What I don't get about the Trayvon Martin case

[OCNewbie]

On the one hand you have a guy who probably wouldn't have left his car without a gun to follow a guy he himself labeled as acting suspicious and like he had something in his waistband, on the other he says he forgot he had that same gun that likely gave him the courage to follow to begin with.

To clarify, that "thing" GZ saw was TM's hand. GZ said "he's got his hand in his waistband." About 20 seconds later GZ did say "he's got something in his hands", which was probably the bag from 7-11 with the iced tea in it (which GZ may have realized after he made that statement).

We have a guy who indicates the person he called the police on stating he was acting odd and may have something in his wasteband, go to length to follow that said person without regard to his own safety, even though he forgot he was armed{snip}

Just as a note: I don't think GZ ever actually stated he thought TM was armed. Even in his apology at the first bond hearing, GZ said "I did not know if he was armed or not." What do those words really mean though? When can you ever be sure a fully-clothed person is "armed or not"? I think GZ may have said that just to give himself a little more credibility in him fearing for his life, but who knows.

{snap}he didn't identify himself to martin per his own account when asked why he was following him he conspires with his wife to lie to the court to a degree, sorry but in my opinion something is off here.

The only person to claim that TM asked GZ "Why are you following me?" is Witness 8, DeeDee. The first interview she gave, with Crump, wasn't released til March 20th, well after GZ was initially questioned by investigators. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think GZ has ever been confronted with whether or not what she stated she heard TM say is true (though that may have been touched on at the first bond hearing, I don't recall). Therefore it can't be "by his own account" that he confirmed that he didn't answer that question. I believe the investigators may have asked GZ if he ever identified himself at any time during the evening (like when TM supposedly approached GZ's truck), which he said he did not. If the beginning of the altercation happened the way GZ said it did (which nobody should dismiss the possibility of), it doesn't appear TM gave GZ any time in which to consider identifying himself. It was this unknown person suddenly appearing, surprising GZ, question, answer, threat, punch.

 

[werepossum]

We don't know if "What are you doing around here?" was ever said. That is only Witness 8, DeeDee's claim.

That's true. I'm largely taking both DeeDee and Zimmerman at their word until events indicate otherwise, even though the former is an interested party filtered through a race pimp with an agenda and Zimmerman has the ultimate reason to lie.

 

[lotus503]

To clarify, that "thing" GZ saw was TM's hand. GZ said "he's got his hand in his waistband." About 20 seconds later GZ did say "he's got something in his hands", which was probably the bag from 7-11 with the iced tea in it (which GZ may have realized after he made that statement). From the context of the 911 call it seemed to me like he was trying to indicate to the operator he may be armed

Just as a note: I don't think GZ ever actually stated he thought TM was armed. Even in his apology at the first bond hearing, GZ said "I did not know if he was armed or not." What do those words really mean though? When can you ever be sure a fully-clothed person is "armed or not"? I think GZ may have said that just to give himself a little more credibility in him fearing for his life, but who knows.

The only person to claim that TM asked GZ "Why are you following me?" is Witness 8, DeeDee. The first interview she gave, with Crump, wasn't released til March 20th, well after GZ was initially questioned by investigators. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think GZ has ever been confronted with whether or not what she stated she heard TM say is true (though that may have been touched on at the first bond hearing, I don't recall). Therefore it can't be "by his own account" that he confirmed that he didn't answer that question. I believe the investigators may have asked GZ if he ever identified himself at any time during the evening (like when TM supposedly approached GZ's truck), which he said he did not. If the beginning of the altercation happened the way GZ said it did (which nobody should dismiss the possibility of), it doesn't appear TM gave GZ any time in which to consider identifying himself. It was this unknown person suddenly appearing, surprising GZ, question, answer, threat, punch.
Words were initially exchanged witnessed state hearing arguing etc. Dee Dee states there was an exchange, Zimmerman states there was an exchange. I also think had Zimmerman identified himself and what he was doing he would have said as much.

responses in bold

 

[lotus503]

You mean the audio from them, right? (just making sure)

Do you mean like a mid-scream interruption? I don't recall the specifics to be honest, but did GZ describe a mid-scream covering of his mouth? I thought he just said the guy covered his mouth and told him to "shut the fuck up" or something to that effect. The screams are coming in at fairly regular intervals at the beginning of the call, and I do believe I notice a break in their consistency around the 0:22-0:26 mark. Perhaps that could be a time he attempted to cover his mouth. There is definitely a 7-second lull from 0:27 to 0:34 though, though I do believe I "might" hear a very faint yell at ~0:29-0:30, though it's too faint to be sure what it is.

