Newly Released Police Timeline: Zimmerman Was the One Screaming
An article in the Orlando Sentinel today quotes a timeline from prosecution documents released last week in the murder case against George Zimmerman. Get ready to rub your eyes with disbelief:
1913:36 – Dispatcher asks Zimmerman if he is following suspicious person
1913:36 – Dispatcher advises Zimmerman “Okay; we don’t need you to do that”
1915:23 – Approximate time call with Zimmerman ends
1916:43 – 911 call placed by (blacked out name) where Zimmerman is heard screaming for help
1917:20 – Shot fired; screams from Zimmerman cease
1917:40 – Officer T. Smith arrives on scene
1919:43 – Officer T. Smith locates and places Zimmerman in custody.
Has this already been released and I missed it? Because this seems like what Joe Biden would call a big deal. (OK, he’d call it something else, but we’re not as crass as the Vice President here at patterico.com.)
At the bottom of the short article we see where this timeline came from:
Source: The office of Special Prosecutor Angela Corey from the Report of Investigation prepared by Sanford police Investigator Chris Serino.
Serino wanted Zimmerman arrested and charged, albeit with manslaughter.
Is this a Freudian slip? Or are they really saying Zimmerman was the guy screaming on the tape?
The only possible reason Serino wanted to charge Zimmerman was because he sensed the future, and wanted to cover his own ass. If what they have here is true, they have to drop the charges because the actions meet the law as we have discussed here before.
ReffGod (4dcda2) — 5/21/2012 @ 7:31 pmI don’t know who this ReffGod is, but it must be me….
reff (4dcda2) — 5/21/2012 @ 7:32 pmIf that’s what the prosecution is going with, how do they have ANY case at all?
SarahW (b0e533) — 5/21/2012 @ 7:57 pmit’s time to let this poor man go and impeach Attorney General Barbie’s ass I think
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 5/21/2012 @ 8:09 pmI’m very verklempt about the whole thing, pikachu,
narciso (1c125b) — 5/21/2012 @ 8:12 pmboth Scott, who seems to have gone native in Tallahassee, and Bondi, just washed their hands of this affair, yes the metaphor is intentional.
All of the discovery documents refer to Zimmerman screaming for help. There is no ambiguity in any of them, including the document that details an interview with Trayvon’s father during which he was asked if the screaming was Trayvon’s voice, and he said no.
Antimedia (f41333) — 5/21/2012 @ 8:22 pmThey’ll probably decide to drop charges on the hottest day of summer so the Korean liquor store owners can have their modicum of wealth redistributed.
SteveG (e27d71) — 5/21/2012 @ 8:27 pmsomeone needs to be held accountable Mr. narciso
this is all kinds of injustice
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 5/21/2012 @ 8:27 pmAntimedia,
Do you have a link to the discovery documents? I can’t find them but this Orlando Sentinel summary states the prosecution’s expert witnesses either couldn’t tell who was screaming or thought it was Trayvon.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/21/2012 @ 8:32 pmsomeone’s going to get in trouble for not having
redc1c4 (403dff) — 5/21/2012 @ 8:41 pmdestroyedmisplaced that document.my whole I never screamed for help
that’s just good clean livin’ right there
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 5/21/2012 @ 8:50 pm?
that should say my whole life I never screamed for help
hmmm… this is a new wireless keyboard what doesn’t have any wires
I think I’m a just use it for searching hulu and such from the couch, which is its intended purpose
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 5/21/2012 @ 8:52 pmMall ninja, happyfeet, is pretty much the agreement in the “small l” community. People bite off more than they can chew. Sometimes the Heimlich works, sometimes it doesn’t.
nk (875f57) — 5/21/2012 @ 8:54 pmWell it seems unlikely that Gov. Romney can realistically step in and say that George Zimmerman looks just like his and Ann’s sons. So it appears, therefore, that Mr. Obama himself really does need to try to clean up this big mess he made with respect to his son Trayvon. If cities burn over this the fault lies squarely with the White House, Sharpton and the compliant leftist identity politics media. I think much of the nation and even some of the media is starting to figure it out. I just hope it’s not too late.
elissa (6623c8) — 5/21/2012 @ 8:57 pmLess than a minute and a half from Zimmerman hanging up with the dispatcher and a neighbor dialing 911. And the neighbor had to digest what was happening, find a phone, and dial. That is telling in itself. How can there possibly be a legitimate case for the charges ? This timeline is just another weakness in the charges.
builderD (e38b80) — 5/21/2012 @ 9:07 pmI think slow these days. Prosecution case:
Zimmerman stalked a boy. Seventeen. Zimmerman thought his KelTec was a magic wand that made him invulnerable. The boy showed Zimmerman that Zimmerman was a p****a** coward. He shot the boy. Toss up?
nk (875f57) — 5/21/2012 @ 9:08 pmCities have burned, and people have been killed, in the winners’ city, because the Bulls beat the Lakers for the championship. Bad people will be bad people.
nk (875f57) — 5/21/2012 @ 9:14 pmYes, bad people will be bad people. But individual bad people are more likely to join together and act out as a bad group if they perceive there is a “cause” or “protest” or “social benefit” in acting out. Personally, I’m not a big fan of American cities burning and tend to think that our leaders have some responsibility and duty to keep it from happening. Maybe that’s just me.
elissa (6623c8) — 5/21/2012 @ 9:29 pmfire tests and purifies gold
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 5/21/2012 @ 9:35 pmI agree. The only way I want to see a mob is from behind a machine gun.
nk (875f57) — 5/21/2012 @ 9:37 pm“Feed me, Mandrake. Feed me.”
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/21/2012 @ 10:02 pmI read that Trayvon’s dad said it wasn’t Treyvon screaming, but his mom wasn’t sure and some “so-called audio experts” who seemed to be not more than self-hyped hobbyists had muddied the waters.
A bit of courage at multiple places along the line was called for, and as momentum gains more courage will be required, I fear.
A question for you lawyer folk, when there is a claim of self-defense made as rationale for a killing, is it usually the procedure to go ahead with a criminal prosecution and let the case be made at trial, or is it the usual situation that the DA decides whether there was a self-defense justification hence files no complaint (or is it so veriable that there is no “usual”). I’ve been assuming, as it has appeared the discussion has been, that the DA usually makes the determination prior to bringing charges, unless it is unclear and it is taken to trial (or grand jury first) where defense will try to verify self defense.
It would be fortuitous if there is a hurricane over Florida when charges are dropped. Not looking for damage, but a few days of heavy rain keeping everyone indoors might be helpful.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/21/2012 @ 10:05 pmThe timing is off. GZ’s call to the dispatcher ended at 19:13:41. It’s well documented.
Tara (48157a) — 5/21/2012 @ 10:29 pmThe FBI analyzed the audio of the 911 calls and said they can’t tell who was hollering, and apparently the witness who said it was Zimmerman yelling for help has backtracked and said he’s not sure who was hollering.
‘When first interviewed, the witness said the individual on the bottom was calling for help. But a few weeks later, in another interview, he said he wasn’t sure.’
‘”At first I thought it was the person on the ground, because me thinking rationally, if someone was on top, the person on the bottom would be yelling,” the witness aid. “I truly can’t tell who, after thinking about it, was yelling for help just because it is so dark on that sidewalk. You can’t see a mouth.”‘–CNN
Not that who was yelling for help is the least bit relevant.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/21/2012 @ 10:55 pmMD in Philly (#22 — 5/21/2012 @ 10:05 pm): Our host is almost certainly better informed, or at least better positioned to make an intelligent guess, than I am. Until he or someone else with more of a history in criminal law practice offers a better answer to your question, I’ll offer this, for the little bit it’s worth:
My impression (more from local headlines than first-hand experience; I’m a civil lawyer) is that what “usual” may vary quite a bit from place to place. I’m only licensed in Texas, of course, and my impression is that Texas prosecutors historically have relied very heavily on the discretion of grand juries to help them evaluate self-defense claims. My impression is that Texas prosecutors deliberately rely on grand jurors to help predict how the petit (trial) jurors might react to a self-defense claim. There is still a lot of prosecutorial discretion involved, and (as always) an inherent reliance on prosecutors to seek the truth instead of just seeking convictions. When it comes to self-defense, then, for the grand jury to be an effective screen, prosecutors of course have to present the grand jury with both the evidence exculpating the potential defendant (that is, tending to support the self-defense claim) as well as the evidence tending to inculpate him (that is, tending to disprove self-defense). Occasionally, a very confident defense lawyer may permit his client to waive his Fifth Amendment rights and testify voluntarily before a grand jury, in the hopes that they’ll decline to indict/no-bill. But grand juries can, and regularly do, refuse to indict based on self-defense arguments even without having heard the potential defendant’s version of events from his own mouth under oath.
In the Zimmerman case, however, there was a conscious and publicized decision by the special prosecutor not to present the results of their investigation to a grand jury, and to reserve the charging decision to the special prosecutor herself. I haven’t followed the case very closely, but that frankly surprised me when it happened. Nevertheless, the Florida newspaper stories which reported that announcement didn’t much second-guess it, which led me to speculate that perhaps Florida doesn’t rely as heavily on grand juries as Texas.
And yet on the other hand (as if we’re not already long past two), almost by definition the Zimmerman prosecution isn’t “normal,” since it’s being run by a special prosecutor.
Beldar (2a462a) — 5/21/2012 @ 10:55 pm“I think we can say that the
Elephant Stone (0ae97d) — 5/21/2012 @ 10:59 pmCambridge Policeprosecutors have acted stupidly.”Surls formulating ultimate retort,
Boy, are YOU all in for it!
Icy (1f8bc9) — 5/21/2012 @ 11:05 pmOh, never mind. There he is . . . up there! ^^^
Icy (1f8bc9) — 5/21/2012 @ 11:07 pmwho was yelling for help is very relevant:
if it was Zimmerman, it supports his claim of self-defense, and makes sense, since he had a younger, stronger person on top of him, beating him up and pounding the back of his head into the concrete. a younger, stronger person with a history of being involved in “fight club” type events no less.
if it was ThugLife, it makes no sense, since he was on top of the victim, “MMA Style”, having his knuckles damaged by Zimmerman’s facial bones and cartilage…
so yeah, i can see why you would want to claim it was irrelevant.
redc1c4 (403dff) — 5/21/2012 @ 11:08 pm“who was yelling for help is very relevant:”
Baloney.
