Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Skeptic Tank]

"And rightfully so"? So classy.

You don't think a person has a right to defend their life if someone is attacking them and they can't get away? That's what I mean by "rightfully." George had the right to defend his life.

I need to touch on this some more, because this position is mind-boggling.

The position you're referring to is that Trayvon didn't have the right to assault George and sustain that assault for a prolonged period, in the face of George's obvious complete unwillingness to be involved in any sort of "fight" - as evidenced by screams including words like "stop" "help" and "no"

And you're saying that position is mind-boggling... interesting.

I wonder how many people think George would have ran after that kid if he didn't have a weapon.

I don't think he "ran after that kid" as it is, but I believe he would have done the same things he did (other than shoot) without a gun.

 

[johnny karate]

I wonder how many people think George would have ran after that kid if he didn't have a weapon.

I think you might be selling Zimmerman short.

He was perfectly willing to assault a law enforcement officer without being armed.

 

[johnny karate]

You don't think a person has a right to defend their life if someone is attacking them and they can't get away? That's what I mean by "rightfully." George had the right to defend his life.

If that was in fact what happened, I would agree with you.

So you let me know just as soon as that has been factually determined.

The position you're referring to is that Trayvon didn't have the right to assault George and sustain that assault for a prolonged period, in the face of George's obvious complete unwillingness to be involved in any sort of "fight" - as evidenced by screams including words like "stop" "help" and "no"

And you let me know just as soon as any of that has been factually determined.

I don't think he "ran after that kid" as it is, but I believe he would have done the same things he did (other than shoot) without a gun.

The evidence quite clearly shows Zimmerman followed Martin.

He ended up in a location away from any street sign or way to find an address (as he claimed he was doing), and heading in a direction towards where he saw Martin running away from him.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

The evidence quite clearly shows Zimmerman followed Martin.

Yes, he did follow Martin. Briefly, and only in the sense that he went in the same direction Martin had gone in order to maintain a visual. He went to the next spot which would permit him to view southward, and hopefully see which way the person ran. Of course, when he got there he didn't actually see where Martin had gone. Either because it was dark, or Trayvon hid somewhere, or Trayvon just got too far south before George got to the "T" junction, or some combination of these things.

He didn't pursue him, or attempt to close the distance and come into direct contact with him. That's what most people wish to smuggle in with the word "follow" when they say it.

But yes, he did briefly follow Martin. He may even have picked up his pace a bit, but I do not think there's any reason to believe he "ran after" Trayvon.

Wind noises =/= running noises. And I hear no strain in GZ's voice when he says "Yeah" and "Okay" to indicate he's exerted himself at that point. It was the sound of the wind which tipped the dispatch off to the fact that George was out of his truck, not the sound of any heavy breathing, huffing and puffing, or footfalls. None of those sounds are present. I'm not saying wind and running can't both happen, of course they can. What I'm saying is, one doesn't indicate the other.

I'm basing most of what I'm saying here on George's testimony, which I haven't seen any good reason to disregard yet, because it seems to me to fit the evidence quite well other than a few minor issues which I think are attributable to trauma and a bad memory.

So, say what you will about what I think happened... but at least it's based on something. It's based on the person most intimately involved in all the events that night, start to finish, and what he says happened. It's augmented by the fact that his account matches physical and eyewitness evidence in several key ways.

Whereas theories about George catching up to Travyon, attempting to detain him, throwing the first punch (and apparently missing), having his firearm already out and waving it around... or using some sort of accomplice to flush his "quarry" from the south back to his position... or lying to dispatch before he was in any legal peril about where he was and where Trayvon was... all of these theories are not only silly, they are based on nothing whatsoever. They are founded on pure imagination and desire, and nothing more.

So do I think George followed Trayvon? Yea. Do I think he "ran after" Trayvon? No. Even if it could be demonstrated to me that he did "run after" Trayvon, I don't think there's evidence that this lasted more than a few seconds, or happened again after he said "okay" and I don't think there's evidence Trayvon could have known George did so.

ETA: I think the fact that he didn't see Trayvon when he got to the "T" junction is a strong indication he didn't run there.

 

[KatieG]

Well, it seems like I was wrong about anyone encouraging him NOT to go (though I think the quotes you posted are all from EMT rather than officers, right?) but yea, point taken. GZ didn't want to go to the hospital.

But this sort of reinforces my main point, doesn't it? Which was that he passed up a golden opportunity to buy himself time to work on his story, AND simultaneously look like more of a victim and make the beating out to be worse than it was.

All he had to do was lie, or not even that... just agree with the recommendations he was getting to go to the hospital.

So, why didn't he if he knew at that point that he was guilty of something? Wouldn't "firming up" his self-defense claim by focusing as much on his injuries and how woozy he felt have played into that goal well?

I'd just like to know how declining the hospital trip repeatedly squares with your perception of him as a nonstop liar who was conscious of his guilt at that point.