What do you base this expectation on? Was it based on GZ's description of how TM covered his mouth, like did GZ say it happened in the middle of a scream, or is it more of an arbitrary expectation?

From the audio it appears the scream are consistent, if I yell at some point I have to take a breath, I do hear those pauses in the audio, but nothing that stands out as interrupted.

It subjective though

 

[OCNewbie]

From the audio it appears the scream are consistent, if I yell at some point I have to take a breath, I do hear those pauses in the audio, but nothing that stands out as interrupted.

It subjective though

It appears he's taking breaths between each expulsion of "help!" early in the call. IF you're taking a beating severe enough for you to scream as frantically as the screams heard in this call, are you really going to pause for 7 whole seconds? Notice the frantic nature of the scream at 0:27 and then at 0:34, sandwiching the pause. Do you think there was a moment of tranquility there in those 7 seconds, and that's why GZ temporarily ceased his screaming? You don't think it makes more sense that IF TM used his hands to cover GZ's face (which is what GZ has claimed, and what you've expressed skepticism over), that that wouldn't better explain that silence?

 

[EagleKeeper]

He may well be innocent of the murder. Or guilty without enough evidence to convict.

But regardless of that, his actions led directly to an unnecessary death. Actions that were taken against police advice (if not forcefully enough stated for my liking) and that exceeded the bounds of his mandate as a neighborhood watch volunteer.

If he's not guilty of murder, he's guilty of something. IMO, this incident was entirely avoidable if he had followed police instructions, as he should have. I hope there is something that he can be held accountable for.

Here you sound like a lynch mob. Right or wrong, he needs to be hung as an example.

Guilty enough! Sounds like airdata and the 5th.

Both parties did actions that caused tbd issue. Both were right until the very end. GZ did what a NW is supposed to do. Observe and report until the law shows. Had there not been s shooting, no one would be challenging what he did. People are applying 20/20 hindsight based on a ending, not the beginning.

Is there another mandate/purpose that the NW program is supposed to be doing?

GZ is guilty of being in the wrong place st the wrong time with good intentions.

Martin is guilty of letting his emotions overrule common sense.

Avoidable if he had filled police instruction:
Where I'd any evidence that he did not follow them. We have no reference as to where the advice was given when he was along the sidewalk.

Are you stating that he has no right to walk the sidewalk?

The NEN was an advice, not an order. We have no knowledge was the OK an ack that he heard the statement or that he was going to follow it. It was not a lawful order.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Here you sound like a lynch mob. Right or wrong, he needs to be hung as an example.

"Lynch mob" strikes me as an unnecessary exaggeration.

I am not suggesting he be convicted of anything he isn't guilty of. I just was saying that I hope there is something on the books that applies to a person who instigates a fight with someone who ends up dead.

Guilty enough! Sounds like airdata and the 5th.

??

GZ did what a NW is supposed to do. Observe and report until the law shows.

That's not what I've read. What I've seen is that he is supposed to report these sorts of situations to the police and not pursue. That's why the police said "we don't need you to do that".

Had there not been s shooting, no one would be challenging what he did.

Only because they wouldn't know about it.

People are applying 20/20 hindsight based on a ending, not the beginning.

I'm not. I think what he did was inappropriate period, and would have been even if nobody had died.

GZ is guilty of being in the wrong place st the wrong time with good intentions.

You're entitled to your opinion on GZ's "good intentions". I think he revealed his bad intentions through his behavior prior to the shooting.

Are you stating that he has no right to walk the sidewalk?

I already addressed this. There's a difference between just "walking the sidewalk" and stalking somebody.

 

[OCNewbie]

I am not suggesting he be convicted of anything he isn't guilty of. I just was saying that I hope there is something on the books that applies to a person who instigates a fight with someone who ends up dead.

