Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[AlBell]

TT's?

Trayvon Truthers.

 

[tsig]

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.

My speculation is that Z set out to kill a black boy that night to boost his testicular quotient.

Honestly?

A man with partial black ancestry himself... with multiple black friends (Anthony Woodson, Joe Oliver, unnamed friend he did bouncer jobs with...) who apparently mentored young black kids (his neighbor attested to seeing them at his house) and whom a black neighbor said was the only person who came and greeted him and welcomed him to the neighborhood... and a man who at the very least, re: Sherman Ware, was telling the city council meeting that the police chief who oversaw how the white officer's son was not being held to account for knocking out a homeless black man... should lose his pension... (CNN posted the audio of this)

This man "set out to kill a black boy" ? Really?

I can only hope you're joking. Being deliberately absurd.

If his goal was to kill a black boy to "boost his testicular quotient" that evening, why involve the police? Why give this person the opportunity to beat him up and seemingly get the better of him before firing? Why only fire one bullet, risking his "victim" telling the police some very interesting things from a hospital bed? Why wait until the maximum number of neighbors are staring out of windows, and the police are closer than at any time before that... to I guess, according to you, "execute" this boy? Is that your narrative?

Is this based on any sort of deliberation or thought about what the evidence indicates or allows for, or just tapping straight into pure emotion within yourself?

I don't mean to be insulting, I'm genuinely trying to understand how someone comes to such a conclusion. If this was 3/20/2012 instead of 3/20/2013 I could probably be a bit more understanding.

Please recall, after the point where Zimmerman says "he ran" he remains on the phone with the operator for quite a while... he expresses complete ignorance as to Martin's location, and he does not sound excited, or anxious to get off the phone so he can resume his "pursuit" or anything of the sort... the conversation is very casual, and wraps up at a very slow pace.

In a previous part of that call, he says in a frightened sounding voice, as Martin approaches his truck "Just get an officer over here" - listen again to it, he sounds palpably frightened. If murder was on his mind, why desire an officer as fast as he can get one there?

In a previous call to police, he says "I don't want to approach him, personally." regarding another burglary suspect.

Just help me understand how you reach that speculation, or reassure me you were joking.

Why get so exited about my speculation? You didn't mind inventing a whole scenario about TM.

Z's actions seems compatible with someone who has decided to take decisive action. He had the deadly force, he got out of his truck, he's responsible for death.

 

[tsig]

Shared by all the TT's. Now if sufficient beyond a reasonable evidence can just be presented at trial, you may be right.

I see a latino being railroaded for political reasons.

Who had the gun, who got out of his truck, who did the following? Z was the one pushing to a confrontation.

 

[johnny karate]

I'm not sure it requires a "conspiracy."

I think a succession of cowardly people in positions of power, and misinformed people making demands based on bad information... prompting those cowardly people in power to respond in knee jerk efforts to appease them or make a troublesome story generating bad publicity go away... is sufficient to explain it.

Unless you'd consider that a conspiracy... I guess that could be argued.

I certainly don't envision any poorly lit board rooms with sinister figures plotting Zimmerman's fate... can't speak for the poster you're responding to on what he envisions.

Yes, a group of people working together for a nefarious purpose - to railroad an innocent man - meets the definition of a conspiracy.

Personally, I believe in a system of law and order, and have no problem with someone who kills another person being held accountable. As Katie pointed out upthread, it's why we have trials.

A system in which a killer can just be given a pass simply by asserting self-defense strikes me as quite chilling.

 

[Dcdrac]

for me GZ's account of self defence is extremely tenuous it was him following TM not vice versa, and if he had been acting on suspicion he should have stayed put and waited for the police.

I do not believe he set out to murder, but he is responsible for a killing.

 

[sgtbaker]

I'm not sure it requires a "conspiracy."

I think a succession of cowardly people in positions of power, and misinformed people making demands based on bad information... prompting those cowardly people in power to respond in knee jerk efforts to appease them or make a troublesome story generating bad publicity go away... is sufficient to explain it.

Unless you'd consider that a conspiracy... I guess that could be argued.

I certainly don't envision any poorly lit board rooms with sinister figures plotting Zimmerman's fate... can't speak for the poster you're responding to on what he envisions.

