Merged Continuation Part 2: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Kestrel]

George told the police dispatcher that Trayvon was looking at houses. How did that get changed into "looking in windows, probably casing the joint"?

 

[Kestrel]

Touche, Kestrel. And good catch on how that juror's comment might indicate her failure to strictly obey the judge's instructions. I wonder if this point has been brought up elsewhere, in the media. Hope so.

p.s. Everyone knew the jury WOULD be influenced by Serino's opinion. At minimum on an unconscious level. But it's interesting indeed to hear a juror admit (apparently) that she, as it were, "deliberately deliberated it".
.
.

I haven't heard anyone mention it after the trial. But when the issue came up, someone did mention that telling jurors to ignore something is a bit like trying to unring a bell.

The public tends to believe that police investigators are experts at telling if a suspect is lying or telling the truth. The problem is that science has shown that even professional trained in techniques such as the Reid Method pick out liars only slightly better than chance.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Are you aware that this was reported at the time to be a common path that the neighborhood kids would use? I remember even seeing video of kids cutting through there. Only recently did the complex install a fence along the west border (all except behind George's place, I guess they figured that part would be sufficiently protected).

Was George tresspassing when he entered the cut-through chasing after Trayvon?

Wrong lawn. He was talking about after that, specifically in his police walk through while he was still in the police car when he was asked to specify the exact suspicious behavior that drew his attention in the first place. He was seen walking on lawns between the sidewalk and the homes and not on the well known shortcut to the 7-11.

The "Cut through" or "T" that Zimmerman followed Martin into was a dog walking area for the residents. There was no trespassing committed there (by neither Martin nor Zimmerman) because it was a public area intended for the residents use.

 

[triforcharity]

Pretty much, I'm sure he has a day job but mainly he appears on TV to complain about how horrible it is to have to live in America while being black.

I say this with every fiber of my being, **** that guy. He's a disgusting race-baiter, and a **** starter.

What Michael Eric Dyson doesn't really want to talk about is who's killing the majority of young black males in this country.

It's sad really. That is where the biggest problem is, but as a whole, they're focusing on white-black homicide, when if they wanted to make a HUGE impact, they'd start focusing their efforts on black-black homicide. But, this guy specifically wants to focus on something that is NOT the biggest problem. **** him. I hope his crotch gets infested with fleas, and his arms are too short to scratch.

 

[Kestrel]

The Neighborhood Watch pamphlet used in Sanford Florida doesn't list "looking at houses" as a suspicious activity. It does mention going door to door, especially going to the back doors. And peering into cars is on the list. But George didn't report that Trayvon was doing either of those.

 

[Noztradamus]

I think it rather likely he tried the flashlight out, found that you had to smack it to make it work. I interpreted "It's on now" to mean "It worked when I tried it", it comes on now, because I smacked it.

Again you are imagining.

Serino: OK. Um, it’s probably like the one I have, you gotta smack it around a couple times.