Nothing about this incident resembles a "fight". The only injury TM had was on his left ring finger, just below the knuckle, or in other words, the type of injury one would receive if they punched someone in the wrong spot. GZ was witnessed underneath TM just moments before the shot was fired, and the ballistics also seem to support this same position at the time of the shot. GZ had injuries consistent with being attacked, and consistent with his story. If anything, this looks like an assault.

That's not what I've read. What I've seen is that he is supposed to report these sorts of situations to the police and not pursue.

"Not pursuing" is not the same as "become a fixed, stationary object". Also, the word pursue, in this context, implies following with the intent to capture or confront. If a person flees behind an obstruction, which in turn impairs you ability to maintain this "observation", repositioning yourself so you can regain a visual is not the same as a "pursuit".

That's why the police said "we don't need you to do that".

I don't know this as fact, but I imagine the reason the dispatcher said that to GZ was because it's standard operating procedure in such situations. I will remind you that GZ replied affirmatively, and that the prosecution's lead investigator, at the first bond hearing, stated that they had no evidence to indicate GZ ignored that recommendation.

Only because they wouldn't know about it.

I doubt that would be the case. Had TM actually been a burglar, and GZ's extra effort he put forth to spot this person lead to the police being able to confront and detain him, I believe wholeheartedly that he would have been praised.

I'm not. I think what he did was inappropriate period, and would have been even if nobody had died.

"What he did": The "pursuit" which hasn't (and perhaps can't) be proven, or something else?

You're entitled to your opinion on GZ's "good intentions". I think he revealed his bad intentions through his behavior prior to the shooting.

Would you mind elaborating on what behavior, specifically, you're referring to?

I already addressed this. There's a difference between just "walking the sidewalk" and stalking somebody.

I agree, but there's no evidence he stalked anybody. That word is used a lot to imply GZ's intentions were more malicious in nature, but there's no real evidence to back that up.

 

[lotus503]

It appears he's taking breaths between each expulsion of "help!" early in the call. IF you're taking a beating severe enough for you to scream as frantically as the screams heard in this call, are you really going to pause for 7 whole seconds? Notice the frantic nature of the scream at 0:27 and then at 0:34, sandwiching the pause. Do you think there was a moment of tranquility there in those 7 seconds, and that's why GZ temporarily ceased his screaming? You don't think it makes more sense that IF TM used his hands to cover GZ's face (which is what GZ has claimed, and what you've expressed skepticism over), that that wouldn't better explain that silence?

It could explain the silence, as I hear it it appears more like 3 seconds than 7.

and the fact the screams are consistent make me think he never had his mouth covered at all.

 

[EagleKeeper]

It could explain the silence, as I hear it it appears more like 3 seconds than 7.

and the fact the screams are consistent make me think he never had his mouth covered at all.

Ccnsistency in volume, frequency or duration?

 

[OCNewbie]

It could explain the silence, as I hear it it appears more like 3 seconds than 7

I don't see how you're getting 3 seconds. There's a clear scream that starts at 0:27, or maybe 0:28, and ends at 0:28, and then there isn't another scream til a split-second past the 0:34 mark. I hear a lull of a minimum of 6 seconds (but less than a full 7), and you're saying it's only ~3 seconds? There's no scream at 0:30 or 0:31, so how are you getting ~3 seconds? Are you talking about the man's speaking voice in the background that starts at 0:31? That's witness 20, who is the husband (I believe) of Witness 11, the woman making the 911 call.

and the fact the screams are consistent make me think he never had his mouth covered at all.

They're only consistent near the beginning of the call (0:06 to 0:20 or so), when the screams are mostly just "Help!", with expected breaks in between them for breaths. I don't see how you can say they're "consistent" (unless we disagree on the definition of that) throughout the entire duration of the call.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Here you sound like a lynch mob. Right or wrong, he needs to be hung as an example.

"Lynch mob" strikes me as an unnecessary exaggeration.

I am not suggesting he be convicted of anything he isn't guilty of. I just was saying that I hope there is something on the books that applies to a person who instigates a fight with someone who ends up dead.

In this regard; is there any evidence that GZ instigated anything.
By placing your statement within the context of your post seem to indicate that GZ should be punished even if he is guilty of these charges because someone was killed.

GZ did what a NW is supposed to do. Observe and report until the law shows.

That's not what I've read. What I've seen is that he is supposed to report these sorts of situations to the police and not pursue. That's why the police said "we don't need you to do that".