If you look at the top of the form Rare Truth provided, it clearly says "Reporter: Timothy Smith." That would be Officer Timothy Smith, not EMT Timothy Smith. The report references being at the SPD and Officer Smith providing GZ with water, tissues and checking with GZ to see if GZ felt his condition had changed.

So...

 

[12AX7]

Yes, he did follow Martin.

Was this practice SOP for neighborhood watch members?

 

[Skeptic Tank]

If you look at the top of the form Rare Truth provided, it clearly says "Reporter: Timothy Smith." That would be Officer Timothy Smith, not EMT Timothy Smith. The report references being at the SPD and Officer Smith providing GZ with water, tissues and checking with GZ to see if GZ felt his condition had changed.

So...

Right, but my point still stands.

The issue of who did or did not tell him he should go to the hospital was secondary to my point about why he wouldn't go to make himself look like more of a victim.

Which is precisely why I didn't analyze who did the report in great detail

 

[KatieG]

He probably didn't regard getting out of his truck and repositioning himself so that he could maintain a visual from a great distance as being "getting involved" because he didn't anticipate any sort of direct interaction with Trayvon to result.

I would agree with him. It was his neighborhood, he had every right to stand or walk in whatever part of it he wished. If Trayvon was distressed by that, or concerned, he had every right to run, call police, knock on a neighbor's door, or confront Zimmerman and ask him what was going on.

What he didn't have the right to do was assault Zimmerman and continue a one-sided beatdown on him for a prolonged period. That's why he was shot, and rightfully so.

Please the time parameters that night that would define "a prolonged period".

There is no clearer definition for "getting involved" then getting out of this truck and following TM.

So TM was murdered in cold blood because GZ was losing the fight? Ok, whatever.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

Was this practice SOP for neighborhood watch members?

Are you claiming that joining the neighborhood watch removes legal rights you'd have if you hadn't joined?

Or that being part of the NW means you are effectively considered "on watch" 24 hours a day? Even when you're out on a personal errand?

And remember, he followed him while inside the car before he ever did any following on foot... so was that okay?

See I think what the NW guidelines, particularly the ones which George was given, were concerned about was a person trying to directly detain or confront a suspicious person. I don't think they were trying to prevent people from keeping an eye on someone. In fact, keeping an eye on them is the whole point.

Sometimes you have to move to maintain that visual. Sometimes it might be a bad idea to do that, and maybe it was a bad idea when George did it... you could argue that, and you might have a point. Personally, I don't really think it was a bad idea because he thought Trayvon was long gone, and that they wouldn't come into direct contact.

But I could see how you'd think it was reckless of him. Even if I don't agree. I guess the question is, was it reckless enough that he should spend decades in prison because someone attacked him?

 

[KatieG]

It demonstrates that GZ didn't know where TM was going. He THOUGHT he was headed for the back gate, but he wasn't. That's why you used the words sort of.

Ok, where was TM heading? He was going back to Brandie Green's unit, which is located near the back gate. Where do you think he was going?

 

[phonebook]

Trayvon had no right to stand his ground; to defend himself.

Of course he had that right, as anybody else does. There would need to be evidence that GZ gave him a reasonable justification for doing so though, and to my knowledge, that evidence doesn't exist. Perhaps it's GZ reaching for his cell phone, but GZ's testimony is the only "evidence" that points to that even happening. But how does one make an objective determination about what parts of GZ's testimony is worthy of accepting as the truth, and which isn't? Just prior to GZ claiming he reached for his cellphone, GZ claims TM approached him from behind and to the left. Do we accept that happened? Just after GZ claims he reached for his cellphone, GZ claims TM punched him in the nose. Do we accept that? Do we only accept that one piece of evidence sandwiched in the middle as truth? If so, why?

 

[phonebook]

The flaw in your logic has been explained to you. I don't see the point in further assisting you in your disingenuous attempt to split semantic hairs in order to find some possible way that maybe Zimmerman wasn't being untruthful.

He clearly was.

He didn't need stitches. The doctor stated so in the medical report.

And it's lot more simple and honest for you just to admit that and move on.

I'm sorry, I feel like you are the one who is being disingenuous by not admitting your claim that GZ lied about what the doctor told him, based on the technically prepared medical report supposedly contradicting what GZ says (which I feel I have sufficiently disputed) the doctor said to him, is flawed.

 

[KatieG]

You're right, a medical report talking about GZ black eyes is no proof that that he had black eyes. That same medical report that you apparently favor to dismiss the notion of the "magically-healing wounds "

Disingenuous much ?

And you'll observe, I'm just talking about the specific things you are saying, not making you responsible for everything anybody who thinks GZ is guilty says - accomplice in truck, magic bullet, etc.
Seems quite reasonable that you should just be responsible for your claims, doesn't it ?


If only TM had stayed in school....

If only GZ had kept his fat ass in the truck. See how that works?

 

[Skeptic Tank]

Please the time parameters that night that would define "a prolonged period".