It he had been the one to test it, he wouldn't need to mention the example of his own flashlight to establish George's could behave like that.

~~~~
. No witness has come forward and said Trayvon was doing something that would actually be suspicious. For example, trying doors to see if they were locked or going up to houses and peering into the windows.

George has

Ya gota learn the rules here. George is the platinum standard

Trayvon looking in windows and trying doors would look like he was up to ho good

George says

This guy looks like he's up to no good

ergo Trayvon looking in windows and trying doors is established fact.

That's logic

 

[triforcharity]

DOJ asks for hold on evidence



After publishing the verdict and entering judgment, Nelson entered a release on the evidence which was presumably handed back to SPD to be claimed by the owners.

In your opinion, would it be possible for GZ to tell the DOJ to get a warrant if he's already retrieved his belongings?

 

[triforcharity]

The Neighborhood Watch pamphlet used in Sanford Florida doesn't list "looking at houses" as a suspicious activity. It does mention going door to door, especially going to the back doors. And peering into cars is on the list. But George didn't report that Trayvon was doing either of those.

And yet, George was not acting at that moment in time, in any capacity, on behalf of the NW program. He was on his way to go shopping.

 

[MiloMinderbinder]

The Neighborhood Watch pamphlet used in Sanford Florida doesn't list "looking at houses" as a suspicious activity. It does mention going door to door, especially going to the back doors. And peering into cars is on the list. But George didn't report that Trayvon was doing either of those.

I think the Neighborhood Watch coordinator had a police officer come and give them some advice, which included 'looking at houses' as suspicious. I seem to recall that from her testimony, but I can't be sure.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

The Neighborhood Watch pamphlet used in Sanford Florida doesn't list "looking at houses" as a suspicious activity. It does mention going door to door, especially going to the back doors. And peering into cars is on the list. But George didn't report that Trayvon was doing either of those.

But he did report this:

NW Pamphlet:
Behaving strangely.
Possibly on drugs or illegal activity.

In addition those are suggestions and general guidelines and are not meant to limit observations and reports to only those things in exclusion of other potentially illegal or suspicious activities. For example it doesn't specifically mention scrawling graffiti on that page either but I'm pretty sure that that would also get reported.

Looking at houses to see what lights are on during the dinner hours may be a prelude to deciding who may or may not be home.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

We should try to be historically accurate here... In their first interview:

Serino: OK, um, you follow this person, this person, you lose sight of this person, you’re walking in the darkness out there…you have a flashlight?
Zimmerman: It was dead. I had one, but it was dead.
Serino: Uh, you had to hit it couple times, it’s on right now. So…
Zimmerman: Oh it is?
Serino: OK. Um, it’s probably like the one I have, you gotta smack it around a couple times. Um, this person jumped, jumped you from somewhere?​

...And then the next day:

Serino: OK, you’re walking back to your car?
Zimmerman: Yes, sir,
(plays tape 2:48 to 4:03 )
Zimmerman: I’m thumping the damn flashlight as I was walking through.
(call ends)
​

Now, where do you get that Serino says he slapped George's flashlight?

And why does George still have that damn flashlight in his hand after 2 to 3 minutes? The flashlight works, it just needs a few slaps and George was thumping it a few times to get it to work. We hear him repeat the procedure 2 or three times while he is still on the phone with the dispatcher. George says he had the flashlight in his hand when the altercation began. I know it's hard to believe anything that liar says. But for this, there's is tangible evidence.

Again you are imagining.

Serino: OK. Um, it’s probably like the one I have, you gotta smack it around a couple times.
It he h
ad been the one to test it, he wouldn't need to mention the example of his own flashlight to establish George's could behave like that.

I was going by Dans transcript above, I didn't have one open in front of me. I went back and re-listened and reviewed a transcript:

https://www.txantimedia.com/?p=999

Serino: OK, um, you follow this person, this person, you lose sight of this person, you’re walking in the darkness out there…you have a flashlight?
Zimmerman: It was dead. I had one, but it was dead.
Serino: Uh, you had to hit it couple times, it’s on right now. So…
Zimmerman: Oh it is?
Serino: OK. Um, it’s probably like the one I have, you gotta smack it around a couple times. Um, this person jumped, jumped you from somewhere?


He mentions his own flashlight, because GZ is surprised to hear that his works. That is why he says:
Zimmerman: Oh it is?

It's pretty clear Serino tested the flashlight, and was not trying to tell GZ it was actually on when GZ walking through the RATL.

I find it to be pretty clear both you and Dan are wrong.

And as Cylinder pointed out ... no one reported seeing GZ flashlight, not even TM.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Or maybe Trayvon just reports what is important saying: "Now he's behind me." He's got somethin in his hand. I don't know what this creepy ass cracker's problem is."

Was a detailed report on the examination of that flashlight ever filed? If Serino actually examined the flashlight he should have taken notes. More likely the flashlight examination would have been delegated to one of the techs and would probably not have been started yet (reference to the time Serino was first interviewing George the night of the shooting). Serino though would know the basics like the flashlight was found in the debris field south of the tee. And I believe George has already told him that he had the flashlight in his hand at the time of the confrontation. It's a logical assumption, not clairvoiance, that the flashlight would be on if George was still holding it.

Because everything in this case is so logical ?

Detailed notes like you are imagining don't seem to exist in the world of Sanford, or probably many other PD's ... especially when whether the flashlight was on or off isn't considered important by the PD.

I disagree with your interpretation, see my reply to Noztradamus.

 

[Cylinder]

In your opinion, would it be possible for GZ to tell the DOJ to get a warrant if he's already retrieved his belongings?

If the DOJ wants to seize property from Zimmerman, they require consent or a warrant. There's a good argument in case law that since the verdict of acquittal SPD has no other choice but turn over the evidence to Zimmerman regardless of the DOJ hold - though that would be an unlikely outcome.

 

[phillyboy]

Is there a kind of standard verbal introduction that neighborhood watch members use when approaching someone they suspect is up to no good? I'm assuming GZ made no such address to TM.