Anyone can call for help. Stalin, Hitler, Ted Bundy, Barack Obambi. Anyone.
Believe it or not there’s no physical law that says people engaged in bad acts can’t scream for help.
And, no one can tell who it was anyway.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/21/2012 @ 11:13 pmIs it too late for Angela Corey to enter a convent?
AD-RtR/OS! (2bb434) — 5/21/2012 @ 11:31 pmNot that who was yelling for help is the least bit relevant.
Comment by Dave Surls — 5/21/2012 @ 10:55 pm
— Right!
Because it does NOT constitute any evidence whatsoever that the person yelling for “help” was arguably distressed or feared for his life or anything. Frankly, I’m surprised that Patterico felt the need to devote an entire post to the subject of what really happened on the night in question.
I mean, seriously, who the f*** do we think we are? God-d*** bunch of Inspector Clouseau’s, that’s us! That CHILD did just go out for tea & Skittles — the REAL THING! That fact, by itself, should be all the proof of Zimmerman’s guilt that anyone should ever need.
Anyway, the guy is a skinhead . . . NOT that that means he’s a racist.
Just sayin’
Icy (1f8bc9) — 5/21/2012 @ 11:31 pmAnd, no one can tell who it was anyway.
Comment by Dave Surls — 5/21/2012 @ 11:13 pm
— Yeah, the same witness that confirmed the fact that Zimmerman was on the bottom, being physically assaulted by Martin, isn’t sure which one of them was yelling for help. Gee, I wonder who it was . . . ?
Icy (1f8bc9) — 5/21/2012 @ 11:43 pm“– Yeah, the same witness that confirmed the fact that Zimmerman was on the bottom, being physically assaulted by Martin, isn’t sure which one of them was yelling for help.”
That’s what CNN reported. Take it up with them, if you don’t like it.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/21/2012 @ 11:59 pm“That’s what CNN reported. Take it up with them, if you don’t like it.”
Thank goodness it wasn’t MSNBC or somebody disreputable.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/22/2012 @ 12:11 am“Source: The office of Special Prosecutor Angela Corey from the Report of Investigation prepared by Sanford police Investigator Chris Serino.”
Yeah, at the time the best witness they had said he thought it was Zimmerman.
But, now it looks like he’s reconsidered, and the experts at the FBI say they can’t tell who it is.
So where does that leave you?
Nobody knows who it was…and we ain’t likely to ever find out.
Not that I think it makes a lick of difference who was hollering for help.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/22/2012 @ 2:13 amThanks, Beldar, for your time and thoughts.
(Tongue in cheek notice) nobody has said what kind of help the person was screaming for– if it was Martin, who witness said was on top striking Z “MMA style”, it would have been either, “Come help me beat this guy up” or, “S***, he’s got a gun”.
That animal that looks like a zebra is actually a white horse that leaned against a recently painted black fence… or is it a black horse and a white fence…
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/22/2012 @ 4:03 am24
Not that who was yelling for help is the least bit relevant
Of course it matters. Part of Zimmerman’s story was that he was the one yelling for help. In the (in my opinion) unlikely event that it could be shown that it was actually Martin this would cast considerable doubt on Zimmerman’s story in general.
James B. Shearer (4901e0) — 5/22/2012 @ 5:15 amIt’s a Race War! The Blacks are coming with their Skittles and Iced Tea! Help! Mommy!
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 5/22/2012 @ 5:38 am… this is not political at all. Prosecutors and Cops never play god with people’s lives.
Another Prosecutor who should be dis-barred and Cop who should be fired and have his pension clawed back.
Bill (cd1593) — 5/22/2012 @ 5:40 amIn the Zimmerman case, however, there was a conscious and publicized decision by the special prosecutor not to present the results of their investigation to a grand jury, and to reserve the charging decision to the special prosecutor herself.
In light of the subsequent evidence released to the public and what we know and what is now questionable, would this suggest that in this case it would have been too risky to rely on a grand jury when one considers the special prosecutor was in the middle of a re-election campaign? I wonder how much the Martin/Zimmerman event coinciding with the election played into the course of action taken.
Dana (4eca6e) — 5/22/2012 @ 5:41 am#24 Dave, no facts are relevant to you on this case. Zimmerman is guilty of carrying a gun and shooting a black kid. Facts be damned.
Bill (cd1593) — 5/22/2012 @ 5:42 ammsm = liars. Every. Single. Time.
Amy Shulkusky (67fbd5) — 5/22/2012 @ 5:45 amFB can’t make it out? Then the witness testimony and zimmermans statements are not contradicted. Z was yelling for help.
Sarahw (b0e533) — 5/22/2012 @ 5:47 amFor those that want a more accurate timeline: here’s the original GZ non-911 tape:
http://t.co/bPYVaVDV
If you want to hear the screams for help:
http://t.co/TYUnO0g9
Notice they are in a very high pitch. TM has a low almost bass voice naturally where GZ’s voice is closer to that of a tenor.
Ejarra (ece207) — 5/22/2012 @ 5:48 amRight now Zimmerman is one obama’s many “ace in the hole” cards. He’ll be acquitted eventually and rightfully so. But not until the white house needs to divert the attention elsewhere.
Rick in Fla (d79664) — 5/22/2012 @ 6:00 amDavid E is intentionally trying to make this a race war between blacks and Hispanics.
JD (2307e5) — 5/22/2012 @ 6:11 amEhrenstein shows yet again that he’s not a serious person. Not news, I know.
Meanwhile, Surls is reduced to arguing that evidence isn’t evidence … but still can’t point to any actual evidence that contradicts Zimmerman’s self defense claim.
Not a single piece.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/22/2012 @ 6:21 amMaybe some of you have seen this but I found it interesting; another witness to the end of the fight:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZVMZs4X90Q&list=PLF3B37DFF0045A95D&index=136&feature=plpp_video
David E is intentionally trying to
make this a race war between blacks and Hispanics.get as much attention for himself as possible out of any situation around him, the truth be damned.Comment by JD — 5/22/2012 @ 6:11 am
FTFM
no one you know, in an Andrew Breitbart mood today (325a59) — 5/22/2012 @ 6:23 amHe just likes it when others are as bitter and nasty as himself. He is lonely. So lonely. Cue the song from “Team America.”
More to the point, it’s interesting to see who is wedded to an interpretation of events for political reasons. You can tell by their reactions to uncovered facts.
Remember the Duke lacrosse players? I know two of the faculty who accused the students of rape—both of whom still refuse to apologize or admit they were wrong. And they say they are interested in racial justice…when it is racial politics that is their be all and end all.
Simon Jester (226cce) — 5/22/2012 @ 6:27 am_____________________________________________
Not that who was yelling for help is the least bit relevant.
That’s a rather foolish assumption since there is an element of human nature behind such a response. A thuggish type of person who initiated a confrontation is far less likely to cry out “help” compared with a mild, innocent bystander who got caught in an unexpected scuffle.
In turn, a very aggressive, ballsy “hall monitor” type of person isn’t as likely to allow himself to be caught clearly flat footed and then to have his ego deflated by revealing that vulnerability.
I know when supposed audio experts claimed the cries of “help” were emanating from Martin and not Zimmerman, that definitely altered my sense of the former being the aggressor, the latter being the victim. But if the “experts” are not as reliable as they would like to make themselves out to be, and given the physical condition of Zimmerman compared with Martin after the altercation, it’s hard to believe a guy with a slightly bruised knuckle instead of a broken nose and bloody scalp would have needed to cry out “help.”
Mark (2d5b49) — 5/22/2012 @ 6:40 am________________________________________________
when it is racial politics that is their be all and end all.
Anything that salves and soothes their leftist instincts, no matter how wrong and idiotic that makes them, is their modus operandi. Since liberalism tends to originate in people’s youth, and right-leaning instincts tend to come later in life — after a person has observed reality and human nature for decades — it’s not surprising that some of the most nonsensical and even sickening reactions towards any number of issues and controversies often originate from liberals.
Mark (2d5b49) — 5/22/2012 @ 6:46 amI’m as serious as a heart attack.
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 5/22/2012 @ 7:09 amDRJ, here’s the discovery doc – http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/Zimmerman_Discovery.pdf
Antimedia (6db190) — 5/22/2012 @ 7:09 amNo, more like ‘kryptonite to stupid’ which is in itself a tautology
narciso (1c125b) — 5/22/2012 @ 7:12 amIs it really true Serino wanted Zimmerman charged? That was denied by the prosecutor and is in conflict with this article:
Two weeks ago, during an exclusive interview with the Sentinel, Lee disclosed certain details of the investigation and during that session, attended by Serino and others, Serino said his investigation turned up no reliable evidence that cast doubt on Zimmerman’s account – that he had acted in self-defense.
“The best evidence we have is the testimony of George Zimmerman, and he says the decedent was the primary aggressor in the whole event,” Serino told the Sentinel March 16. “Everything I have is adding up to what he says.”
Jay (4f25cc) — 5/22/2012 @ 7:14 amLink for article above.
Jay (4f25cc) — 5/22/2012 @ 7:15 amNo, you are not, Ehrenstein. You are the very definition of self-parody with your intentional avoidance of facts, your cheap namecalling, and your blind adherence to a long debunked propaganda narrative.
You are Al Sharpton without the sartorial style.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/22/2012 @ 7:17 amIt makes absolutely no sense at all that is was Martin yelling for help given A) Zimmerman’s injuries and B) the word “gun” was never used.
We’re to believe that Zimmerman was pointing a gun at Martin and he was merely yelling “help me, help me”?
Absurd.
Jay (4f25cc) — 5/22/2012 @ 7:17 amResist he much, SPQR.
Simon Jester (226cce) — 5/22/2012 @ 7:18 amEhrenstein is currently on eBay seeing if he can pick up any of Al Sharpton’s used suits to show me up.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/22/2012 @ 7:30 amMark, the audio experts didn’t say it was Martin. They said is was probably not Zimmerman. Some may think that’s a distinction without a difference. I don’t. BTW, there were two witnesses that said Zimmerman was yelling for help. Read the discovery docs.
Antimedia (6db190) — 5/22/2012 @ 7:40 am____________________________________________
I’m as serious as a heart attack.
Which you’d probably have on many occasions, if you (a black guy) were forced to move to and live in a variety of predominantly black neighborhoods. Areas where crime stats are higher than elsewhere and misbehavior or dysfunction can manifest in any number of ways. Communities where generally around 90-plus percent of residents are of the left, illustrating that liberalism certainly doesn’t make humans more humane, more compassionate, more decent or certainly — most certainly — more down-to-earth or sensible than the average person.
