Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[phonebook]

Is it reasonable for GZ to have left his car?

Are you aware of the entire body of knowledge GZ was working with when he made the decision to leave his car?

Without the above, you can't consider the next thing, which would also need to be considered:

Is it reasonable for GZ to have not predicted what would occurr after he got out of his vehicle? Was the forthcoming outcome inevitable once GZ got out of his vehicle? Was it even the most likely outcome? Again, you'd have to know what past information GZ was using to gauge what the likely outcome of getting out of his car was.

ETA: GZ attempts to shed some light on this in at least one of his interviews that I'm aware of, but because GZ is saying it (if not from GZ, from what other source should one look for such information?), maybe people dismiss it in it's entirety, at least when the information seeks to make "reasonable" GZ's decision to leave his car.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

But you've studied Travon's dad's inter-personal relationships.

It did take a little studying, since the Sybrina Fulton / Tracy Martin Public Relation campaign didn't exactly broadcast the fact that Tracy Martin was married, but was content to call Chad his "little brother" and Brandy green his "fiance". I guess that whole fiance/little brother thing didn't work out.

 

[johnny karate]

Because the dispatcher said to him "He's running? Which way is he running?"

The "way" he was running was concealed by multiple large obstructions (town homes), and from GZ's vantage point at the time the dispatcher requested that information of him, the answer was not sufficiently attainable.

Well, that's just a lie.

The dispatcher's question was immediately answered, and then answered again with more clarification:

Dispatcher: He’s running? Which way is he running?

Zimmerman: Down toward the other entrance of the neighborhood.

Dispatcher: OK, which entrance is that he’s headed towards?

Zimmerman: The back entrance.

Where in the exchange does the dispatcher request further information about Martin's location?

 

[KatieG]

You left out Serinos police report where he identifies that he believes it is GZ screaming.

KatieG has already pointed out that she understands why he might not have identified his sons voice, being grief stricken having just found out his son was dead. I can understand that.
What I can't understand is why he felt the need to lie about it later. Maybe KatieG can explain that.

But I think it's probably just like with GZ not knowing a street name, she simply doesn't belive GZ didn't know, and simply believes it was TM despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Again I ask, what evidence shows it was GZ and TM screaming?

 

[12AX7]

Are you aware of the entire body of knowledge GZ was working with when he made the decision to leave his car?

Without the above, you can't consider the next thing, which would also need to be considered:

Is it reasonable for GZ to have not predicted what would occurr after he got out of his vehicle? Was the forthcoming outcome inevitable once GZ got out of his vehicle? Was it even the most likely outcome? Again, you'd have to know what past information GZ was using to gauge what the likely outcome of getting out of his car was.

ETA: GZ attempts to shed some light on this in at least one of his interviews that I'm aware of, but because GZ is saying it (if not from GZ, from what other source should one look for such information?), maybe people dismiss it in it's entirety, at least when the information seeks to make "reasonable" GZ's decision to leave his car.

So I'll ask again. Is it neighboorhood watch SOP to leave the vehicle and follow a suspicious person?

 

[tsig]

Simple answer, I don't know what Tracey Martin was thinking.

What evidence?

You've missed out on the new rules which say it's OK to make up what Z should have said or did regardless of what he actually said or did as long as the killing can be justified.

This makes this thread more of an exercise in fiction than a search for what really happened.

 

[phonebook]

Regardless of whether you are capable of admitting Zimmerman might have lied, what he said regarding his need of stitches was untruthful. As the medical report clearly indicates.

Is it "might have" lied now, or did lie? Are you no longer asserting a definitive?

Are you capable of understanding that GZ didn't say he "needed stitches"?

 

[Giz]

Is it reasonable for GZ to have left his car?

There's a difference between rash and illegal. Getting out of the truck was:

1) By all of the prior experiences (where suspects had just run off); perfectly safe. No conflict would have happened but GZ might have been able to point the police in the right direction.

2) In this instance it turns out to have been risky. Does that mean that it was illegal? Or that it puts him morally in the wrong? I would argue that risky behavior doesn't necessarily make you morally or legally liable (i.e. someone walking home alone on a dark night who gets mugged or raped may have been taking risks but the legal and moral culpability should all be on the mugger/rapist - not the victim).

 

[tsig]

I seriously doubt that.

I think if the gun hadn't been present, the likely outcome would have been police showing up and arresting Trayvon Martin for felony assault. Or maybe neighbors would have finally grown spines and helped.