We know TM was initially freaked out upon realizing he was being tailed by a strange adult. Might TM have thought GZ was going to attempt to mug, or even worse, kidnap/rape/molest him? If so, can blame--legal or extralegal--be placed on TM, for going into a "fight or flight" frame of mind then, culminating in "fight"?

By engaging TM in a seemingly reckless manner, didn't GZ provoke the injuries he got?

AS a surrogate authority figure (armed with a deadly weapon, no less!) shouldn't GZ be held to a higher than otherwise standard of responsible behavior? Couldn't he see what a volatile situation he was about to give shape to?

How do posters view the relative expectations of answerable conduct in an incident involving two people: a 16 year old boy and a 28 year old man who appropriates the role of authority figure?

Do people think the spirit of the law was upheld in this case or that justice of a meaningful stripe was served on July 13th?

 

[Dan O.]

Wrong lawn. He was talking about after that, specifically in his police walk through while he was still in the police car when he was asked to specify the exact suspicious behavior that drew his attention in the first place. He was seen walking on lawns between the sidewalk and the homes and not on the well known shortcut to the 7-11.

The "Cut through" or "T" that Zimmerman followed Martin into was a dog walking area for the residents. There was no trespassing committed there (by neither Martin nor Zimmerman) because it was a public area intended for the residents use.

Can you show the neighborhood map that demarcates the public vs private areas? I think you are just making up the rules.

There is an easement between units 102 and 103 where Trayvon is claimed to have crossed. At the time there were no fences.

 

[Dan O.]

Please provide which statute GZ was breaking while following TM.

There is none. But that does not mean his behaviour was not provocating. I have already explained the issues about following people at great length. Ido not think you are actually reading what I have posted.

There is herding wildlife with a motor vehicle. That violates the florida hunting regulations. And if George squirmed on his back more that 5 feet from the center of the sidewalk while Trayvon was riding his belly, he would be guilty of trespass with a firearm.

 

[Dan O.]

And yet, George was not acting at that moment in time, in any capacity, on behalf of the NW program. He was on his way to go shopping.

When George turned right onto Twin Trees Lane instead of turning left, he was no longer on his way to go shopping.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Can you tell me which part of the playbook calls for having a gun and getting out of your car to follow someone? We know that at least until the non-emergency operator said "we don't need you to do that", that was precisely what GZ was doing. IMO: This behavior was not by the book. But I could be wrong.

If it was by the book then I need to know which pages the admonition for being armed and following suspicious people are on. Did the expert testify that their policy was for participants to be armed and to follow suspicious people? Now, if you want to argue that GZ did nothing illegal then I can understand your position. If you want to argue that GZ did nothing reckless or counter to the policy of the Neighborhood watch then I think you would need to support that claim.

See this is what I love about this board, there is always someone there who is willing to take your statements about X, ignore that they are about X and instead apply them to Y and create a strawman about what you said. It never fails.

Go back and read the post you quoted, I was talking about why GZ rang the NEN number.

To why he got out of the car, he believed that the NEN asked him to by asking him to a) tell him if TM did anything else, and b) asking him which way TM was running. The NEN operator even stated that yes it was possible that GZ took those questions to be instructions.

On the gun, unlike the claim that was made here a number of times that NW were not allowed to carry guns, NW has no policies on participants carrying weapons. The coordinator was asked directly about that and stated that they have no policy and that each individual participant is allowed to carry or not as they see fit to do so.

 

[PhantomWolf]

The Neighborhood Watch pamphlet used in Sanford Florida doesn't list "looking at houses" as a suspicious activity. It does mention going door to door, especially going to the back doors. And peering into cars is on the list. But George didn't report that Trayvon was doing either of those.

Yeah, because a pamphlet is more of an authority of what was discussed with the NW Coordinator than she herself is, right....

 

[PhantomWolf]

Is there a kind of standard verbal introduction that neighborhood watch members use when approaching someone they suspect is up to no good? I'm assuming GZ made no such address to TM.

Yes, the verbal instructions is, you don't approach the suspect, full stop! You ring the police, you observe, you report, you let the police approach them.

We know TM was initially freaked out upon realizing he was being tailed by a strange adult.

We do? How do we know that, were we there?

Might TM have thought GZ was going to attempt to mug, or even worse, kidnap/rape/molest him? If so, can blame--legal or extralegal--be placed on TM, for going into a "fight or flight" frame of mind then, culminating in "fight"?

Here's a question for you. Since GZ walked through the T once without seeing TM, then it is clear that TM was not at the T at that time, so if TM was so scared and frightened of the shorter, fatter GZ, why did he go back towards the T?

By engaging TM in a seemingly reckless manner, didn't GZ provoke the injuries he got?

As far as we know, the evidence is consistent with GZ's claim that he was at the T and TM approached and confronted him. Both witnesses that live in the houses right by the T testified that they heard the confrontation start at or about the T with the fight then moving south. If TMM approached GZ, then how is this reckless on the part of GZ?

AS a surrogate authority figure (armed with a deadly weapon, no less!) shouldn't GZ be held to a higher than otherwise standard of responsible behavior? Couldn't he see what a volatile situation he was about to give shape to?

No, he is a civilian and treated the same as anyone else under the law.

How do posters view the relative expectations of answerable conduct in an incident involving two people: a 16 year old boy and a 28 year old man who appropriates the role of authority figure?

Trayvon was 17, not 16. Under the law everyone is answerable the same, you can't just arbitrarily make up things for why the law should be applied differently to people you clearly don't like.

Do people think the spirit of the law was upheld in this case or that justice of a meaningful stripe was served on July 13th?

Yes, the jury got it exactly right. The prosecution never had a case from day one and any other result would have been a total miscarriage of justice.