BTW, I’m acquainted with a woman who’s a devout Christian and another person who’s been a great mentor for young people. Upright people who’ve struck me as reassuring and sensible. But last week I overhead them discussing the “American Idol” TV show, in which they both expressed surprisingly indignant reactions to a black contestant being voted off. One of the two said (in a patronizing tone) that the singer remaining on the show was “good for an Asian.” The other person even sounded disgusted and said that’s the reason he stopped watching the program a few years ago. The woman also then implied that similarly unfair forces were working against Obama.
I cringed and shook my head, thinking “oh, jeez, I wish the assumptions about the likely political slant of people in such an instance would have been dead wrong.”
I’ve never talked politics with those two people—and purposefully avoid that in general. But I originally estimated they would have been more moderate in their ideological biases, particularly the person who’s very religious. Unfortunately, I was wrong.
Another thing: both of these acquaintances are black.
Mark (2d5b49) — 5/22/2012 @ 7:57 amThis is like Johnnie Cochran stating that “after OJ killed his ex-wife.”
I could be mistaken but didn’t the Sanford police release a statement that Serino actually did not seek out charges against Zimmerman? That he only commented that there wasn’t enough evidence to contradict the self-defense argument?
CrustyB (69f730) — 5/22/2012 @ 9:37 amEhrenstein got nuthin’ . . . plays race card.
Icy (a60384) — 5/22/2012 @ 9:45 amLather, rinse out your rug & repeat.
“Ehrenstein got nuthin’ . . . plays race card.”
Icy – C’mon, he also plays the gay card nonstop.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/22/2012 @ 9:53 am“– Yeah, the same witness that confirmed the fact that Zimmerman was on the bottom, being physically assaulted by Martin, isn’t sure which one of them was yelling for help. Gee, I wonder who it was . . . ?”
I think that witness has a TV and isn’t stupid. The thugs know where he lives. Why would he change his story ?
Mike K (326cba) — 5/22/2012 @ 10:05 am“I think that witness has a TV and isn’t stupid. The thugs know where he lives. Why would he change his story ?”
Mike K – I was wondering if the CNN interview was part of the evidence released on the Court website or if anybody reinterviewed the witness after that blockbuster. Maybe they’ll get the CNN reporter to testify.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/22/2012 @ 10:20 amPick a card. Any card.
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 5/22/2012 @ 10:21 amOh, and the one that said “not Martin” yelling has been thoroughly discredited.
Sarahw (b0e533) — 5/22/2012 @ 10:28 amFWIW, I bet there are a number of ordinary citizens, who do not know who they are, who are very happy a grand jury was not assembled. Volunteers, anyone? (Only with a change of identity and a residence where it is warm and sunny…and isolated.)
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/22/2012 @ 10:47 amFrom what I remember–the police incident report had a check box for what was being investigated–The officer checked “manslaughter” (or similar) to start the report (o. Was not the conclusion.
MSM was reporting that “manslaughter” was the conclusion.
BfC (fd87e7) — 5/22/2012 @ 11:20 am“manslaughter” is generic. Violent death of a person. Police reports are not, usually, evidence.
nk (875f57) — 5/22/2012 @ 11:39 amI would think that you’d be on Zimmerman’s side, David. He has an Ashkenazi sounding name and African ancestry.
Just kidding. I appreciate a sense of justice. It’s just that I want it for everybody.
Broken record nk: A life is lost and another is being ruined. Let the jury decide.
nk (875f57) — 5/22/2012 @ 11:46 am“Meanwhile, Surls is reduced to arguing that evidence isn’t evidence …”
LOL.
That’s our boy…lying as per usual.
What I said was the witness who claimed that he heard Zimmerman calling for help has changed his mind (according to CNN and other news outlets) and isn’t sure who was calling for help, and the forensic experts at the FBI can’t tell who it was (I’ve read their report). If they can’t tell, then I can’t tell.
Also it makes zero difference who was calling for help when it comes to determining whether or not Zimmerman murdered Martin. Anyone can call for help, even criminals.
I’ve seen people being dragged off by the cops yelling for helps lots of times. Doesn’t mean they were the good guys and the cops were the bad guys.
Thanks to the magic of You Tube and cellular phones, you too can see it too…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nP5tX096BiY
So, what does that prove? That the guy calling for help in the video was just defending himself (and would be justified in shooting the police officer)? I think not.
Someone calling for help means precisely dick, because anyone can call for help.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/22/2012 @ 12:06 pm“Let the jury decide.”
On that point we’re in agreement.
I think the guy’s guilty as hell, but if a jury says otherwise, then that’s the way it shall be.
Same thing if there’s a pre-trial hearing and a judge decides that the defenses’ claim of self defense is so strong that it doesn’t merit going to trial (unlikely, IMO, but stranger things have happened). I won’t agree with it, but I’ll certainly accept it…and, so will most people.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/22/2012 @ 12:20 pmAnd you are still wrong, Surls. His original statement stating that it was Zimmerman shouting for help is still evidence.
And you’ve still never come up with any actual evidence that contradicts Zimmerman’s self defense claim. Zipola.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/22/2012 @ 12:23 pmWhat happened to Trayvon Martin’s duty to retreat?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/22/2012 @ 12:27 pmCouldn’t he outrun a fat ol’ cracker skinhead?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/22/2012 @ 12:28 pm“And you’ve still never come up with any actual evidence that contradicts Zimmerman’s self defense claim.”
Zimmerman’s opinion that he was engaged in a legitimate act of self-defense also means precisely dick.
I’m not interested in whether or not he thinks he had legitimate reason to shoot an unarmed 17 year old boy.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/22/2012 @ 12:39 pmWe’ll just have to call you Dave “Zipola” Surls.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/22/2012 @ 12:40 pmSurls has become a parody on this topic.
JD (318f81) — 5/22/2012 @ 12:40 pm“What happened to Trayvon Martin’s duty to retreat?”
He doesn’t have a duty to retreat under Florida law, but all available evidence, including Zimmerman’s own statements indicates he was trying to avoid Zimmerman.
“These assholes always get away.” – George Zimmerman.
Unfortunately, it appears that George Zimmerman wouldn’t allow it.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/22/2012 @ 12:43 pmSurls, actually it appears that you have no evidence for your statement.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/22/2012 @ 12:44 pmHe doesn’t have a duty to retreat under Florida law, but all available evidence, including Zimmerman’s own statements indicates he was trying to avoid Zimmerman.
Except for the part where he was no longer trying to avoid and attacked GZ. So, your statement was right, right up to the point where it wasn’t.
JD (318f81) — 5/22/2012 @ 12:48 pmIt should not be hard, Surls, to identify the evidence that you rely upon for your belief that – after telling the 911 dispatcher that he’d lost sight of Martin – that it was Zimmerman who continued pursuit of Martin and initiated the physical confrontation.
Or do you have no actual evidence for that belief? The prosecutor’s affidavit cites none at all. So what do you have in the form of evidence that the prosecution lacks, Surls?
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/22/2012 @ 12:51 pmApparently a black kid’s/man’s right to be unobserved in public by racist white hispanic cracker skinheads trumps any legal duty to retreat.
If the reporting is accurate, always a big if, the blockbuster evidence that the prosecutor has up her sleeve is that Zimmerman “provoked” Martin by getting out of his car.
Apparently it’s so provocative for Zimmerman to have cast his filthy racist white hispanic cracker skinhead gaze upon Martin that the poor lad had no choice but to react violently.
I believe this is the well-known “White guy looking at a black guy wrong” exemption to the Florida SYG law, under which Zimmerman loses his right to not only stand his ground but even to ordinary self-defense.
Steve (773f84) — 5/22/2012 @ 12:54 pmTrayvon ran when spotted, David. But that doesn’t mean he has a right to jump zimmerman.
He had ended pursuit, didn’t know where the kid was, when he hung up less than a minute before the confrontation took place.
Zimmerman said he kid came up him – confronted HIM.
Just over a minute after Z’s hang-up with the dispatcher, a call from a witness was placed to 911. He had heard the shouting, heard ZIMMERMAN (or rather, the guy on the bottom in the red shirt) shouting for help. He told them to stop, that he was calling 911.
That is no time for pursuit.
And Trayvon was NOT unarmed. He had Zimmerman pinned down, was waling on him, and used the concrete walk as a weapon to bash Zimmerman’s head.
You KNOW you think the crime zimmerman committed was in calling in a suspicious person report and trying to see which way the kid went.
That isn’t a crime. It’s not a tort.
Trayvon might have been annoyed or scared but he had no right to settle his beef with Zimmerman by knocking him to the ground unless Zimmerman had put him in reasonable fear of IMMEDIATE harm – use of a weapon, attempt to restrain him, moving towards Martin aggressively, as if to attack.
There were no fighting words, at least not if those words are put into his mouth by the girlfriend as “what are you doing here” in response to Trayvons demand to know why he was followed.
ZImmerman reports a different conversation. He say’s trayvon asking him if he had a problem, and he said no, reached to call the dispatcher, and Trayvon said “well you’ve got one now” and knocked Zimmerman down.
Sarahw (b0e533) — 5/22/2012 @ 12:59 pmAnd Sarahw, since Surls is so convinced that it did not happen that way, I’m sure that he’ll be able to describe the actual evidence that contradicts Zimmerman’s version.
Or if not, then we’ll just have to call him Dave “Zipola” Surls…
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/22/2012 @ 1:03 pmI think Dave has a Ouija Board or something, because there’s nothing in the evidence supporting his theories or understanding of the law.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/22/2012 @ 1:11 pm“Trayvon ran when spotted, David.”
Yeah, that’s what it looks like all right.
Unfortunately for Zimmerman.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/22/2012 @ 1:12 pmZipola.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/22/2012 @ 1:12 pm“I think Dave has a Ouija Board or something, because there’s nothing in the evidence supporting his theories or understanding of the law.”
Yet, curiously your hero has been charged with second degree murder.
Go figure.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/22/2012 @ 1:14 pmSo the old fat short skinhead ran him down?
JD (318f81) — 5/22/2012 @ 1:14 pmOh, back to the your hero nonsense again. Yippee!
JD (318f81) — 5/22/2012 @ 1:15 pm“And Trayvon was NOT unarmed.”