It's an unfortunate side effect of the hot button topic. Some people resort to calling those who don't believe Zimmerman fired in self defense "Trayvon Truthers." It's as annoying and petty as calling anyone who doesn't feel there is enough evidence to support the case "pro-Zimmerman". I really wish the name calling would stop.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

Who had the gun, who got out of his truck, who did the following? Z was the one pushing to a confrontation.

Or he was someone who, like many people, legally carried a concealed firearm as a matter of course, even when making a grocery run. As in, second nature... about as significant as the fact that I have a Swiss army knife in my center console of my Accord. Trust me, this doesn't indicate that every time I go out for a drive I'm intent on, or looking for opportunities to knife someone with it.

You say he was pushing to a confrontation... but I believe the evidence is more in line with him wishing to maintain a visual. Repositioning himself in order to do so. Going to a location he did not dream the person who had run would return to, or return anywhere near to.

 

[Unabogie]

Or he was someone who, like many people, legally carried a concealed firearm as a matter of course, even when making a grocery run. As in, second nature... about as significant as the fact that I have a Swiss army knife in my center console of my Accord. Trust me, this doesn't indicate that every time I go out for a drive I'm intent on, or looking for opportunities to knife someone with it.

You say he was pushing to a confrontation... but I believe the evidence is more in line with him wishing to maintain a visual. Repositioning himself in order to do so. Going to a location he did not dream the person who had run would return to, or return anywhere near to.

All the while cussing at a kid who had done nothing wrong and to whom he'd never spoken in his life?

"*********** punk"
"These ********, they always get away"

Just keeping a visual?

What possible reason did he have to be angry at Trayvon at this point?

And then after he shot the victim, he lies to the police, lies to the court about his money and his extra passport, and several of the details of the story don't match the physical evidence, and we're supposed to take him at his word and let him off the hook for any inconsistent versions of his story or any lies or "embellishments"?

I hope a jury doesn't see it that way.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

All the while cussing at a kid who had done nothing wrong and to whom he'd never spoken in his life?

"*********** punk"
"These ********, they always get away"

I've never thought he sounded agitated, much less bloodthirsty. He sounds to me merely frustrated, frustrated at the string of burglaries and the tendency for the offenders to escape before police arrive. Sounds like a reasonable thing to be frustrated about, in my opinion.

Recall that there had been a lady who cowered in fear in her own home clutching her infant as two of the aforementioned burglars made off with her television.

GZ appears to have been a community minded individual, and I think stories like that got to him. I think he was frustrated, nothing more.

What possible reason did he have to be angry at Trayvon at this point?

He believed Trayvon to be one of the burglars who had been targeting the neighborhood, and I don't believe that's been ruled out.

He was also upset that Trayvon had, apparently, come right up to his car, and attempted to menace/intimidate him in doing so. Including a stare down and motion possibly meant to imply the possession of a weapon and preparedness to use it.

This is based on things GZ said before he was in any legal peril or had any clear reason to lie to dispatch. You may not agree with the characterization he applied to those actions, or which I am applying to those actions... but let's remember neither you, nor I were there that night. We didn't see how Trayvon was acting, we didn't see what he did. George did.

One of the central premises I see from individuals arguing for George's guilt, is that he took all of his actions while laboring under false notions of who Trayvon was. That he had incorrectly profiled Trayvon as someone he wasn't.

I don't believe that's been demonstrated, and I believe there are things which point in the other direction.

George said he looked like he was "on drugs or something" - lo and behold, autopsy shows illegal substance in his blood.

George said he thought this person might be involved in recent break-ins, and implied his behavior was consistent with casing houses - lo and behold, a report comes out from the Miami Schools Police department about suspicious jewelry in Trayvon's backpack.

And perhaps the most strong confirmation of Trayvon being the sort of person George pegged him as, is the assault itself.

Now, people can certainly quibble about the jewelry, and say that the THC levels were low... and there are valid points to be made in that regard. Although, to use a Serino phrase I saw analyzed in this thread, anyone would have to concede these things are at least "marginally consistent" with Trayvon being exactly what George sized him up as.

And no, I do not consider going to the store for snacks and casing houses for burglary either then, or later that night to be incompatible goals.