What is your understanding of neighborhood watch. Hide behind the curtains and call the police.
How can one observe the potential problem once they walk out of view of the window. I have always thought that one is to observe and report to the law.
One can safely observe from a distance by following and still report; is that not of value

Had there not been a shooting, no one would be challenging what he did.

Only because they wouldn't know about it.

There was still the fight. LEO would have shown up and Martin would have to do some explaining on the attack.
without the fight, there would not be anything to discuss - then no one would have known.

People are applying 20/20 hindsight based on a ending, not the beginning.

I'm not. I think what he did was inappropriate period, and would have been even if nobody had died.

What did he actually to that was inappropriate?

• Observing a person walking in the neighborhood that matched a profile of previous law breakers.
• Carry a legally authorized weapon.
• Report his observations to the NEN.
• Follow the person in an attempt to continue to report to NEN the location of the runner
• Call for help when getting beaten
• Defend himself when the beating continued to the point that he FELT fearful for his life.

GZ is guilty of being in the wrong place at the wrong time with good intentions.

You're entitled to your opinion on GZ's "good intentions". I think he revealed his bad intentions through his behavior prior to the shooting.

Please identify what you feel were his bad intentions against being a good citizen.

Are you stating that he has no right to walk the sidewalk?

I already addressed this. There's a difference between just "walking the sidewalk" and stalking somebody..

To most, the term stalking is to follow with the intention of harming / capturing / retaining.
From wiki (as related to crime)

According to a 2002 report by the National Center for Victims of Crime, "Virtually any unwanted contact between two people [that intends] to directly or indirectly communicates a threat or places the victim in fear can be considered stalking"[1] although in practice the legal standard is usually somewhat stricter

Notice that Martin did not indicate/act anything related to being scared/fearful per Zimmerman or DeeDee in the beginning or afterwards in from of the other witnesses.

Where is there any indication/evidence that stalking was on Zimmerman's w/ respect to promote fear in Martin.

 

[Smoblikat]

The anniversary of the incident was, I believe, yesterday.

When I joined here at AT, there was already a thread on this in P&N that was about 20,000 posts long. Now it's over 40,000. I couldn't even begin to get up to speed on it, and on the rare occasions when I look in there, it seems to be mostly speculation and flaming.

My general take on stuff like this is that the most prudent course of action is to wait until the actual trial and let the facts come out. They will determine whether or not Zimmerman acted in self-defense or not.

But what bugs me about this case relates to the whole issue of the "stand your ground" law. My understanding is the idea that if an innocent person is faced with violence, they have the right to defend themselves, rather than being forced to retreat. In theory I agree with that idea.

But what exactly is the right definition of an "innocent person faced with violence"? Sure, some cases are clear-cut. But cases like the Martin one are not, specifically because there are different "levels" of action in terms of who really is innocent and who is not.

Let's say for the sake of argument that Zimmerman's really did act in self-defense in the altercation -- either Martin threatened him, or attacked him, or there was a struggle for the gun. If tru, on that level, he really was defending himself.

But at a higher level, what responsibility does someone have for creating a situation in which the self-defense itself was necessary? All I keep coming back to is this: if Zimmerman had stayed in his damned car, none of this would have happened. Can someone really be an "innocent victim" when they create the situation that leads to the shooting?

Are you suggesting we all lock ourselves in our basements to prevent other people potentially hurting us?

I think Ill take my chances on the outside, anyone who has a problem with that can answer to my 125lb American Bulldog or my AK-47.

 

[ivwshane]

Are you suggesting we all lock ourselves in our basements to prevent other people potentially hurting us?

I think Ill take my chances on the outside, anyone who has a problem with that can answer to my 125lb American Bulldog or my AK-47.

No I think he is saying the same thing I'm saying, stupidity shouldn't be an excuse to kill someone and GZ acted like an idiot.
Whether he is convicted or not doesn't really seem to be the point.

 

[OCNewbie]

No I think he is saying the same thing I'm saying, stupidity shouldn't be an excuse to kill someone and GZ acted like an idiot.
Whether he is convicted or not doesn't really seem to be the point.

What, specifically, was objectively "idiotic" about GZ's actions?