True he was armed with a can of ice tea, a bag of candy, a cigarette lighter, and a few other deadly weapons of that nature.
ROTFL.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/22/2012 @ 1:17 pmWell, earlier we saw that Dave “Zipola” Surls was too cowardly to fully quote me when adding snark. Now we see he’s too cowardly to fully quote Sarahw.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/22/2012 @ 1:21 pmHow can you doubt that? It used to happen all the time in those Quinn Martin productions back in the ’70s.
Who can forget that fat, old cracker William Conrad chasing down poor oppressed minority Olympic athletes as the P.I. in “Cannon?” Sprinters, marathon runners, middle distance runners, pole vaulters, none could get away from Frank Cannon.
I’m sure Trayvon realized that as a 17 y.o. High School football player he had no hope of outrunning the pudgy little white hispanic cracker.
Steve (773f84) — 5/22/2012 @ 1:23 pm“I think Dave has a Ouija Board…”
Must be a pretty good one, because right from the get go I said I thought it was murder, and by golly the guy’s been charged with murder!
Amazing.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/22/2012 @ 1:23 pmHow good does your ouija board have to be? I could have predicted Al Sharpton et al could have pressured these people to conduct a political prosecution for murder. And clearly, I don’t think it’s murder. There is still no evidence supporting a murder charge.
Steve (773f84) — 5/22/2012 @ 1:27 pmDave Surls shorter: charged=guilty.
Birdbath (ce2227) — 5/22/2012 @ 1:39 pmI think Trayvon should have just gone home and confronted Zimmerman the next day.
CrustyB (69f730) — 5/22/2012 @ 2:07 pm(RING)
Zimmerman: Hello?
Martin: Hi. Are you the guy who followed me for 15 to 60 seconds last night?
Z: I think so.
M: Well, I believe that legally entitles me to bash your brains out.
Z: I suppose you’re right. Should we go down to the sidewalk?
M: That’s fine.
(The two descend Zimmerman’s front steps to the sidewalk. George stands erect, bracing himself.)
Z: How’s this?
M: That’s fine but don’t brace yourself. I’m going to sucker punch you.
(Trayon lands a solid punch to the middle of George’s face, breaking his nose. George falls as Trayvon lands on his chest, delivering a series of blows which lacerate George’s scalp against the pavement.)
Z: Is this going to be a fatal beating?
M: You’ll have to wait and see.
“Well, earlier we saw that Dave “Zipola” Surls was too cowardly to fully quote me when adding snark. Now we see he’s too cowardly to fully quote Sarahw.”
Too funny.
I don’t have to quote her in full in order to point out that her assertion that Trayvon Martin was armed is patent nonsense.
Anyhow, her entire statement is available right on this thread, for those who care to peruse it, so what’s the point of quoting it in it’s entirety? I’m only quoting the part that I’m disputing.
I am a coward, however. I’m a lover not a fighter. I’ll run from trouble any time I can, if honor will allow it.
I will stand and fight if honor demands it, but that’s only because I’m more afraid of people thinking that I’m dishonorable than I’m afraid of death and pain.
However my cowardice has nothing to do with my not replicating every single idiotic comment out of your half-baked train.
You can’t possibly hurt me, so I have no reason to engage my cowardice.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/22/2012 @ 2:09 pmNo, Dave, you never addressed her point at all. You gave us “Zipola” with respect to her point. That’s why you are a coward, your failure to quote her point only reinforced what we knew.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/22/2012 @ 2:13 pmThe question is why would someone be LIKELY to do that. That’s what legal cases generally are about: likelihood. Whether someone COULD do something is irrelevant.
What is relevant in this case?
Gerald A (cc0aaa) — 5/22/2012 @ 2:22 pmSame thing if there’s a pre-trial hearing and a judge decides that the defenses’ claim of self defense is so strong that it doesn’t merit going to trial (unlikely, IMO, but stranger things have happened). I won’t agree with it, but I’ll certainly accept it…and, so will most people.
Comment by Dave Surls — 5/22/2012 @ 12:20 pm
“Unlikely” is the word. Judges have to accept probable cause. Prima facie is a prosecutorial decision. The prosecution must disclose any possible exculpatory evidence in their possession, but they are not required to present it.
nk (875f57) — 5/22/2012 @ 2:26 pmHaven’t read all the comments here, but I caught this last week when the documents were made public commented on it here.
389.Breaking News Folks:
At page 56 of the 183 pages that NBC News has posted, the investigator says that when he played the 911 tapes for Martin’s father on 2/28, Martin’s father said the person yelling for help in the background of the recording was NOT his son.
Getting pretty close to dismissal time.
Comment by shipwreckedcrew — 5/17/2012 @ 7:45 pm
shipwreckedcrew (58dde3) — 5/22/2012 @ 2:28 pmNot until the first witness, or the jury, is sworn in, shipwrecked crew.
nk (875f57) — 5/22/2012 @ 2:32 pm“No, Dave, you never addressed her point at all.”
Yes, I did. Trayvon Martin was NOT armed, and that’s the only part of her comment that I cared to address.
I’ve read the police report, and I know what he had in his possession, and he had no arms, whatsoever.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/22/2012 @ 2:34 pmHe had 2 arms, no?!
JD (318f81) — 5/22/2012 @ 2:35 pmUp where I’m at, we have a very strict speedy trial statute. So I would be comfortable with me making a trial demand when the State moved to SOL or nolle prosse. 160 days, home free. But not in a murder charge.
nk (875f57) — 5/22/2012 @ 2:37 pmSurls, still can’t actually address her point? Coward.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/22/2012 @ 2:37 pmIt appears the prosecutor is going to argue that Zimmerman provoked the confrontation. Even if that were true, wouldn’t Martin have a duty to retreat if he could? Or is there never a duty to retreat under current Florida law?
And following up on Beldar’s excellent comment regarding special prosecutor Angela Corey’s decision not to submit charges to the grand jury, Alan Dershowitz said in an interview earlier this week that Corey has “a terrible reputation in Florida for always overcharging, and she was picked specifically for that …” I don’t know if that’s true but if that is her reputation, perhaps she felt the grand jury wouldn’t bring the charges she wanted.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/22/2012 @ 2:38 pm131: Martin may have had a duty to retreat. But that doesn’t mean Zimmerman could legally shoot him.
This guy (2125df) — 5/22/2012 @ 2:41 pmI think it’s pointless to argue whether Martin was armed since the case hinges mainly on who started the fight and on whether Zimmerman had was taking a beating from Martin in which Zimmerman reasonably feared serious injury. The second point seems beyond doubt at this point.
Gerald A (cc0aaa) — 5/22/2012 @ 2:41 pm131: Martin may have had a duty to retreat. But that doesn’t mean Zimmerman could legally shoot him.
Comment by This guy — 5/22/2012 @ 2:41 pm
Aren’t you ignoring Martin attacking Zim?
JD (318f81) — 5/22/2012 @ 2:44 pmDRJ, however, unless I missed it, her charging affidavit did not describe any evidence for the proposition that Zimmerman “provoked” the actual physical confrontation.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/22/2012 @ 2:44 pm115: Oh it is very much in doubt. There is a witness who says they saw Zimmerman chasing Martin. There are witnesses who say it was Martin screaming for help. There are counters to ALL of that…. hence, very much in dispute.
116: Not ignoring at all.
This guy (2125df) — 5/22/2012 @ 2:45 pm116: To clarify, martin cannot be charged with murder because:
This guy (2125df) — 5/22/2012 @ 2:46 pm1) he killed no one
2) he is dead
This guy, what witness saw Zimmerman chasing Martin after he told the dispatcher that he’d lost him?
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/22/2012 @ 2:47 pmQuote that witness, “this guy”. While you are at it, tell everyone all the names you have used.
JD (318f81) — 5/22/2012 @ 2:48 pm‘“Unlikely” is the word.’
IMO, this is almost certainly going to trial.
But, you never know. The defense could have something up their sleeve that would get the whole thing tossed out…but, somehow I doubt it.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/22/2012 @ 2:49 pmDid I miss where someone claimed Martin should be charged with murder, or is “this guy” arguing with voices in it’s head?
JD (318f81) — 5/22/2012 @ 2:49 pmSPQR,
Would it have to allege provocation? Wouldn’t it simply allege Zimmerman killed Martin and provocation would be offered to rebut Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/22/2012 @ 2:50 pmDRJ, well, I’d think not given the statute but I would not claim to be knowledgeable about Florida criminal procedure.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/22/2012 @ 2:51 pmWhat probable cause has the prosecution presented that would lead anyone to believe Zimmerman committed a crime?
A cop opined that this could have ultimately been prevented if Zimmerman never got out of his car. It could have also been ultimately avoided if Zimmerman never got out of bed that morning, or never left his house all day. Of course, it’s equally true that the incident could have been prevented if Martin just walked the rest of his way home. Or if he never got out of bed that morning, or never left his house all day.
Other than making me aware the her office is more than capable and willing to sex up an affidavit with ultimately meaningless words like “profiling” they haven’t demonstrated much lawyerly skill. Like, I dunno, demonstrate an awareness of what constitutes probable cause.
Seriously, if the media reports are accurate the prosecutor plans to claim Zimmerman provoked the attack by getting out of his car.
Which means it’s the state’s position you really should exercise the same amount of caution around black teenagers as you would use around wild animals in a safari park. STAY IN THE CAR or you’ll provoke the animals into attacking!
This from Martin’s defenders who claim Zimmerman shouldn’t have “profiled” Martin. Who are now claiming Zimmerman should have realized that he’d end up fighting for his life if he got out of his car in Martin’s vicinity. Or asked Martin what he was doing in the neighborhood. Or continued to observe Martin in a public place, a completely legal act performed from a vantage point where Zimmerman had every right to be.
I’d like Trayvon Martin’s defenders to tell me which act Zimmerman performed that “provoked” Martin, without demonstrating you’d have to be a raving racist to make all those assumptions about Martin’s likely response to Zimmerman’s perfectly legal actions.
It can’t be done.
Steve (773f84) — 5/22/2012 @ 2:52 pm“It appears the prosecutor is going to argue that Zimmerman provoked the confrontation. Even if that were true, wouldn’t Martin have a duty to retreat if he could?”
