."
"George was mad as hell and he wasn't going to take it anymore."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom