Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[sgtbaker]

You mean other than this (bolding mine)?

That is Unabogie's narrative based on the evidence. You made that claim before he posted it so what were YOU thinking was evidence when you posted that?

For the record, I do disagree with it and I have voiced my objection before.

A) we have GZ on the NEN call clearly having difficulty with directions, so later when he says he gets confused with directions, it's not all that difficult to believe. We had a first hand account of it happening and I would be really interested to hear what your thoughts are on that.

B) a wide debris field after a fight is not all that surprising, nor is the idea of people moving more than they remember.

 

[Dan O.]

Short of saying anything about GZ still being in any sort of "pursuit". And when GZ asked the dispatcher "Actually, could you just have them call me, and I'll tell them where I'm at?", suggesting he wouldn't necessarily be at his truck... what was the dispatcher's resply? "Ok. Yeah, that's no problem". Doesn't quite sound like someone doing "everything he could" to get GZ to "break off the pursuit".

And actually... the information that the dispatcher was requesting was SOP stuff. He needs GZ's full name (for the call log), his telephone number, and he needs to have an address in which to send the officer to, etc.

All distractions. The dispatcher already knows the phone number from callerID which is not blocked for 911 and similar services. The dispatcher asked if George lived in the area and asked for his home address. This is to remind George that he has a place where he should feel safe. Does the dispatcher need to know George's home address? No he does not. He tells George it's alright when George doesn't want to give it out loud.

Now, maybe the dispatcher should have stayed on the line with what was obviously a paranoid caller. But this is a tough judgement call. There's a risk that the caller could feel emboldened or feel a duty to help the police while on the line with them. You would have to ask the dispatchers if they receive any training or instruction in this regard.

 

[tsig]

Is your claim that it is impossible to meet up with someone at some point unless you follow them to that point?

So Z was just on a ramble around the neighborhood and ran into Martin?

 

[12AX7]

Except he said he was looking for an address on RVC because he knew the street name.

But of course.

 

[remirol]

WRONG! The dispatcher has no idea whether the car is safer or not. What if there was a boogieman waiting to assault George at his truck. For liability reasons, the dispatcher cannot tell George to return to his truck. He cannot tell George to stay where he is. He cannot tell George to go home. George's safety is George's responsibility and so are his actions.

I know of at least one instance where a dispatcher told the caller what to do that resulted in the caller getting killed because the perp had returned to the scene of the an earlier altercation with guns. I believe this was national news shortly before George's incident so dispatchers would be fully aware that their advice can have consequences.

Teh Google™ has a number of links for 911 operator guidelines. Reading through them quickly is proving to be one hell of a bitch, however, but I suspect they may be useful here in determining why the operator acted a certain way or didn't.

One such link is here though it seems to be for a smaller town.

ETA: And a page of links from the same site.

 

[sgtbaker]

Honestly, to me those are the same expression and the first one is just more forceful -- an order instead of an instruction. But I have been around emergency services since my childhood, and I'm also familiar with people trying to over-professionalize their words and not understanding how to do it properly.

Let's go down this road briefly: Would you agree that the NEN dispatcher was attempting to discourage George from any further pursuit?

Of course I agree with that.

(^^ prefer to stop here, TBH, as the rest is speculation from both sides.)

If it's not obvious by now, BTW, I'm starting to _try_ to nail down a timeline that contains nothing more than "what both sides agree on actually happened", because the amount of "inserting own narrative" into things that's going on in this thread drives me nuts to read. What George did after being instructed I'm not touching just yet; I need to check everything else that matches up to that spot on the timeline. I think we are a lot closer to the same page than it appears though.

I can respect what you are doing.

 

[Dan O.]

Are you aware of any?

Do you have evidence they were filtered out, or are you "Just Asking Questions"

Of course I'm aware. I did enough research in 2 minutes to know there was at least one. Why do you think I asked the question.

 

[Unabogie]

B) a wide debris field after a fight is not all that surprising, nor is the idea of people moving more than they remember.

But remember, it's not just any old wide debris field. Two items fell SOUTH of the body. Those are the flashlight George was holding before the fight started and the cellphone Trayvon was holding before the fight started.

The most logical conclusion is that they both dropped what they were holding and started wrestling. Therefore, what fell first tells us where they were when they first started the fight. The only thing at all that's even close to the T is the keys. And those are 8 feet south of the T, past the small tree. Not close to where George says he was, and more importantly, he told us what he had in his hands. The phone, the flashlight, then just the flashlight. He never took out his keys and used that as a flashlight in any of his stories. Plus, witnesses saw him walk up to where he dropped his keys after the murder.

So really, you can't dismiss this as a "wide debris field". The body, flashlight, and phone are within 8 feet of each other.

 

[12AX7]

That is Unabogie's narrative based on the evidence. You made that claim before he posted it so what were YOU thinking was evidence when you posted that?

I agree with what Unabogie posted; that's why I quoted it.

For the record, I do disagree with it and I have voiced my objection before.

Noted.

A) we have GZ on the NEN call clearly having difficulty with directions, so later when he says he gets confused with directions, it's not all that difficult to believe. We had a first hand account of it happening and I would be really interested to hear what your thoughts are on that.

A self-appointed NW guy who knew everyone in the neighborhood that could not remember two streets? Or was he 'confused'? Yeah, it is difficult to believe, because George was 'confused' on his location before his stress level increased.

B) a wide debris field after a fight is not all that surprising, nor is the idea of people moving more than they remember.

The location of the objects do not jive with George's stories. Dan summed it up:

It's really not a problem. George Zimmerman is walking west on the sidewalk past the tee heading back to his truck when Trayvon Martin leaps out of the bushes that are 15 to 20 feet away behind him and punches him in the face. He falls straight to the ground on his back on the grass while tossing the keychain flashlight 6 to 10 feet in the other direction. Because George is understandably confused, he does the slithering thing onto the sidewalk and for 30 to 40 feet down the sidewalk to the south while trayvon is punching his face with bricks and smashing his head into the concrete. George then slides backwards off the sidewalk onto the slippery grass and this let's trayvon see his gun that is tucked into his waistband behind him. When the neighbor steps out briefly to tell them to cut it out, George retrieves his gun and shoots Trayvon. George then walks back towards the tee where he surrenders to flashlight man at the same spot where George's keys landed but neither of them had noticed even though the flashlight attached to the keys was illuminated on. And somehow both George's other flashlight and Trayvon's cell phone ended up even further south than where the fight ended.

 

[sgtbaker]

We'll just add this to the massive list of other things about this case you don't see.

I want Geroge to be convicted because I feel he wrongly shot and killed an unarmed teenager who was doing nothing wrong and had a right to be where he was.

But the more I read the nonsense you and the other George Fanboys post, I can't help but I add schadenfreude to that initial reason. Juvenile of me? Perhaps. But I can't wait to read the wailing and gnashing of teeth when George is convicted.

Any chance you can list the evidence for us blind fanboys (girl in my case)? You still haven't listed anything other than circular logic. I am fine with you wanting GZ to be convicted. I am not fine with calling peope names because you've ignored two requests to support your assertion. I especially won't be fine when this thread goes back on moderated status because some people can't keep their emotions in check.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Of course I'm aware. I did enough research in 2 minutes to know there was at least one. Why do you think I asked the question.

Then how about you just provide the evidence and go from there and avoid the innuendo and being coy ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

But remember, it's not just any old wide debris field. Two items fell SOUTH of the body. Those are the flashlight George was holding before the fight started and the cellphone Trayvon was holding before the fight started.
The most logical conclusion is that they both dropped what they were holding and started wrestling. Therefore, what fell first tells us where they were when they first started the fight. The only thing at all that's even close to the T is the keys. And those are 8 feet south of the T, past the small tree. Not close to where George says he was, and more importantly, he told us what he had in his hands. The phone, the flashlight, then just the flashlight. He never took out his keys and used that as a flashlight in any of his stories. Plus, witnesses saw him walk up to where he dropped his keys after the murder.

So really, you can't dismiss this as a "wide debris field". The body, flashlight, and phone are within 8 feet of each other.

I hilited the parts you have not provided evidence for.

This post is full of unsubstantiated nonsense.

 

[sgtbaker]

I agree with what Unabogie posted; that's why I quoted it.



Noted.



A self-appointed NW guy who knew everyone in the neighborhood that could not remember two streets? Or was he 'confused'? Yeah, it is difficult to believe, because George was 'confused' on his location before his stress level increased.

1) do you agree that he had trouble on the phone, giving directions? If yes; do you think it was honest?

The location of the objects do not jive with George's stories. Dan summed it up:

George Zimmerman can be the most innocent man alive and his story still would not be an exact narrative. I know this to be true because I've experienced it myself; having to give a pre-deposition and then a deposition and was called a liar by the defense because they were not identical. The truth is, memory is funny like that. Sometimes I remember making it all the way to the middle of the road, other times I remember only up to deciding to cross the road, still other times I remember stepping off the curb. The fact is, the human brain, much like people here, like a consistent narrative that fits what we know happened. Since most of us do not have eidetic memories, there was always be gaps, no matter how fresh the memory is. The brain has a habit of filling in gaps in information with imagination, many times, to the point where we are unable to decipher fact from fantasy. That's why many cases have multiple witnesses to an event giving different versions, different car colors/types, and different descriptions of a suspect. We are not all liars, we just think our memory is better than it actually is.

 

[Unabogie]

I hilited the parts you have not provided evidence for.

This post is full of unsubstantiated nonsense.

It's not unsubstantiated, and it's certainly more reasoned than the insane conspiracy theory that Benjamin Crump and ABC news are conspiring to present a changeling as a material witness.

There's ample evidence that George was carrying that flashlight, since he said he was. There's ample evidence that Trayvon was carrying that phone, since he was on the phone up until George caught up with him again.

That they appear 8 feet from the body, to the SOUTH of the body, is fact. What I've presented is the most logical explanation for how those items ended up there. Please explain how they ended up there, 50 feet from the T,and make sure you don't use any speculation.

Should be entertaining. Remember, SMILE as you spin. The judges notice that for style points.