The short answer is: No.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/22/2012 @ 2:52 pmhttp://www.businessinsider.com/witnesses-told-police-george-zimmerman-chased-trayvon-martin-down-before-shooting-him-2012-5
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-05-22/news/os-george-zimmerman-key-witnesses-20120522_1_witnesses-change-shooting-fdle-agent
Google is your friend folks
This guy (2125df) — 5/22/2012 @ 2:52 pmThis guy, if you saw a witness statement regarding Zimmerman pursuing Martin after telling the dispatcher that he’d lost him, you should point it out. Dave “Zipola” Surls is desperate for that information.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/22/2012 @ 2:52 pmSPQR: Maybe I am at fault, but some of your replies to me are confusing…. I think you are reading into what i say and/or adding words to my statements….. or something. Not sure exactly.
This guy (2125df) — 5/22/2012 @ 2:54 pmI’m glad I’m not prosecuting this case, because I would win a conviction. What is that word they told us in 1L tort? Busybody? SPQR, help, it’s been thirty years.
Seventeen year old kid is walking down the street. Sees some guy following him. The guy is some mall ninja with a gun and muscles like spaghetti. Seventeen year old takes umbrage, kicks stalker’s sitting place. Stalker shoots kid. I take it back, it is not a toss up. Zimmerman is toast.
nk (875f57) — 5/22/2012 @ 2:54 pmSo we are all clear, “this guy” is a serial troll here. One that likes to comment as me. It has a crush.
JD (318f81) — 5/22/2012 @ 2:54 pm131: Your summation of events is what I think basically occurred. Zimmerman may get off from 2nd degree murder though, or perhaps he’ll plea to manslaughter?
This guy (2125df) — 5/22/2012 @ 2:56 pm132: What?
This guy (2125df) — 5/22/2012 @ 2:56 pmThis guy, neither of those articles contain witness accounts inconsistent with Zimmerman’s story. The one describing a chase can’t get straight whether it was one person or two in subsequent interviews, and there is nothing to indicate that it wasn’t the chase that Zimmerman reported to 911 dispatch before saying he’d lost Martin.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/22/2012 @ 2:57 pm*interloper*
nk (875f57) — 5/22/2012 @ 2:57 pmGeorge Zimmerman followed Trayvon Martin before shooting the “skinny” 17-year-old and any scuffle was over by the time a shot was fired, according to some witnesses.
Two women who heard someone screaming for help before Martin died told Florida investigators Zimmerman followed the teen before killing him.
“And I can tell you there was no fighting going on at the time the gun went off,” one of the women, identified only as W16, told police. “And the fight that happened started way down the sidewalk. Now the kid got shot way down here, you know, 5 doors down.”
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/witnesses-told-police-george-zimmerman-chased-trayvon-martin-down-before-shooting-him-2012-5#ixzz1vddNLl00
This guy (2125df) — 5/22/2012 @ 2:57 pmSPQR – Alex is pretty transparent
JD (318f81) — 5/22/2012 @ 2:58 pmnk, if the prosecutor can’t present evidence to contradict Zimmerman’s claim to 911 dispatch that he lost Martin, then the break in contact is enough to make Martin the subsequent aggressor. And that’s enough to support Zimmerman’s self defense claim.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/22/2012 @ 3:01 pmSorry, guys. “What is Truth”, is likely the wisest question ever asked.
nk (875f57) — 5/22/2012 @ 3:01 pm“What probable cause has the prosecution presented that would lead anyone to believe Zimmerman committed a crime?”
See the affidavit of probable cause.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/12/us/13shooter-document.html
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/22/2012 @ 3:02 pmThis guy; newsflash. Google is not your friend.
Your “earwitness” testimony adds up to this:
They didn’t see anything that would contradict Zimmerman’s claims, the claims of the eyewitnesses, and the physical evidence.
Steve (773f84) — 5/22/2012 @ 3:04 pmYes, SPQR. But that’s only enough for an instruction. Now, who talks prettier? The prosecutor or the defense attorney?
nk (875f57) — 5/22/2012 @ 3:04 pmThis guy, evidently you didn’t read your own links. Google is your friend only if you read.
The statement does not reflect her actual observation of the shooting. And the chase isn’t in doubt, we know of that. The question is whether or not Zimmerman’s statement to the 911 dispatch after it is refuted by any witnesses.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/22/2012 @ 3:05 pmYes, David. And there is nothing in it. Nothing that would lead anyone to believe it wasn’t self-defense as Zimmerman claimed.
You can keep referring me back to that big, fat nothingburger of an affidavit.
It’s still a big, fat nothingburger.
Steve (773f84) — 5/22/2012 @ 3:07 pmDave “Zipola” Surls, we discussed the affidavit in great detail long ago. It has only conclusory statements – without any reference to any evidence – for the key claim that Zimmerman provoked the confrontation.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/22/2012 @ 3:07 pmH***,
I keep telling people not to play judge, and I’m doing it.
But like the ARDC wrote, I have never been disciplined. 😉
nk (875f57) — 5/22/2012 @ 3:08 pmnk, if you’ve never been disciplined, its ’cause you couldn’t afford the mistress’ rates … 😉
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/22/2012 @ 3:10 pm“Zimmerman is toast.”
I almost never make predictions, because I don’t have a crystal ball, and you never know what a jury is going to do or, what kind of unexpected event might suddenly come up that will upset the old applecart, and make your prediction look silly (Alan Dershowitz take note).
But, I wouldn’t want to be in Zimmerman’s shoes.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/22/2012 @ 3:16 pmThe marriage license was only $35.00, SPQR. 😉
nk (875f57) — 5/22/2012 @ 3:19 pmSurls has not read the police reports — or at least he has not read all of them or read them very carefully.
There are two EYEWITNESSES to the incident set forth both in their own handwritten statements, and as summarized in the police reports. One is an older male who lived in the house directly adjacent to the location where the fight happened. He is the one to who made the “MMA stlye” reference in describing Martin punching Zimmerman. He was on his back patio, approximately 30 feet away. He shouted he was going to call the police, and then went back inside to go to the phone when he heard the shot. He said Zimmerman — the one on the bottom, getting beat on — was calling for help. THe police report recounting his statement is at page 38 of this link.
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/Zimmerman_Discovery.pdf
This gentleman has never recanted or reconsidered his statement. His handwritten statement is at page 86.
The other EYEWITNESS is a 13 year old African-American kid who had just left his family’s house to walk the dog. His statement is at the top of page 42 of the same link above. He said he saw only one person laying on the ground in red shirt, yelling for help. He didn’t see anyone else, and couldn’t recognize anyone’s face.
THIS INTERVIEW TOOK PLACE ON 3/5 — 8 days after the shooting.
The 13 year old later changed his story when interviewed, but only to say that he couldn’t tell who was yelling.
And, oh but the way, this is the same kid who told CNN with his mother sitting by his side that his mother told him that he was only 4 years younger than Martin, and it could easily be him out there in the grass one day. His mother thinks the policy twisted her son’s account given the night of the shooting to fit a self-defense theory they favored.
shipwreckedcrew (58dde3) — 5/22/2012 @ 3:23 pmnk, $35 ?!? I paid $45.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/22/2012 @ 3:26 pmAlex is a coward.
swc – don’t go and get all facty
JD (318f81) — 5/22/2012 @ 3:29 pmFacts are tough for polemists.
But I prefer facts to nonsense.
shipwreckedcrew (58dde3) — 5/22/2012 @ 3:30 pmAlex and Surs apparently prefer the nonsense.
JD (318f81) — 5/22/2012 @ 3:34 pmBut, I wouldn’t want to be in Zimmerman’s shoes.
Comment by Dave Surls
who in right mind would?
Colonel Haiku (5a3e75) — 5/22/2012 @ 3:34 pmlegal bills and race-baiters
make life living Hell
If the prosecutor had any real evidence that contradicted Zimmerman’s story, it should have been released to the defense by now.
In the absence of a witness who puts Zimmerman physically starting the confrontation, I don’t see that the prosecutor has any evidence to defeat the self-defense claim. The physical evidence we’ve been exposed to is consistent with Zimmerman’s story. Certainly nothing to reach the reasonable doubt standard.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/22/2012 @ 3:39 pmThe prosecutor’s dodge of responsibility is going to be that a prosecutor does not have to credit a defendant’s claim of self-defense when making a judgment about whether to charge and/or go to trial.
Zimmerman did commit a homicide — he killed another person. The law excuses that homicide if it was done in self-defense.
But that question is one of “ultimate fact” for a jury to decide, not a prosecutor. So the prosecutor is going to claim that it wasn’t proper for her to decide not to charge on the basis of self-defense when Martin was not able to speak for himself.
If, after all the facts are presented, a jury decides to excuse Zimmerman’s homicide as an act of self-defense, that is a proper function of the role of the jury.
Its a dodge, but its a PR dodge in this instance. You could say that it is unfair to Zimmerman to put him through the pain and expense of a trial, but he did expose himself to that possibility by carrying a gun on the night in question.
That’s something for all gun-owners to take notice of. Self-defense is a basis to win and acquittal, but its not necessarily a basis upon which to escape a prosecution.
shipwreckedcrew (58dde3) — 5/22/2012 @ 3:45 pmAntimedia #54,
Thanks for the MSNBC link to the discovery produced by the prosecutor’s office. If anyone is interested, the timeline set forth in Patterico’s post is at page 40 of the link.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/22/2012 @ 3:50 pmhe did expose himself to that possibility by carrying a gun on the night in question.
Carrying a gun should not expose anyone to improper charges or charges for which there is insufficient basis under Maryland law.
Sarahw (b0e533) — 5/22/2012 @ 3:50 pmThanks for you comments, shipwreckedcrew. They are very helpful.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/22/2012 @ 3:51 pmSarahw, Florida law.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/22/2012 @ 3:54 pmSelf-defense is an affirmative defense, where the burden is on the defendant to assert it and prove it. Its not “improper” to charge someone in the face of a claim of self-defense.
Its pretty stupid to charge in the face of a mountain of evidence that makes a self-defense claim pretty clear, because as a prosecutor you are simply wasting time and resources pursuing a case you aren’t likely to win.
shipwreckedcrew (58dde3) — 5/22/2012 @ 3:55 pmWell, I’d much rather be in Zimmerman’s shoes than Martin’s. Trayvon’s dead.
And if I had to be facing trial for Second Degree Murder, I’d rather have to face this charge than some other that was supported by actual evidence.
