Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[TheL8Elvis]

And then of course there's the small detail of Martin supposedly reaching for Zimmerman's gun on which Zimmerman is hanging his self-defense claim.

I'm surprised someone who has been in this thread so long can still get this so wrong. It makes one wonder...

 

[tsig]

That's ridiculous. The EMT's spent a considerable amount of time cleaning up Zimmerman's injuries. They advised SPD that he required transport to the hospital.

Why didn't the EMT's take him to the hospital?

 

[Cylinder]

Why didn't the EMT's take him to the hospital?

Becaise Zimmerman was in custody at the time.

 

[Dancing David]

Nothing whatsoever.

The dispatcher heard the sound of wind,

Really and what standard of evidence do you have for that?

Please do explain.

which tipped him off to the fact that George was now out in the open, and he expressed concern about "following him" but seemed entirely placated with George's "okay" and never again expresses any sort of concern throughout the rest of the call.

Even when George makes it clear that he will not be in a fixed position, which obviously indicates he intends to stay on the move. When he says "Actually could you just have them call me? and I'll tell them where I'm at" the dispatcher's response is a cheerful sounding "okay yea that's no problem." and the call is concluded with a few more niceties.

At which point does he tell the dispatcher he is out of the car?

The dispatcher shows no concern, whatsoever, at the revelation that George will remain out of his car, and on the move. I think this is good evidence that it wasn't an objectively unwise or unreasonable thing.

there seems to be some assumptions going on here, aren't there.

The question still remains, and has not changed.

At which point does the dispatcher say he knows GZ is out of the car?

What exactly is the evidence for that?

More assumptions on your part?

Someone trained to be concerned about such things was not, as long as George made no further attempts to catch up to Trayvon (which I don't think was EVER his goal btw) and no evidence has come out to show that he did... so yea.

So yea , you made up a lot, which is not likely to be presented at trial.

 

[johnny karate]

Becaise Zimmerman was in custody at the time.

It's a violation of a prisoner's Eighth Amendment right to deny them required medical treatment.

If Zimmerman required a trip to the hospital, why was he not taken?

 

[Dancing David]

Why was that a "wow, just wow" moment for you? You seem to have a lot of those.

And I wasn't implying the dispatcher had any authority, I was just pointing out that if George being out of his car in and of itself, or staying out of his car and on the move were these objectively crazy, reckless, irresponsible behaviors that a lot of people here and elsewhere would like to present them as... the dispatcher's reaction to those revelations sure didn't indicate he saw it that way.

And the evidence that the NEN dispatcher know what GZ was doing is...?

The dispatcher was satisfied with a reassurance that George would stop following the person... and he never raises the issue again.

Why would they assume other wise, so you can make a claim that GZ's behavior was reasonable?

Or are you saying that GZ agreed to the request not to follow? And then did just teh opposite?

yes or no?

GZ is lucky you are not his lawyer.

I would think that if it was such an objectively irresponsible thing George was doing, the dispatcher might have said something at the point George asks "actually can you just have them call me, and I'll tell them where I'm at?" completely apart from the issue of the dispatcher having any authority (he didn't) is the issue of why he wouldn't convey concern there.

Uh huh, GZ is very lucky you are not his lawyer.

Seems like a golden opportunity to say "Sir, this person may be dangerous and may still be in the area, it would really be better if you would just return to your vehicle and wait for the officer there." making a recommendation like that and conveying concern like that requires no authority.

So perhaps, just maybe, the dispatcher didn't see the act of merely being outside of your car, in your own neighborhood, to be equivalent to hopping out of the Land Rover on a safari.

Maybe hindsight is the only reason anyone thinks George's actions are reckless and irresponsible. Oh and by the way I wasn't saying the dispatcher was giving approval of anything, just that I think it's noteworthy that he didn't devote more than, at best, those initial few words to the supposed perils of getting out of your car.

Perhaps the problem was that George wasn't cynical or suspicious ENOUGH of Trayvon. Since apparently he didn't consider that Trayvon might come and do violence on him.

Maybe you ought to just admit that you are making this up and not really considering anything you say at all.

So did the dispatcher know what GZ was doing, yes or no?

 

[johnny karate]

I'm surprised someone who has been in this thread so long can still get this so wrong. It makes one wonder...

Oops...

At this point I felt the suspect reach from my now exposed firearm and say "Your [sic] gonna die tonight [expletive deleted]". I unholstered my firearm in fear for my life as he had assured me he was going to kill me...

I assume your apology will be forthcoming as you have consistently conducted yourself in this thread with the highest degree of honesty and integrity.

 

[Dancing David]

And yet, I'm told he was reckless getting out of his car and should have known that was irresponsible...

so I can only conclude people think he wasn't suspicious ENOUGH of Trayvon.

Nice false dichotomy, so rhetoric is all you have?

I wonder, if you were to try to start a neighborhood watch, what advice and information would be out there to guide you?

You report someone as suspicious and that is all.

I hate to say this but your lively discussion is really very empty and just a sort of strawman in this case. I believe that you are actually a very good poster but why you male these empty gambits if unlnown.

If the defense tries to say that the NEN dispatcher should have assumed the GZ was not telling the truth when he said 'Okay", then that would be bad.

Or would a reasonable person have understood what the NEN dispatcher said 'we don't need you to do that'.

Now again this will all be immaterial if the defense makes a good case that GZ had a reasonable fear of life and serious physical injury.

 

[Dancing David]

He didn't.



I honestly don't see how merely "getting out of the car" could be objectively unreasonable, but, I suppose if they could prove the above (and I consider it a big "what if"), it would reflect negatively on GZ. That action was in no way illegal, afaik, so it would probably be more relevant in a civil trial (but, IANAL). I think the more important thing would be for them to prove GZ had malicious intent when he got out of the car, another tall task.



I don't believe GZ would be legally bound by an expectations. Again, I suppose if they could somehow prove that, it would reflect negatively towards GZ to some extent.



Nothing.

So I have to ask, did you miss the references to the efforts of GZ to organize a neighborhood watch and how this would possibly inform his sense of what was reasonable.

The question and statements I made were not that getting out of the car was illegal, now was it?

In fact I stated that the information and training of the neighborhood watch, which GZ tried to form is likely to be the basis for the prosecution to say that the choice to leave the car was not a reasonable choices.


The question is not would any person at any time consider the act unreasonable, the question would be if a reasonable person with GZ's knowledge and possible experience would make the same choice.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

And then of course there's the small detail of Martin supposedly reaching for Zimmerman's gun on which Zimmerman is hanging his self-defense claim.

Oops....

No oops. I know what GZ police statement says. That doesn't mean his self defense claims hangs on reaching for the gun. It hangs on fear of great bodily injury. TM reaching for the gun is not something his case is hanging on.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

At which point does he tell the dispatcher he is out of the car?

I think you're just arguing for the sake of argument now. For you to assert that somehow the dispatcher didn't hear the same wind noise we all hear when we listen to the tape, despite the fact that it was that wind noise which triggered the question "are you following him?" in the first place... is silly.

The wind is clearly audible, and very recognizable. It is the sound which immediately precedes the dispatcher's question, and clearly triggered it.

I don't consider that debatable, and if you do... you'll need to look elsewhere for your debate partner on it.

The sounds of George getting out of his car may also have been a part of why the dispatcher understood George had gotten out and was on foot. Though these are less audible/obvious.

I would say comments like "I don't want to give it all out... I don't know where this kid is" made it clear he was still outside on foot, too.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

If the defense tries to say that the NEN dispatcher should have assumed the GZ was not telling the truth when he said 'Okay", then that would be bad.

The point I was making is not that the dispatcher should have doubted GZ's "okay" but that a lot of people act like being out of the car AT ALL was a dangerous, irresponsible, reckless bad idea. Whether he continued to follow TM or not. His account is that he did not, and that he was still at the north of the "T" - I don't consider hanging around the T waiting for a cop to call you to be an inherently dangerous choice. I don't think GZ or the dispatcher did either. I think only hindsight or a very aggressive, primitive view of human interactions would lead a person to think it was.

 

[Dan O.]

Why does the dispatcher say "we don't need you to do that"?