 

[sgtbaker]

But remember, it's not just any old wide debris field. Two items fell SOUTH of the body. Those are the flashlight George was holding before the fight started and the cellphone Trayvon was holding before the fight started.

The most logical conclusion is that they both dropped what they were holding and started wrestling. Therefore, what fell first tells us where they were when they first started the fight. The only thing at all that's even close to the T is the keys. And those are 8 feet south of the T, past the small tree. Not close to where George says he was, and more importantly, he told us what he had in his hands. The phone, the flashlight, then just the flashlight. He never took out his keys and used that as a flashlight in any of his stories. Plus, witnesses saw him walk up to where he dropped his keys after the murder.

So really, you can't dismiss this as a "wide debris field". The body, flashlight, and phone are within 8 feet of each other.

That's only the most logical conclusion because it fits your narrative. It also puts me in a weird situation because any alternative to your only logical conclusion is automatically deemed "anything to defend Zimmerman" when I simply don't see that as the only possible way things happened and ended up the way they did.

 

[Dan O.]

Teh Google™ has a number of links for 911 operator guidelines. Reading through them quickly is proving to be one hell of a bitch, however, but I suspect they may be useful here in determining why the operator acted a certain way or didn't.

One such link is here though it seems to be for a smaller town.

Yea, I saw that link earlier. The part where it says "tell the caller to stay where they are" will probably be reviewed.

The response to "officer down" and "person down" is quite telling. But I'm on their side for this thread so I won't go there today.

 

[12AX7]

1) do you agree that he had trouble on the phone, giving directions? If yes; do you think it was honest?

I think George isn't very bright, even before the added stress of having just shot someone (look at George's past adventures and his "CJ degree" for further evidence of his intelligence). And, I feel this goes directly to his decision-making abilities, particularly in a shooting.

George Zimmerman can be the most innocent man alive and his story still would not be an exact narrative. I know this to be true because I've experienced it myself; having to give a pre-deposition and then a deposition and was called a liar by the defense because they were not identical. The truth is, memory is funny like that. Sometimes I remember making it all the way to the middle of the road, other times I remember only up to deciding to cross the road, still other times I remember stepping off the curb. The fact is, the human brain, much like people here, like a consistent narrative that fits what we know happened. Since most of us do not have eidetic memories, there was always be gaps, no matter how fresh the memory is. The brain has a habit of filling in gaps in information with imagination, many times, to the point where we are unable to decipher fact from fantasy. That's why many cases have multiple witnesses to an event giving different versions, different car colors/types, and different descriptions of a suspect. We are not all liars, we just think our memory is better than it actually is.

And I agree with everything you just wrote.

And I would believe this in George's case if Georges stories all were similar (even similar inconsistencies). See, George's inconsistencies all seem to change according to the question and who's asking it. To me, they seem way too self-serving.

 

[Dan O.]

Then how about you just provide the evidence and go from there and avoid the innuendo and being coy ?

I'm not the one repeating the claim lie that they were all young black males.

 

[12AX7]

That's only the most logical conclusion because it fits your narrative. It also puts me in a weird situation because any alternative to your only logical conclusion is automatically deemed "anything to defend Zimmerman" when I simply don't see that as the only possible way things happened and ended up the way they did.

I am not trrying to speak for Unabogie, but it's logical because it fits the known facts. I'd love to hear other ideas, but they must for the facts. Otherwise you have a narrative like Dan wrote:

It's really not a problem. George Zimmerman is walking west on the sidewalk past the tee heading back to his truck when Trayvon Martin leaps out of the bushes that are 15 to 20 feet away behind him and punches him in the face. He falls straight to the ground on his back on the grass while tossing the keychain flashlight 6 to 10 feet in the other direction. Because George is understandably confused, he does the slithering thing onto the sidewalk and for 30 to 40 feet down the sidewalk to the south while trayvon is punching his face with bricks and smashing his head into the concrete. George then slides backwards off the sidewalk onto the slippery grass and this let's trayvon see his gun that is tucked into his waistband behind him. When the neighbor steps out briefly to tell them to cut it out, George retrieves his gun and shoots Trayvon. George then walks back towards the tee where he surrenders to flashlight man at the same spot where George's keys landed but neither of them had noticed even though the flashlight attached to the keys was illuminated on. And somehow both George's other flashlight and Trayvon's cell phone ended up even further south than where the fight ended.

 

[sgtbaker]

I think George isn't very bright, even before the added stress of having just shot someone (look at George's past adventures and his "CJ degree" for further evidence of his intelligence). And, I feel this goes directly to his decision-making abilities, particularly in a shooting.

That doesn't answer my question: Do you agree that he had trouble giving directions on the phone?

And I agree with everything you just wrote.

And I would believe this in George's case if Georges stories all were similar (even similar inconsistencies). See, George's inconsistencies all seem to change according to the question and who's asking it. To me, they seem way too self-serving.

You are not going to get consistency like you want it, that is what I am trying to explain. If he is actually justified in his actions, his story would still be self serving so to me, his story supporting his actions is certainly not enough to conclude guilt.