Who has tried to justify, or "excuse" GZ's killing of TM based on stupidity?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Are you suggesting we all lock ourselves in our basements to prevent other people potentially hurting us?

I think Ill take my chances on the outside, anyone who has a problem with that can answer to my 125lb American Bulldog or my AK-47.

These sorts of inflammatory strawman comments are not constructive and not welcome here. If you don't have anything productive to add to a discussion, please don't post.

By way of general response, I repeat that I am not passing judgment on Zimmerman in terms of the altercation itself. I've already said multiple times that I am fine to wait for the trial and see what the evidence regarding the physical confrontation really is and how a jury interprets it.

I'm more interested in the circumstances that led up to it.

That said, it is my opinion that:

1. He expressed malicious intent in his comments to the police.
2. Even though the police did not explicit say "do not follow him", saying "we don't need you to do that" is good enough that he should have listened, but he didn't because he wanted to act like a cop when he wasn't.
3. Given #1 and #2, there is a high probability that Zimmerman instigated this incident.

It is, based on what I have read, the general case that neighborhood watch volunteers are not supposed to pursue suspects.

Finally, it is a fact that if Zimmerman had stayed in his car as the police wanted, and as he was supposed to do, nobody would have been shot. That's the bottom line for me, and I hope that in not following those instructions, he violated something legal that he can be found liable for.

 

[OCNewbie]

These sorts of inflammatory strawman comments are not constructive and not welcome here. If you don't have anything productive to add to a discussion, please don't post.

I agree.

1. He expressed malicious intent in his comments to the police.

What did he express he intended to do? I think he expressed frustration with the ongoing situation in his neighborhood (burglaries, thefts, etc.)

2. Even though the police did not explicit say "do not follow him", saying "we don't need you to do that" is good enough that he should have listened, but he didn't because he wanted to act like a cop when he wasn't.

What do you base the underlined on? There was "a" confrontation, but there is no proof that it was GZ that initiated it. There is equal proof, if not moreso, that indicates TM initiated the confrontation. For one to commit to what I underlined above, you have to totally dismiss the possibility that TM confronted GZ (which is what GZ is claiming).

3. Given #1 and #2, there is a high probability that Zimmerman instigated this incident.

Given #1 is highly subjective, and speculative, and #2 is also highly speculative (especially in regards to the "he wanted to act like a cop when he wasn't" part), and dismissive of the fact that there is no evidence who initiated the confrontation, and the potential (and claim by GZ) that TM was, in fact, the one who initiated it, the probability of #3, objectively speaking, is anything but "high".

It is, based on what I have read, the general case that neighborhood watch volunteers are not supposed to pursue suspects.

There's that word again, "pursue". It implies intent, intent which there is no proof of. Besides, while GZ was a volunteer neighborhood watch person, he is also a citizen, and was not acting in the capacity of a NW person at the time of this incident. You don't all of a sudden lose your rights as a citizen (the right to follow, or even confront someone in your own neighborhood) because you have willingly volunteered your time for the betterment of your community.

Finally, it is a fact that if Zimmerman had stayed in his car as the police wanted, and as he was supposed to do, nobody would have been shot. That's the bottom line for me, and I hope that in not following those instructions, he violated something legal that he can be found liable for.

It's a fact that GZ broke no laws by getting out of his car, and the only reason people are saying it was such a "dumb" decision is because they are convinced GZ had malicious intent when he did so. I'll also say that the police only stated they "wanted" GZ to stay in his car after the incident had occurred. The dispatcher never told GZ to "go back to your car", and in fact GZ was out of his car before the dispatcher asked if he was following TM.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

What did he express he intended to do? I think he expressed frustration with the ongoing situation in his neighborhood (burglaries, thefts, etc.)

You're correct, "intent" was the wrong word. "Disposition" is more of what I meant -- he was not just an innocent bystander, he felt like he had something to accomplish.

What do you base the underlined on?

The statement from the police that he ignored, his comments about "assholes always getting away", and what I have read about neighborhood watches where they say they instruct people not to pursue suspects.

There was "a" confrontation, but there is no proof that it was GZ that initiated it.

I've already conceded that.

There is equal proof, if not moreso, that indicates TM initiated the confrontation.

Depends on at what level you are looking. At the highest level, this happened only because Zimmerman pursued Martin. Martin was, in the real sense, minding his own business. He was stalked.