Getting back to that affidavit the prosecutor filed alleging probable cause, this is the entire pertinent section that covers the period in which Zimmerman supposedly got out of his vehicle to “provoke” Martin and Martin ended up getting himself shot dead:
There are a lot of outright falsehoods as well as unsupported speculation. Here are what we know the prosecutor’s office put into that affidavit that they already knew wasn’t true or had no reason to believe was true:
1. They allege Zimmerman ignored the dispatcher when we know per the recording that is entirely false.
2. They allege Martin was “trying” to return home when that isn’t borne out from where the shooting took place.
3. They make it appear that Martin’s voice had been identified when Martin’s own father couldn’t ID it, and Zimmerman’s father ID’d it as his son.
4. There is no evidence to support the allegation that Zimmerman confronted Martin, as alleged in the affidavit, rather than the other way around. They certainly can’t say Zimmerman started the fight. The lead investigator admitted at Zimmerman’s bond hearing that they had no evidence that would counter Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense.
There is nothing in this affidavit to support the claim any crime was committed except for one stemming from the prosecutorial misconduct that produced it. There’s very little it it that is remotely true other than the fact Zimmerman shot Martin in the chest.
Apparently defendants charged with murder are rarely granted bail in Florida. I’d take it as a hint about what the judge granting bail to Zimmerman thinks of this probable cause affidavit.
Here’s what the prosecutor’s office is telling the press what their case will come down to:
And, yes, I realize in this instance it’s coming from “family attorney” Benjamin Crump. But it’s no different than what the press is reporting from sources in the prosecutor’s office. That Zimmerman somehow “caused” the fatal shooting merely by getting out of his car.
I find this an interesting paradox. We aren’t supposed to “profile” as a society. And Zimmerman should have known just how Martin would have reacted to the fact he “provoked” Martin by getting out of his car.
Steve (773f84) — 5/22/2012 @ 3:58 pmIt depends upon the jurisdiction and circumstances; in some locations and under some circumstances one is entitled to the presumption of legitimate self-defense. Then the prosecutor would have to demonstrate the evidence doesn’t support the claim to self-defense in order to file charges.
As far as whether or not it’s stupid for a prosecutor to file murder charges against a mountain of evidence supporting self-defense, I don’t see how that’s true. She and those in her office get paid whether they’re filing murder charges against Zimmerman or cockfighting charges against day laborers. It’s not her money she’s wasting. If she’s going to demonstrate she’s not concerned about first seeing that justice is done, why would we expect she’d care about wasting the taxpayer’s resources if she thought (as she apparently does) that it’s a good career move?
Steve (773f84) — 5/22/2012 @ 4:27 pmMeant to say, it certainly doesn’t appear Angela Corey is going to suffer any negative personal or professional repercussions.
In what way is it stupid for her to go against all the facts as well as violate reason in pursuing this charge against Zimmerman?
Steve (773f84) — 5/22/2012 @ 4:31 pmIts stupid simply from a personal perspective. WHy would I want to spend my day putting in the time and effort that goes along with a criminal trial when the outcome of that trial is almost preordained to be against me?
There are many other cases in her office that are worthy of the time and effort. From a purely selfish standpoint, what is accomplished by working the sure loser?
What benefit she had to gain politically she has already gained. The case came to her near the time of the filing deadline in her reelection race. Filing charges probably prevented any potential challenger from opting to run against her. Now that she is unopposed, she could drop the case — or make only a half-hearted attempt to take it to trial — and still cruise to reelection in November.
shipwreckedcrew (58dde3) — 5/22/2012 @ 5:05 pm“Surls has not read the police reports”
On the contrary.
“This gentleman has never recanted or reconsidered his statement.”
That appears not to be the case, if the CNN article I was reading is correct:
‘Another witness, however, seems to put Martin on top of George Zimmerman for at least part of the struggle, according to another recording.’
‘”When I first walked out there, the black guy was on top, and the only reason I can tell that was because the guy that was on the ground under him at that point wrestling was definitely a lighter color,” the man, whose name has not been made public, said in the interview.’
‘Martin was African-American. Zimmerman is Hispanic.’
‘When first interviewed, the witness said the individual on the bottom was calling for help. But a few weeks later, in another interview, he said he wasn’t sure.’
‘”At first I thought it was the person on the ground, because me thinking rationally, if someone was on top, the person on the bottom would be yelling,” the witness aid. “I truly can’t tell who, after thinking about it, was yelling for help just because it is so dark on that sidewalk. You can’t see a mouth.”‘
Not that it matters who was yelling. Murderers, and other lawbreakers, are perfectly capable of screaming for help.
“And Zimmerman should have known just how Martin would have reacted to the fact he “provoked” Martin by getting out of his car.”
Right. All Zimmerman did was get out of his car.
[rolls eyes]
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/22/2012 @ 5:07 pm“Nothing that would lead anyone to believe it wasn’t self-defense as Zimmerman claimed.”
Steve – Except that the medical reports and autopsy prove that Zimmerman assaulted Martin’s knuckles with his nose and eye sockets.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/22/2012 @ 5:10 pmI think Dershowitz is right that this was about having a trial and avoiding race riots, if only for a few months. Perhaps the hope is that exposing the evidence and having a trial will diffuse the anger, so there may not be as many problems when the case finally ends.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/22/2012 @ 5:13 pmIn other words, perhaps the prosecutor feels she is doing something that is arguably permissible, as you note above, and serves a larger goal.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/22/2012 @ 5:15 pmHere is the way it works Dave — the witness will be shown his statement. He’ll be asked if he made that statement on the 26th. He’ll be asked how long after the incident he made the statement. He’ll be asked to read it — including the specific references to the fact that it was the guy getting beat on who was yelling for help. He’ll be shown his handwritten words where he said the same thing. Then he’ll be asked if he was trying to be as accurate and complete as he could be at that moment. It’ll be pointed out he was only 30 feet from the incident at the time, and he had a clear view. Then he’ll be asked at what point in time was his recollection the most sharp and most accurate — when he spoke to the police and wrote his own statement in the minutes and hours that followed the incident, or days/weeks later when being interviewed by the press in a case that developed into a national sensation.
Then the prosecution will wonder out loud why would a guy on top of another guy, while beating the crap out of him “MMA Style” would be shouting out for help in a voice that some others described as “crying”?
Frankly, your inability/unwillingness to try and make the pieces of the puzzle fit together into a coherent narrative makes you sound like and idiot.
shipwreckedcrew (58dde3) — 5/22/2012 @ 5:15 pmDRJ — I think her conduct can be rationalized and excused on that basis — in her own mind — but I think its still a political exercise of prosecutorial discretion and that is unethical in my opinion.
shipwreckedcrew (58dde3) — 5/22/2012 @ 5:17 pmI agree. IMO prosecutors aren’t supposed to consider how a case will impact the community or society but, instead, are supposed to seek justice in each case. But I’m not a prosecutor.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/22/2012 @ 5:33 pmWhat’s permissible about doctoring an affidavit and having the affiant swear to the truth of a document when it contains information that the affiant either knows to be untrue or has no reason to believe is true?
Maybe you’ll object to the term “doctoring” but that’s how I take Investigator Gilbreath’s characterization under oath at the bond hearing that the affidavit was a “collaborative” effort in concert with the prosecutor. Gilbreath couldn’t even give insight into the decision making process, and stated as much, when talking about what words made it into the probable cause affidavit and what didn’t. He just signed what the prosecutor, “Bernie,” had written into his statement for him.
Steve (773f84) — 5/22/2012 @ 5:54 pmI’d still be curious to know how the prosecutor and the political leadership is somehow not “profiling” the black segment of the community when they assume there’d be a riot unless they file charges against Zimmerman.
They’re pretty blatantly “profiling” a large portion of the population, and assuming the worst about them. Something that we’re told in Zimmerman’s case is a huge no-no.
Steve (773f84) — 5/22/2012 @ 5:59 pmDave, he was armed with a sidewalk. If one considers use of the sidewalk to crack Zimmerman’s head assault with a deadly weapon, Zimmerman’s was at risk of grave injury or even death if the battering continued.
SarahW (b0e533) — 5/22/2012 @ 6:10 pmSelf-defense is an affirmative defense, where the burden is on the defendant to assert it and prove it. Its not “improper” to charge someone in the face of a claim of self-defense.
The ultimate burden is always on the prosecution. The defendant does not have to prove anything. It may be “some evidence” or “preponderance of the evidence” to get an affirmative defense considered by the trier of fact, but “beyond reasonable doubt/moral certainty” is the State’s burden. The defendant, with an affirmative defense, only has to provide the boulder. It is up to state to push it out of the way. (There is a special rule for insanity defense, up here. The defendant must prove his insanity by preponderance of the evidence and, if successful, he has just committed himself indefinitely to a psychiatric institution.)
nk (875f57) — 5/22/2012 @ 6:13 pm“Zipola” writes:
And your evidence that he did more is what? What exact evidence do you base your belief that he did something else? Please simply state the evidence. It should not be difficult.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/22/2012 @ 6:14 pm“And your evidence that he did more is what?”
Well, he admitted that he was following the kid, for one thing.
He didn’t just get out of his car to stretch his legs.
He was stalking the kid.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/22/2012 @ 6:29 pm“Zipola”, its been repeatedly pointed out to you that “stalking” has a definition in the law that does not match the case circumstances, and yet you keep misusing that term.
We all know that he followed Martin. What evidence do you have that Zimmerman did anything to “provoke” Martin – in a legal sense, something Zimmerman did that was wrongful – after telling the 911 dispatch that he’d lost Martin?
Because even if the pursuit could be considered an aggressive act (a doubtful claim), once Zimmerman had abandoned that chase, he wasn’t the aggressor any longer.
But this has been asked of you, repeatedly, Surls. And you’ve never identified any evidence at all. Your belief is apparently utterly baseless.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/22/2012 @ 6:36 pmHe was not stalking. And he lost contact with T, until T decided to engage.
JD (2307e5) — 5/22/2012 @ 6:39 pmHe gave you the evidence! Can’t you read? I’ll repeat it:
[rolls eyes]
Gerald A (cc0aaa) — 5/22/2012 @ 6:45 pmNarrative fail. Zimmerman admitted to looking at a street sign before going back to his car.
And there is no evidence that conflicts with not only Zimmerman’s statements, but the statements of eyewitnesses and the physical evidence.
But you’re going to power right along in defiance of the facts, aren’t you, and pretend he was following Martin. Which even if true, and there absolutely no reason to believe it is even by the prosecutor’s own investigators’ own sworn statements and testimony, isn’t the slightest bit illegal and doesn’t constitute a justification for Martin’s later assault on Zimmerman.