And then after he shot the victim

(Bold emphasis mine) I don't believe it has been demonstrated that Trayvon was the "victim" and I certainly feel there is a lot more evidence placing George in that role. This may be a semantic distinction, and I don't wish to argue about it at length. I think a more accurate designation for Trayvon at this point is "the deceased" - however I understand that in hearings so far, prosecutors and even the defense have been using the designation "the victim" for Trayvon, so I don't fault you for doing likewise. Just wanted to make that point.

he lies to the police, lies to the court about his money and his extra passport, and several of the details of the story don't match the physical evidence, and we're supposed to take him at his word and let him off the hook for any inconsistent versions of his story or any lies or "embellishments"?

I don't consider very many of the things you listed off there to be definitive, at all.

The passport issue for one, appears to have been considerably more complicated than just "he lied" - it seems there was a miscommunication between George, O'Mara, and the court. You'll also recall it was George via his attorney who alerted the court to this.

With regard to the money... I consider that issue very complex. I do think it's worth pointing out that Shellie Zimmerman offered to get Robert Zimmerman, Jr. on the phone in order to attain a current figure as to the amount of money in the account. I will agree that the Zimmermans handled that poorly, and MAY have been deliberately deceitful. I do not consider this settled fact, however.

I think they were dealing with an entirely new, alien situation to them and I also think a lot of the "talking in code" while he was in jail was to obscure the nature of what they were discussing from fellow inmates. I also consider George to be a bit slow and dense, and I think it's at least possible he thought he was complying with the rules.

He expressed concern to a friend about it, and relays that he expressed concern to O'Mara about it. He relays that O'Mara had reassured him on it.

It's very murky territory, and again I do think it's possible there was deliberate deception... but I also think it's possible there was general bumbling and miscommunication, mixed with unfamiliarity of the situation and possibly bad conduct on O'Mara's part.

I also think his story absolutely matches the physical evidence. Incredulity about severity of injuries, or refusal to accept that he did account for movement southward on the path during his on scene walkthrough, do not change this fact.

I hope a jury doesn't see it that way.

If the jury honors the law and does their job, there is absolutely no way, with the currently known evidence, that the prosecution can prove murder 2 "beyond a reasonable doubt." Barring some bombshell the public is currently unaware of, a conviction on that charge would undeniably constitute a failure on the jury's part.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Not only does he have nothing to do with the facts of the case, he's not even a participant of the criminal case. The state interviewed Witness 8 themselves and O'Mara has thus far neglected to do so for whatever reason. But Crump won't testify at the trial and he's not part of the prosecution team.

It wasn't neglect, and he told the court multiple times why he hadn't done it before.

But, anyway, so you can be happy he finally did it:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...in-girlfriend-deposed-20130320,0,866649.story

George Zimmerman's attorneys were in South Florida late last week, deposing Trayvon Martin's girlfriend, dad, mom and brother, according to newly-filed case records.

also:
http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Notice of Taking Deposition March 13.pdf

I can *speculate* as to why they obsess over him, but that would hurt some fee fees.

What are "fee fees." ?

 

[johnny karate]

He believed Trayvon to be one of the burglars who had been targeting the neighborhood, and I don't believe that's been ruled out.

Priceless.

 

[Unabogie]

He believed Trayvon to be one of the burglars who had been targeting the neighborhood, and I don't believe that's been ruled out.

Seriously? You don't think it's been established that Trayvon Martin was there as a guest and not a burglar?

Oh, boy. So now we get at the truth here. Please enlighten us as to what evidence supports this theory of yours and what would disprove it?

 

[johnny karate]

Seriously? You don't think it's been ruled out that Trayvon Martin was there as a guest and not a burglar?

Oh, boy. So now we get at the truth here. Please enlighten us what evidence supports this theory of yours and what would disprove it?

You know what else hasn't been ruled out?

That George Zimmerman is a rapist and murderer of children.

Of course, there's actual evidence to support those allegations.

 

[Unabogie]

It wasn't neglect, and he told the court multiple times why he hadn't done it before.

But, anyway, so you can be happy he finally did it:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...in-girlfriend-deposed-20130320,0,866649.story

George Zimmerman's attorneys were in South Florida late last week, deposing Trayvon Martin's girlfriend, dad, mom and brother, according to newly-filed case records.

also:
http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Notice of Taking Deposition March 13.pdf

Wow, they finally did it and it only took a year. Where should we send the blue ribbon?