Given #1 is highly subjective, and speculative, and #2 is also highly speculative (especially in regards to the "he wanted to act like a cop when he wasn't" part), and dismissive of the fact that there is no evidence who initiated the confrontation, and the potential (and claim by GZ) that TM was, in fact, the one who initiated it, the probability of #3, objectively speaking, is anything but "high".

We just see this differently. There really isn't anything we can really do to convince each other here.

There's that word again, "pursue". It implies intent, intent which there is no proof of.

Sorry, there I think you are wrong. His statements to the police indicating a hostile attitude towards Martin, combined with his refusal to listen when the police said "we don't need you to do that", make it clear that he went after Martin. There was no other reason for him to exit his car.

I don't even see how this is in dispute, honestly.

You don't all of a sudden lose your rights as a citizen (the right to follow, or even confront someone in your own neighborhood) because you have willingly volunteered your time for the betterment of your community.

Where is this supposed right that people have to follow other people who have done nothing wrong and interrogate or accost them? I'm not aware of such.

It's a fact that GZ broke no laws by getting out of his car...

Getting out of his car, no. Pursuing someone he thought was a criminal, after already expressing a negative disposition towards the individual, and being told by the police that they didn't want him to do it? We'll see at the trial.

 

[randomrogue]

Wasn't there something about the Police coming to their neighborhood watch meeting and instructing them to not do with Zimmerman did?

You have to finally ask yourself what the motive for the altercation was. From both TM and GZ's point of view. The trial will be really interesting in this way since somehow they have to show that this unarmed 17 year old kid started the fight with an armed, frustrated, possibly angry, and possibly racist man who didn't stay in his car.

 

[Geosurface]

I have honestly never felt that Zimmerman's comments about "always get away" and "punks" indicated any sort of malice or intent to do harm, or even to apprehend... to me those comments were entirely consistent with a regular guy frustrated at a string of burglaries in his neighborhood, and trying to establish a feeling of being on the same team with the dispatch operator. Expressing his hope that the police would get there in time to question this person.

Again, I just don't hear any malice in those words. I would think that if the malice in those words and how he said them was so apparent as some imply, the trained dispatch operator would've picked up on it and been much more concerned and forceful. I would have expected to hear something like "sir, please, just return to your vehicle and wait for the responding officer."

Instead, Zimmerman was able to indicate openly to the operator that he did NOT intend to return directly to his car, and his location would be uncertain. "Actually could you just have the officer call me?" the dispatch responded to this with not a hint of concern... "yea sure we can have them call you." (Paraphrased) - wouldn't that have been the moment the dispatch would have become alarmed and made it really clear to Zimmerman that he should immediately return to his vehicle?

Why was this supposedly hugely stupid move of being outside his car not obvious as such to the operator? This is someone who listens to calls like this for a living. Is trained specifically in things to be alarmed by, within those calls. Yet, he was satisfied with Zimmerman's agreement to stop following. He never revisited the issue in another 1:40 (roughly) of call time. He never said "Sir, I just want to verify, are you back in your car now?" nothing of the sort was ever said... and again, "can you just have them call me." and comments like "he ran" "I don't know where this kid is" etc indicated clearly to the operator Zimmerman was still outside of his car. Yet, none of these triggered any concern.

Perhaps, like Zimmerman himself, the operator believed Trayvon was long gone and not coming back.

 

[OCNewbie]

You say that Zimmerman should be assumed innocent by default, which is correct, but you also assume that Trayvon is guilty by default. But Trayvon is the one who won't even get a chance to prove his innocence. Again, that is the problem with stand-your-ground; it creates this paradox of assumed guilt. It's too easy for someone to instigate a fight and murder the target.

For me personally, I say that GZ should be presumed innocent until evidence proves otherwise. That goes for outside the courtroom, or inside. I don't assume Trayvon is guilty "by default". I've considered GZ's story, and I've considered the evidence, and I believe the evidence is substantially (sufficiently) consistent with GZ's story. There is no assumed guilt here... there is evidence that indicates TM is guilty, or evidence that certainly doesn't exclude his guilt.