I think the standards for "prolonged period" are different for an assault than they are for most other things. When I listen to the 911 call when George screaming in terror, and this goes on and on... in the context of an assault? That's definitely what I'd call prolonged.

So TM was murdered in cold blood because GZ was losing the fight? Ok, whatever.

To me "in cold blood" implies an unemotional, heartless, calculating decision to kill someone when it isn't necessary. A killing with no mercy, no pity, no remorse.

That's what "in cold blood" means, not just to me but to everyone I'm aware of.

I wouldn't consider a situation where people are grappling, one on top of the other, one screaming in terror, where injuries have happened to be a cold blooded situation. That sounds very, very hot blooded to me. The kind of situation where adrenaline and blood are pumping, and things are happening second by second.

I don't see how any reasonable person can call that "cold blooded" or "murder" for that matter.

 

[phonebook]

"No sutures needed" > "go to the hospital probably and get some stitches"

Doctor > EMT

Next day/Wound had time (~16 hours) to heal - Previous night/Wound had maybe ~10 minutes to heal.

Wounds begin healing the instant they are received.

The observations made of the wound were in different stages of the healing process, and therefore aren't directly comparable.

 

[KatieG]

Right, but my point still stands.

The issue of who did or did not tell him he should go to the hospital was secondary to my point about why he wouldn't go to make himself look like more of a victim.

Which is precisely why I didn't analyze who did the report in great detail

Well, it seems like I was wrong about anyone encouraging him NOT to go (though I think the quotes you posted are all from EMT rather than officers, right?) but yea, point taken. GZ didn't want to go to the hospital.
From your post up above. That is exactly your point. You thought the quotes were from an EMT when the report clearly states otherwise.

 

[KatieG]

You don't think a person has a right to defend their life if someone is attacking them and they can't get away? That's what I mean by "rightfully." George had the right to defend his life.



The position you're referring to is that Trayvon didn't have the right to assault George and sustain that assault for a prolonged period, in the face of George's obvious complete unwillingness to be involved in any sort of "fight" - as evidenced by screams including words like "stop" "help" and "no"

And you're saying that position is mind-boggling... interesting.



I don't think he "ran after that kid" as it is, but I believe he would have done the same things he did (other than shoot) without a gun.

Evidence please. And since we do not have any proof that it was GZ yelling "stop", "help", and "no", this falls very flat from an evidence perspective.

 

[KatieG]

I think the standards for "prolonged period" are different for an assault than they are for most other things. When I listen to the 911 call when George screaming in terror, and this goes on and on... in the context of an assault? That's definitely what I'd call prolonged.



To me "in cold blood" implies an unemotional, heartless, calculating decision to kill someone when it isn't necessary. A killing with no mercy, no pity, no remorse.

That's what "in cold blood" means, not just to me but to everyone I'm aware of.

I wouldn't consider a situation where people are grappling, one on top of the other, one screaming in terror, where injuries have happened to be a cold blooded situation. That sounds very, very hot blooded to me. The kind of situation where adrenaline and blood are pumping, and things are happening second by second.

I don't see how any reasonable person can call that "cold blooded" or "murder" for that matter.

I don't call it "screaming in terror", you don't want to call it "in cold blood". Oh well...

 

[Skeptic Tank]

Evidence please. And since we do not have any proof that it was GZ yelling "stop", "help", and "no", this falls very flat from an evidence perspective.

Thought exercise:

You hear a fight going on in the next room, behind a closed door. Someone is screaming in what sounds like pain and fear. You try to go to open the door to open it, but it's locked. Several seconds later you finally manage to break the door down. The two individuals are now separated, one has blood coming out of his nose, and blood all over the back of his head.

The other has no wounds except for a scrape near his knuckle

For 100 points, who was screaming?

Not saying this is fool proof, but I do think you're swimming against the current of common sense if you don't think it was Zimmerman screaming.

By the way, in terms of evidence, I do consider these evidence of who was screaming:

1. Witness 6's first statement (the one that happened closest to the event)
2. Witness 6's interview with local news
3. George's statement that it was him
4. Police's determination that it was him
5. Tracy Martin saying it wasn't Trayvon
6. The injuries
7. The fact that GZ ended up firing his weapon. That goes well with the screams, as in... someone's harming me, I scream as a result, now I defend myself with my gun. The other interpretation requires GZ to be a monster. To execute someone who is "begging for their life" - I don't buy it. He may be a dumby, he doesn't seem like a monster.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Ok, where was TM heading? He was going back to Brandie Green's unit, which is located near the back gate. Where do you think he was going?

How do you know where he was going ? Did you have a conversation with him ?

If he was going back to Tracy Martins mistresses condo townhouse, then why wasn't he back there long before GZ got off the phone with NEN ?

How long do you think it takes an average person to walk 300 feet ?

I don't know where he was going, but the evidence indicates it was not back to anyone house, but instead to wait for GZ.