I think Zimmerman would have been in roughly the same condition he was, maybe slightly worse.

But this kind of misses the point, which is what George perceived as this assault was taking place. Whether it was reasonable to fear for his life or great bodily harm. I think it absolutely was. He didn't have psychic powers, and he'd already given Trayvon an awful lot of time to locate his conscience and sense of mercy. They apparently were nowhere to be found (if George's story is true.)

And this is without even getting into the issue of Trayvon getting ahold of his gun... but I'll refrain from going off on another tangent.

So the only thing that counts is what was in Z's mind at the moment he pulled the trigger and the only way we know that is what he tells us?

 

[KatieG]

GZ college "graduation" party is also irrelevant. TM bag with jewelry and screwdriver are irrelevant. Lots of things discussed here are irrelevant to the actual case.

Why are you so worried about this irrelevant factoid ?

Anything that goes to GZs credibility is relevant. If the defense is able to produce anything that shows TMs propensity for violence, that will be relevant.

Brandie Green is irrelevant because she was not a participant in this encounter. You're smarter than this, you know these things so I can only assume you're baiting.

 

[KatieG]

So I'll ask again. Is it neighboorhood watch SOP to leave the vehicle and follow a suspicious person?

I can only speak for our Neighborhood Watch but the answer to that is a great big NO. Our guidelines tell us to stay in our homes or in a safe place and call 911 immediately.

 

[johnny karate]

Is it "might have" lied now, or did lie? Are you no longer asserting a definitive?

I phrased that as if it were from your point of view. I think he lied. You can't even admit he might have.

Are you capable of understanding that GZ didn't say he "needed stitches"?

I understand that people don't say "I could use stitches" in a casual manner like "I could use a vacation" Or "I could use a cold beer".

Zimmerman either needed stitches or he didn't. The medical report clearly indicates he didn't. Yet, he gave the opposite impression to the police when asked about it.

 

[12AX7]

I can only speak for our Neighborhood Watch but the answer to that is a great big NO. Our guidelines tell us to stay in our homes or in a safe place and call 911 immediately.

I suspect George's was the same way.

 

[KatieG]

There's a difference between rash and illegal. Getting out of the truck was:

1) By all of the prior experiences (where suspects had just run off); perfectly safe. No conflict would have happened but GZ might have been able to point the police in the right direction.

2) In this instance it turns out to have been risky. Does that mean that it was illegal? Or that it puts him morally in the wrong? I would argue that risky behavior doesn't necessarily make you morally or legally liable (i.e. someone walking home alone on a dark night who gets mugged or raped may have been taking risks but the legal and moral culpability should all be on the mugger/rapist - not the victim).

GZ is not the victim here.

 

[Rare Truth]

I suspect George's was the same way.

It specifically does.

I posted images from the NW Guidebook, the one GZ himself helped distribute, a number of times now.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Still irrelevant.

Anything that goes to GZs credibility is relevant. If the defense is able to produce anything that shows TMs propensity for violence, that will be relevant.

Brandie Green is irrelevant because she was not a participant in this encounter. You're smarter than this, you know these things so I can only assume you're baiting.

Perhaps Dancing David has the patience to explain it to you, because I don't, and I don't think you seem inclined to believe much of anything I say anyway.

 

[phonebook]

So I'll ask again. Is it neighboorhood watch SOP to leave the vehicle and follow a suspicious person?

I imagine "neighborhood watch SOP", especially the NW that GZ was a part of, is not all-encompassing, having covered every possible scenario that a NW person could encounter. I'd rather ask you to point out a documented instance, which existed before this incident, that specifically states that those belonging to the specific NW group GZ was involved with should, under no circumstances, leave their vehicles.

Now, show me where GZ, acting in a role as a citzen at the time, is legally bound to behave in compliance with any supposed NW procedures.

 

[Giz]

GZ is not the victim here.

Firstly, starting with that ironclad assumption will prevent you from being able to apply reasoned thought to the case. Instead, everything will be viewed through preconceived notions.

Secondly, that doesn't even matter to the point I was making - which was as mundane and uncontroversial as: can someone be a bit rash without being morally or legally compromised?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

GZ is not the victim here.

This is not your precious JQ.

We can call GZ a victim here if we want.

 

[phonebook]

I can only speak for our Neighborhood Watch but the answer to that is a great big NO. Our guidelines tell us to stay in our homes or in a safe place and call 911 immediately.

You are supposed to "call 911 immediately" for someone that isn't in the commission of a crime, and merely looks suspicious?