And there’s a hell of a lot of more evidence Martin assaulted Zimmerman than there is that Zimmerman “stalked” Martin.
Steve (773f84) — 5/22/2012 @ 6:45 pmnk — technically, the way it works is that a jury will be instructed on self-defense being a defense to the government’s charge only if the court is convinced that there is sufficient evidence that supports the claim of self-defense. The burden of producing that evidence is on the defense. They don’t have to “prove” self-defense in as much as they have to put forward sufficient admissible that, if believed, would negate a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt finding on one or more elements of the crime charged. That negation would then lead to a not guilty verdict.
shipwreckedcrew (58dde3) — 5/22/2012 @ 6:53 pm“He was not stalking.”
Yes, he was.
And, it’s real obvious that he was.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/22/2012 @ 6:54 pmRight, Surls, because all stalkers call 911 dispatch to tell them that they are stalking people.
You got zipola.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/22/2012 @ 6:55 pmSurls at 180 — if you are going to continue to parse the facts, start by getting them right.
When he got out of the car he had lost sight of the Martin. So, he wasn’t “following” him, he was “looking for” him. At what point he might have spotted him again we do not know.
shipwreckedcrew (58dde3) — 5/22/2012 @ 7:00 pmYou have to say: [rolls eyes]. Without that how are you gonna convince anybody?
Gerald A (cc0aaa) — 5/22/2012 @ 7:01 pmSurls at 180 — if you are going to continue to parse the facts, start by getting them right.
He’s parsing lies.
Gerald A (cc0aaa) — 5/22/2012 @ 7:01 pmI got sad news for you. You don’t get to stalk people, if you call the police before you start stalking them.
You can’t stalk people…period.
And, he was stalking the kid.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/22/2012 @ 7:01 pmAgain you didn’t say [rolls eyes]!! Why should I believe what you say if you don’t do that?
Gerald A (cc0aaa) — 5/22/2012 @ 7:04 pmSurls, Zimmerman’s conduct does not meet the legal definition of any anti-stalking statute I’ve ever heard of. Why don’t you tell us what Florida’s anti-stalking statute says, and show us how Zimmerman’s conduct was criminal.
Or just give us Zipola.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/22/2012 @ 7:05 pm[rolls eyes]!!!
Gerald A (cc0aaa) — 5/22/2012 @ 7:06 pmSurls doesn’t have to show us anything. Because it’s so obvious due to constant repetition.
Gerald A (cc0aaa) — 5/22/2012 @ 7:08 pm“Surls, Zimmerman’s conduct does not meet the legal definition of any anti-stalking statute I’ve ever heard of.”
That doesn’t surprise me at all.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/22/2012 @ 7:09 pmHe is a stalking stalkery stalker skinhead racist speed freak. It is true.
JD (2307e5) — 5/22/2012 @ 7:11 pmIt’s not stalking, if you don’t know who the person is, actually in light of the Cortalan incident, the previous August, and a subsequent event just three
narciso (1c125b) — 5/22/2012 @ 7:11 pmweeks before the 26th, Zimmerman’s behavior was perfectly reasonable,
That doesn’t surprise me at all.
Comment by Dave Surls — 5/22/2012 @ 7:09 pm
An even more devastating riposte than [rolls eyes].
Gerald A (cc0aaa) — 5/22/2012 @ 7:12 pmComment by shipwreckedcrew — 5/22/2012 @ 6:53 pm
No disagreement. I think we’re saying the same thing with different words. Burden of going forward with the evidence vs. burden of proof.
nk (875f57) — 5/22/2012 @ 7:13 pmSurls is going to have problems defining Zimmerman’s actions as stalking given that the harassment would have to be “malicious” and “repeated.”
No. Wait. Not true.
He hasn’t had a problem defining Zimmerman’s actions as stalking in complete defiance of the facts so far.
Why should he see the facts or the law as posing some sort of a hurdle now?
Steve (773f84) — 5/22/2012 @ 7:14 pmSurls, the difference is that I’ve actually read statutes. I know where statutes are published.
You? Zipola.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/22/2012 @ 7:14 pmDave Surls,
I think it’s interesting to talk about topics like this, and I don’t have a problem with analyzing whether this is stalking. FindLaw has this summary of stalking under Florida law. One thing I notice is that to constitute stalking, the following or harassment must be “repeated.” It seems to me that would make it very hard to prosecute Zimmerman for stalking.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/22/2012 @ 7:15 pmComment by Steve — 5/22/2012 @ 7:14 pm
[rolls eyes] that doesn’t surprise him at all.
Gerald A (cc0aaa) — 5/22/2012 @ 7:15 pmThe bottom line, Surls, is that we’ve pretty much repeatedly tried to get you to support your claims. You’ve had plenty of opportunity to explain your reasoning …
But all we get is ZZZZipola.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/22/2012 @ 7:15 pm‘the contact must be “repeated.”’
That just means you aren’t going to get prosecuted if you lose your temper and holler at somebody, and go on about your business.
It doesn’t mean you can follow someone with malicious intent, calling them an asshole, with a gun in your pocket for five hours and then claim you only did it once.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/22/2012 @ 7:19 pm#20
Ah.
SteveG (34235c) — 5/22/2012 @ 7:21 pmExcept for the Chinese pouring into North Korea using the human wave tactic… out of ammo, barrels melting
Stop me if I’m way off base, but wouldn’t it also be difficult to demonstrate that the following or harassment was “malicious” given that he was simply reporting suspicious conduct he witnessed while out in public to a police dispatcher?
Steve (773f84) — 5/22/2012 @ 7:21 pmfive hours????
elissa (e46b2e) — 5/22/2012 @ 7:21 pm“Surls, the difference is that I’ve actually read statutes.”
One would never know it, judging by your comments.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/22/2012 @ 7:21 pm“five hours????”
Just an example.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/22/2012 @ 7:22 pmAn example of you making up crap, Surls.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/22/2012 @ 7:24 pm==with a gun in your pocket for five hours==
Aren’t you supposed to take yourself to the emergency room if that happens?
elissa (e46b2e) — 5/22/2012 @ 7:24 pmelissa wins the Internets.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/22/2012 @ 7:25 pm‘Stop me if I’m way off base, but wouldn’t it also be difficult to demonstrate that the following or harassment was “malicious”’
The fact that he called the cops on someone who wasn’t doing anything wrong, that he referred to the kid as an “asshole” even though he knew nothing about the boy, and the fact that he shot and killed the boy, are pretty good indicators of malicious intent.
I’m fairly certain he wasn’t following the lad to give him a good conduct medal.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/22/2012 @ 7:27 pmSteve:
As Dave notes, that’s a question of subjective intent and it’s open to interpretation. For our purposes, it’s easier to talk about objective conduct like whether there was repeated following/harassment.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/22/2012 @ 7:30 pmYeah, it’s just so “malicious” to report suspicious behavior to a police dispatcher. Especially when you’re not breaking the law in any other respect. Such as legally carrying a gun in a place you have a perfect right to be, and you’re not even provoking the person you’re “stalking” by calling him an a**h**e. But instead talking to a third party about the a**h**e.
Look, it’s fine with me if you want to demonstrate beyond any shadow of a doubt you have no regard whatsoever for the laws and the facts in this case.
It’s the exact point the rest of us are making about you. It’s really decent of you to make the same point about yourself and demonstrate we’ve all been correct about you all along. It makes things easier on the rest of us.
Steve (773f84) — 5/22/2012 @ 7:32 pmThe fact that he called the cops
Dave, are you listening to yourself? Calling the police is …?
nk (875f57) — 5/22/2012 @ 7:33 pmSurls, since you are such an expert on definitions, you need to go read up on “circular logic” and “begging the question”.
You are a walking set of logical fallacies.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/22/2012 @ 7:34 pm“Dave, are you listening to yourself? Calling the police is …?”
Brett Kimberlin filing legal motions against Aaron Walker is…?
Maybe you guys ought to listen to yourselves.
And, think about it a little bit.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/22/2012 @ 7:37 pmIn Dave’s world, there is nothing objective about this. He even has his own subjective definition of “repeated.” I’d be curious to know how you’d hang a stalking conviction on someone who not only didn’t engage in a repeated activity by any stretch of the imagination, but only engaged in observing someone’s suspicious actions in public to report it to the police.
There’s got to be a definition of what constitutes “malicious,” and I don’t see how any reasonable definition of “malicious” could encompass Zimmerman’s actions that evening.
Steve (773f84) — 5/22/2012 @ 7:38 pm“Yeah, it’s just so “malicious” to report suspicious behavior to a police dispatcher.”
Yeah, that’s usually the case. You don’t generally call the cops on someone because you intend them good.
Definitely true in this case.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/22/2012 @ 7:43 pm==You don’t generally call the cops on someone because you intend them good==
Dave–is it fair to assume then that you are not a fan of the work of the national Guardian Angels organization?
elissa (e46b2e) — 5/22/2012 @ 7:46 pm“The fact that he called the cops on someone who wasn’t doing anything wrong, that he referred to the kid as an “asshole” even though he knew nothing about the boy, and the fact that he shot and killed the boy, are pretty good indicators of malicious intent.”
Dave – Heh. Everybody welcomes a drug addled hood rat looking in their private back porch windows in Sanford, Florida, particularly in areas which have suffered numerous burglaries and such behavior is not considered suspicious in the least by the town’s good residents. In fact the police have a very high rate of success in catching such burglars, hence Zimmerman’s comment the a**holes always getting away.
What really shocks and offends the senses is the temerity of fat ol’ white hispanic stalkery speed freak cracker skinhead having the actually getting out of his car anywhere in the vicinity of drug addled wannabe thug life hood rat in Sanford, Florida. I thought there were laws against that!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/22/2012 @ 7:53 pm‘There’s got to be a definition of what constitutes “malicious,”’
One would think. Why don’t you go look it up and see what it means?
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/22/2012 @ 7:53 pmWow, I leave for a few hours and a pissing match breaks out. Here’s some things for you to think about. From the time that Zimmerman said he lost Trayvon (“I don’t know where this kid is”), 45 seconds before the call ends, to the time of the first 911 call is 2 minutes 45 seconds. Trayvon was 70 yards from his house. According to his girlfriend, he made it to the house.