What are "fee fees." ?

Feelings, only more precious. As to the point I was making, see the post above that it hasn't been ruled out that Trayvon was a burglar in the neighborhood.

You know, because he was, how did you put it, "an inner city youth from a dysfunctional family who wears gold teeth"? Or whatever. Can't tell you what I really feel about that without breaking the MA.

 

[tsig]

I've never thought he sounded agitated, much less bloodthirsty. He sounds to me merely frustrated, frustrated at the string of burglaries and the tendency for the offenders to escape before police arrive. Sounds like a reasonable thing to be frustrated about, in my opinion.

Recall that there had been a lady who cowered in fear in her own home clutching her infant as two of the aforementioned burglars made off with her television.

GZ appears to have been a community minded individual, and I think stories like that got to him. I think he was frustrated, nothing more.



He believed Trayvon to be one of the burglars who had been targeting the neighborhood, and I don't believe that's been ruled out.

He was also upset that Trayvon had, apparently, come right up to his car, and attempted to menace/intimidate him in doing so. Including a stare down and motion possibly meant to imply the possession of a weapon and preparedness to use it.

This is based on things GZ said before he was in any legal peril or had any clear reason to lie to dispatch. You may not agree with the characterization he applied to those actions, or which I am applying to those actions... but let's remember neither you, nor I were there that night. We didn't see how Trayvon was acting, we didn't see what he did. George did.

One of the central premises I see from individuals arguing for George's guilt, is that he took all of his actions while laboring under false notions of who Trayvon was. That he had incorrectly profiled Trayvon as someone he wasn't.

I don't believe that's been demonstrated, and I believe there are things which point in the other direction.

George said he looked like he was "on drugs or something" - lo and behold, autopsy shows illegal substance in his blood.

George said he thought this person might be involved in recent break-ins, and implied his behavior was consistent with casing houses - lo and behold, a report comes out from the Miami Schools Police department about suspicious jewelry in Trayvon's backpack.

And perhaps the most strong confirmation of Trayvon being the sort of person George pegged him as, is the assault itself.

Now, people can certainly quibble about the jewelry, and say that the THC levels were low... and there are valid points to be made in that regard. Although, to use a Serino phrase I saw analyzed in this thread, anyone would have to concede these things are at least "marginally consistent" with Trayvon being exactly what George sized him up as.

And no, I do not consider going to the store for snacks and casing houses for burglary either then, or later that night to be incompatible goals.



(Bold emphasis mine) I don't believe it has been demonstrated that Trayvon was the "victim" and I certainly feel there is a lot more evidence placing George in that role. This may be a semantic distinction, and I don't wish to argue about it at length. I think a more accurate designation for Trayvon at this point is "the deceased" - however I understand that in hearings so far, prosecutors and even the defense have been using the designation "the victim" for Trayvon, so I don't fault you for doing likewise. Just wanted to make that point.



I don't consider very many of the things you listed off there to be definitive, at all.

The passport issue for one, appears to have been considerably more complicated than just "he lied" - it seems there was a miscommunication between George, O'Mara, and the court. You'll also recall it was George via his attorney who alerted the court to this.

With regard to the money... I consider that issue very complex. I do think it's worth pointing out that Shellie Zimmerman offered to get Robert Zimmerman, Jr. on the phone in order to attain a current figure as to the amount of money in the account. I will agree that the Zimmermans handled that poorly, and MAY have been deliberately deceitful. I do not consider this settled fact, however.

I think they were dealing with an entirely new, alien situation to them and I also think a lot of the "talking in code" while he was in jail was to obscure the nature of what they were discussing from fellow inmates. I also consider George to be a bit slow and dense, and I think it's at least possible he thought he was complying with the rules.

He expressed concern to a friend about it, and relays that he expressed concern to O'Mara about it. He relays that O'Mara had reassured him on it.

It's very murky territory, and again I do think it's possible there was deliberate deception... but I also think it's possible there was general bumbling and miscommunication, mixed with unfamiliarity of the situation and possibly bad conduct on O'Mara's part.

I also think his story absolutely matches the physical evidence. Incredulity about severity of injuries, or refusal to accept that he did account for movement southward on the path during his on scene walkthrough, do not change this fact.