It's strictly a liability thing. The dispatcher cannot tell a citizen to do anything except in cases where there is actual legal authority to do so.if the dispatcher were to tell George to follow the suspect and in doing so he gets himself killed, the police department would share in the liability for George's death. Similarly, if the dispatcher tells George that he needs to return to his truck and there is a bad guy there that kills George, the police department is again potentially liable. When the dispatcher asks George which way the suspect ran and then hears George outside of his truck chasing after the suspect, even if only to see which way he ran, the dispatcher has to cover the departments butt and tells George "we don't need you to do that". George is a free citizen. Whatever he does, it is not at the behest of the police department. If he wanders off and gets himself killed or gets embroiled in a murder charge, that's his problem. The police department did not tell him to do anything for them.

 

[phonebook]

It's strictly a liability thing. The dispatcher cannot tell a citizen to do anything except in cases where there is actual legal authority to do so.if the dispatcher were to tell George to follow the suspect and in doing so he gets himself killed, the police department would share in the liability for George's death. Similarly, if the dispatcher tells George that he needs to return to his truck and there is a bad guy there that kills George, the police department is again potentially liable. When the dispatcher asks George which way the suspect ran and then hears George outside of his truck chasing after the suspect, even if only to see which way he ran, the dispatcher has to cover the departments butt and tells George "we don't need you to do that". George is a free citizen. Whatever he does, it is not at the behest of the police department. If he wanders off and gets himself killed or gets embroiled in a murder charge, that's his problem. The police department did not tell him to do anything for them.

I agree with all of the above (for what that's worth).

 

[Dan O.]

I agree with all of the above (for what that's worth).

Don't expect that to earn you any accolades. There are still plenty of direct questions which you have been ignoring.

 

[12AX7]

Zimmerman's injuries are minor. What about them would lead investigators to the conclusion that he was in a life-threatening situation as opposed to just simply losing a fight?

How can you ask that?

George suffered a life-threatening beating at the hands of Trayvon. I mean, we have him being hit "25-30 times", head bashed repeatedly into concrete so hard it felt like his "head would explode". Deep cuts on his head that, thank GOD started healing only a few hours later and didn't need stitches. Black eyes that don't really turn black. A swollen "broken" nose. He's lucky to be alive!

Just look at this picture from the next morning. Look at all those injuries on him. Heck, he can barely see. Probably still in shock too. It's more than clear that he had no choice but to shoot Trayvon. His life was in danger!

I'm hoping overt-aggressive sarcasm can sway some of George's defenders, because logic and facts sure ain't doing it.

 

[Dan O.]

These are the photos taken after George got a whole new wardrobe because everything he was wearing that night was in tatters, right??

 

[johnny karate]

No oops. I know what GZ police statement says. That doesn't mean his self defense claims hangs on reaching for the gun. It hangs on fear of great bodily injury. TM reaching for the gun is not something his case is hanging on.

It's weird that you would alter my argument immediately after quoting and repeating it.

I didn't say Zimmerman's case hangs on Martin reaching for his gun, just his self-defense claim.

And for clarification's sake, I wasn't referring to his legal claim but rather the actual claim he made in which he says it was when Martin reached for his gun that he was placed in fear for his life and had to defend himself.

 

[johnny karate]

Just look at this picture from the next morning. Look at all those injuries on him.

Just a minor clarification: That photo is not from the next morning, but rather the same night just a short while after the incident.

 

[johnny karate]

And in the sideshow to the main event, Zimmerman's brother is keepin' it classy:

Robert Zimmerman, Jr., brother of Trayvon Martin shooter George Zimmerman, continued his everything-including-the-racist-kitchen-sink PR offensive on behalf of his brother by repeatedly tweeting a photo comparison of the teenager his brother shot, and De’Marquise Elkins, the 17 year-old who has been detained in the murder of a Georgia infant. Both pictures feature the young men flipping the middle finger at the camera, with the caption “A picture speaks a thousand words…Any questions?”

And then there's this tweet:

Lib media shld ask if what these2 black teens did 2 a woman&baby is the reason ppl think blacks mightB risky

I wonder if actually believes he's helping his brother with these shenanigans?