I think the problem is that people are too easily instigated into "a fight". If someone says something rude or insulting to you, you don't have the right to "get even" by physically assaulting them. If someone shoves you one time, I don't think that gives you the right to beat that person to the extent you see fit ("meet force with force"). Shy of DeeDee/Witness 8's claims of hearing someone get bumped, or hearing TM saying "get off, get off", just before the phone went dead (which she conveniently left out of her first interview with Crump), no evidence released to date has indicated GZ attempted to instigate any sort of "fight". Of course, it has now come to our attention that DeeDee is "a known liar", which has been a label repeatedly applied to GZ by those who have been convinced of his guilt since day one, so it would be inconsistent to not find her credibility significantly weakened.

 

[OCNewbie]

The issue is whether Zimmerman instigated the confrontation (i.e., Trayvon was the one with the right to "stand his ground"), and whether Zimmerman was actually entitled to feel his life was in danger. Here, the facts are not consistent at all with Zimmerman's account. It does not seem reasonable that Zimmerman would tail someone he thought was armed and acting erratically. It does not seem reasonable that Trayvon would instigate against a larger, armed opponent.

Hopefully the trial can deliver a clear answer, but right now anyone who says there's no reason to disbelieve Zimmerman is the one being irrational, in my opinion.

TM doesn't have the right to "stand his ground" unless GZ physically assaulted him, or verbally threatened him to such a convincing degree that TM had reason to believe GZ intended to carry out that threat. There is no evidence at all to indicate GZ physically assaulted TM (which would be expected if that were the case), and there is no evidence to indicate he made the aforementioned threats to TM.

How are the facts "here" "not consistent at all with Zimmerman's account"? You can't convict GZ on whether or not his actions seem subjectively "reasonable", nor can you exclude the possibility that TM made a terribly misguided decision to confront and attack GZ. Also, with your wording, it appears you're implying TM had knowledge that GZ was armed prior to any proposed instigation by TM, yet there is simply no rational reason to subscribe to that idea (I can elaborate on that if you wish).

 

[OCNewbie]

The fact that Zimmerman ignored the police request to disengage casts suspicion on his claim that Trayvon instigated the fight.

The fact that Dale Gilbreath, whom I believe is described as the (or "a") lead investigator for the prosecution, stated at the first bond hearing that there was no evidence of that belies what you just stated to be a "fact".

The physical difference casts suspicion on Zimmerman's claim that Trayvon instigated the fight.

So because GZ was a tubby, 204lb, 5' 7 1/2" man, that somehow makes him more adept at fighting than an in-shape, 5' 11", 160lb 17 year old? Are you not aware that TM had zero "fight" wounds? Well... other than that offensive abrasion on his left ring finger, right by his knuckle. Are you not aware that GZ suffered a broken nose, and had 2 lacerations on the back of his head, among other scrapes/abrasions on his face? I'd say TM estimated his fighting ability to be superior to GZ's quite accurately.

The fact that Zimmerman was armed and Trayvon was not casts suspicion on Zimmerman's claim that Trayvon instigated the fight.

How? You're saying GZ is conscious that his gun is at his side, yet he chooses to attack TM with his fists? And apparently every last one of those punches thrown is a whiff that misses TM? Was TM that versed in fighting that he was able to dodge everything that GZ threw at him? And on what are you basing the idea that TM knew GZ was armed?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Again, I just don't hear any malice in those words.

Really? There's no malice in calling someone an "asshole"? Based solely on his appearance?

 

[OCNewbie]

Really? There's no malice in calling someone an "asshole"? Based solely on his appearance?

I don't believe it was based "solely on his appearance". For starters, GZ initially called the NEN in large part because of this unknown person's behavior, which he found suspicious. More importantly though, he made the "assholes" comment after this person, whom he already believed may be "up to no good", approached GZ's parked vehicle with his "hand in his waistband", "he's coming to check me out", and made some sort of taunting, or threatening gestures towards GZ which made GZ say, "something's wrong with him, I don't know what his deal is", followed by "please go get an officer over here". It wasn't until after all that happened that GZ made the "assholes" comment. I imagine whatever TM gestured to GZ in those moments reinforced his suspicions that this person didn't belong there, and actually was "up to no good".

I would like to also point out that despite this person being just outside GZ's vehicle, GZ still made no attempt to confront this person, even verbally. GZ had his gun on him at that time, so had he intended on confronting this person, it was a perfect opportunity to do so.