If the jury honors the law and does their job, there is absolutely no way, with the currently known evidence, that the prosecution can prove murder 2 "beyond a reasonable doubt." Barring some bombshell the public is currently unaware of, a conviction on that charge would undeniably constitute a failure on the jury's part.

Frustrated enough to gun down the first black he saw?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Wow, they finally did it and it only took a year. Where should we send the blue ribbon?

It only took the state slightly less than a year to give the defense a photo that they have had since week 1. How do you feel about that ?

Feelings, only more precious. As to the point I was making, see the post above that it hasn't been ruled out that Trayvon was a burglar in the neighborhood.

You know, because he was, how did you put it, "an inner city youth from a dysfunctional family who wears gold teeth"? Or whatever. Can't tell you what I really feel about that without breaking the MA.

It seems like you can't tell me about it because it was so unimportant you can't even remember exactly what I said.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

You know what else hasn't been ruled out?

That George Zimmerman is a rapist and murderer of children.

Of course, there's actual evidence to support those allegations.

Oh, evidence GZ is a rapist ? Do tell ...

 

[Unabogie]

Oh, evidence GZ is a rapist ? Do tell ...

You mean besides the victim?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/16/george-zimmerman_n_1676729.html

Now, where's the evidence that Trayvon Martin was a burglar? Any accusers? Any physical evidence?

Did you miss this?

 

[Unabogie]

It only took the state slightly less than a year to give the defense a photo that they have had since week 1. How do you feel about that ?



It seems like you can't tell me about it because it was so unimportant you can't even remember exactly what I said.

I notice you still won't denounce what was written above. Do you also believe it "hasn't been ruled out" that Trayvon Martin was there as a burglar? If not, perhaps you could jump in there and correct him on this?

 

[Skeptic Tank]

Seriously? You don't think it's been established that Trayvon Martin was there as a guest and not a burglar?

You say that like the two things are mutually exclusive. They aren't.

My understanding is that Trayvon had visited Brandi Green's residence, and his cousin in Sanford, previously.

My understanding is also that there were several young men burglarizing the neighborhood, some of whom had been spotted but not apprehended, others whom had not been even spotted.

I'm merely stating that it is possible Trayvon was using his visits to Sanford to commit burglaries there, which it is. If you can find some argument which shows what I'm saying here to be untrue, please do so.

Currently it sounds like, and I suspect... that your objection is only based on this being divergent from the nationally understood narrative. I'm uninterested in it being at odds with that narrative, and I'm uninterested in it being offensive, or being shocking to anyone. I'd be interested in something which actually shows it to not be a possibility.

Again, I am not saying I believe it to be the case. Just a possibility.

Please enlighten us as to what evidence supports this theory of yours

In all likelihood, I wouldn't even entertain the idea if not for the Miami-Dade School Police officer's report which was published (and is still on the website of) the Miami Herald, a major, nationally recognized and respected newspaper.

I acknowledge that this report is not as well established as a lot of the other evidence in this case, and that in the strictest sense it is NOT evidence in this case. I understand that.

However, it is at least enough for me to say "it hasn't been ruled out" that Trayvon was involved in the burglaries in that neighborhood.

Based on the report, the officer certainly seemed to interpret what he found in the backpack as being evidence that Trayvon was a burglar. He did, after all, designate the screwdriver as a likely "burglary tool."

Far be it from me to disregard a police officer's appraisal of the situation, I'm guessing he has seen more, and is better at identifying these sorts of behaviors and situations better than you or I.

what would disprove it?

What would disprove it, would be a comparison between when the burglaries in Zimmerman's gated community took place, and the times Trayvon was visiting that community, as provided by the family and verified in some way (comparison to school attendance, or phone GPS records, or something.)

I in no way expect such an investigation to ever be done. It would be interesting to see the results, however.

It would also be interesting to see the results of the jewelry being compared to theft reports in Sanford, rather than just in Miami as was done according to the information I've seen.

Again, please find a logical fault in what I'm saying here if I'm going to be accused of going beyond the pale in some way. Rather than just (as I've seen referenced here multiple times now) "pearl clutching" and "fainting couches." at the sheer AUDACITY of what I've said.