So how did he end up 70 yards away from the house? I can’t explain it, but it appears he may have doubled back. If that’s the case, he purposely chose to engage with Zimmerman.
As for the “unarmed” nonsense, just google “one punch kill”. You will find (among others) a story of a 142 pound young girl who killed a rapper with one punch. Don’t tell me an unarmed person isn’t dangerous. The facts say otherwise.
Antimedia (f41333) — 5/22/2012 @ 7:55 pm“Dave–is it fair to assume then that you are not a fan of the work of the national Guardian Angels organization?”
I don’t have a problem with them, as long as they’re not bothering people who aren’t doing anything wrong.
Why would I?
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/22/2012 @ 7:59 pm“You don’t generally call the cops on someone because you intend them good.”
Dave – You usually let the cops sort the situation out, unless the suspicious person starts beating the crap out of you suddenly.
I’m thinking it might have been tougher for Zimmerman to sustain the injuries he did if he were on top. Assaulting Martin’s knuckles from on top with his face, just tougher. Also harder to figure out the injuries to the back of his head, but that’s just me.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/22/2012 @ 8:02 pm‘As for the “unarmed” nonsense, just google “one punch kill”.’
LOL
Having hands doesn’t make you armed.
Having weapons makes you armed.
Anyone who claims the boy (or young man, if you prefer) was armed is either ignorant of the facts, or lying.
He was not armed.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/22/2012 @ 8:05 pmThanks for the discussion swc, nk, steve, and others.
So, to feed back to make sure I have it- the prosecutor could determine a homicide was in self defense and not press charges, or they could put it before a jury (or grand jury previously) to let them decide if there was enough reason to allow for self defense/that the prosecution did not present beyond a reasonable doubt that the homicide was not in self defense.
To Dave S.
Why do I not believe thee?
Let me count the ways:
-Reliable witnesses are consistent in saying Z was on his back, get whacked “MMA style”, and yelling for help
-Time sequence, review of a map, and physical attributes of people involved indicate Z could not have “confronted”, even if he had wanted to, unless M wanted it to happen
-The “best evidence” against Z remains misleading editing of the 911 call and unwarranted characterization of the event as Z “stalking” him
-In a match between ground, head, and fist, head usually loses. FBI stats show people are killed everyday with bare hands, even by the untrained.
-In this case, everybody else saying so is a good reason
So, legally carrying a gun will not necessarily prevent court proceedings, but it may mean you are the one still alive.
If everyone stayed in their *^*& car and didn’t give a ^*&%*&%*&% d*** about anybody or anything else, the world would be a nicer place for Mr. Z, no matter what happens to the rest of the world.
I wonder how many extra police officers it would take to maintain the public safety if everyone was instructed to ignore suspicious behavior. (Oh, that’s right, he wasn’t told to ignore M but to watch what he did and where he went, without maintaining visual contact.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/22/2012 @ 8:10 pm““Yeah, it’s just so “malicious” to report suspicious behavior to a police dispatcher.”
Yeah, that’s usually the case. You don’t generally call the cops on someone because you intend them good.
Definitely true in this case.
Comment by Dave Surls ”
Jeez. The old saying hasn’t occurred to you. “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.” So you don’t like neighborhood watches. I wonder why ?
Mike K (326cba) — 5/22/2012 @ 8:13 pmHaving hands doesn’t make you armed.
Having weapons makes you armed.
Anyone who claims the boy (or young man, if you prefer) was armed is either ignorant of the facts, or lying.
He was not armed.
Comment by Dave Surls — 5/22/2012 @ 8:05 pm
No disagreement from me. The boy was not armed.
I’ve done more than a little gun defense. Morton Grove, of all places, too. I know what “armed” is.
Still, Dave. Pounding Zimmerman’s head? Smashing him on the sidewalk? What would you do?
nk (875f57) — 5/22/2012 @ 8:15 pmNot true! I’d call the cops on you and wish you the best of luck with your criminal career.
It’s just that dealing with those 911 calls ratting you out to the cops is one of those core competencies you’ll have to work on if you’re going to get anywhere in that line of work.
Considering how often Trayvon was getting suspended after attracting police attention for “acting suspicious” while on surveillance cameras, then vandalizing school property while on camera, drug paraphernalia, and possession of burglary tools and possible stolen property, Zimmerman was doing Martin a favor by giving him a chance to practice those core competencies.
Too bad Martin didn’t use the opportunity wisely.
Steve (773f84) — 5/22/2012 @ 8:16 pm==Anyone who claims the boy (or young man, if you prefer) was armed is either ignorant of the facts, or lying.
He was not armed==
We know this only after the fact. Zimmerman did not know whether Tray of the suspicious behavior was armed or not at the time Zimm was having his head pummeled on the ground, though, did he? What was it again that Tray allegedly said to Zimm?
elissa (e46b2e) — 5/22/2012 @ 8:23 pm2010 FBI stats
5.8% of murders involved unarmed assailants.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/22/2012 @ 8:24 pmMD,
The way I know it, the decision to prosecute is in-office, felony review, “can we get past a directed verdict?” Grand jury is pretty much bare bones, “do we have probable cause to hold the accused for trial”? The grand jury transcripts I got at arraignment were the State’s Attorney reciting the police report. Grand juries can be just a rubber stamp.
This case is proceeding by what I know as “information”. Perry Mason. It will, very likely, proceed to trial.
nk (875f57) — 5/22/2012 @ 8:26 pmDave, just because you have claimed to have survived “your typical barroom brawl” that does not mean everyone does. You were either lucky or had multiple inept opponents.
Make a fist, reinforce the middle finger with the index finger and that by the thumb, jam about 1″ in front of the “ear” and you immediately disable a person, then pound head against ground at will. Of course, you aren’t really hitting the brain against the ground, the brain is only playing ping-pong with the front and back of the skull. Skull wins.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/22/2012 @ 8:30 pmWhat is that thing that lost me part of my pre-frontal cortex and part of my cerebellum, MD? Coup contres coup? One good hit is all it takes.
nk (875f57) — 5/22/2012 @ 8:37 pm*coup contrecoup* The brain bouncing inside the head.
nk (875f57) — 5/22/2012 @ 8:40 pmWay to misquote, Dave! Antimedia never said Martin was armed. What he did say was,
If your arguments were any good, you wouldn’t have to lie about what people say.
Chuck Bartowski (e1fdd9) — 5/22/2012 @ 9:00 pmBartowski, and Dave “Zipola” Surls would even have the courage to fully quote what he was pretending to refute.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/22/2012 @ 9:06 pmYes, nk, sorry you had to demonstrate. The brain floating in liquid inside a rigid box is a good basic design, but if you slam the box hard enough, in front for example, the box and fluid move faster than the brain, so the inside of the forehead slams into the cerebrum/frontal cortex causing “bruising”. That impact then slams the brain backwards and the cerebellum then impacts the back of the skull, causing more bruising. When the brain bruises and swells, it cannot expand like an ankle, so pressure builds up in the brain, preventing blood from getting in, causing more damage, and if not stopped the pressure pushes down where the brain and spinal cord meet. When this happens the part of the brain that controls breathing stops working, so the injured person stops breathing, which is not good, even if the original injury was simply slamming the head against the ground.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/22/2012 @ 9:10 pmThank you, MD. And mine was just falling backward on my basement stairs. Nobody pounding me.
nk (875f57) — 5/22/2012 @ 9:24 pm“Dave, just because you have claimed to have survived “your typical barroom brawl” that does not mean everyone does. You were either lucky…”
Get off it. Millions of people have been in fistfights. Almost no one ever dies from getting socked in the nose.
It’s possible…but, real unlikely.
And, you don’t get to go around hassling high school kids who are doing nothing but walk down the street, and then, when the fight YOU provoke,d ends up with you getting punched in the nose, pull out your pistol and start shooting folks, and then claim you had to do it because you were about to be beaten to death.
At least some of us are going to try and make things be that way. And, we’re getting results, namely: George Zimmerman has (correctly) been charged with murder for what he did.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/22/2012 @ 10:00 pmThe sword of Justice has two edges, Dave. Give George what you demand for Trayvon.
nk (875f57) — 5/22/2012 @ 10:07 pm“Give George what you demand for Trayvon.”
Like I said, nk, if a judge throws it out, or a jury finds him not guilty, then that’s the way it shall be.
People like me aren’t try to deprive him of justice. He’s entitled to a fair trial with all the trimmings.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/22/2012 @ 10:50 pmZimmerman did commit a homicide — he killed another person. The law excuses that homicide if it was done in self-defense.
But that question is one of “ultimate fact” for a jury to decide, not a prosecutor. So the prosecutor is going to claim that it wasn’t proper for her to decide not to charge on the basis of self-defense when Martin was not able to speak for himself.
Shipwrecked:
I greatly appreciate the way you stated this. It appeals to my sense of justice.
felipe (3cc5df) — 5/22/2012 @ 11:04 pmI think the guy’s guilty as hell
— What you think means precisely dick.
Zimmerman’s opinion that he was engaged in a legitimate act of self-defense also means precisely dick.
— It isn’t his “opinion”; self-defense IS his defense.
I’m not interested in whether or not he thinks he had legitimate reason to shoot an unarmed 17 year old boy.
— Some other things that do not interest Surls:
Reality, reasonableness, truth justice & the American way . . .
He doesn’t have a duty to retreat under Florida law, but all available evidence, including Zimmerman’s own statements indicates he was trying to avoid Zimmerman.
— Such as the available evidence that Martin avoided hitting Zimmerman in the stomach by hitting him in the face instead?
“Trayvon ran when spotted, David.”
Icy (325253) — 5/23/2012 @ 12:17 amYeah, that’s what it looks like all right.
Unfortunately for Zimmerman.
— Probably didn’t want to get caught in possession of burglary tools . . . again.
“And, you don’t get to go around hassling high school kids who are doing nothing but walk down the street”
Dave – I agree with that, but Martin was doing something different, so I don’t know why you keep describing it the way you do.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/23/2012 @ 12:19 am“Probably didn’t want to get caught in possession of burglary tools”
Burglary tool = a flathead screwdriver
Gun used to murder 17 year old unarmed kid = self “defense” tool
That’s your “reality”, old hoss…and I ain’t interested in being part of it.
I prefer planet earth.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/23/2012 @ 12:37 amYet, curiously your hero has been charged with second degree murder.
— He is a hero to his family for defending his life so that he can remain a part of their lives. He is not a hero to us; but then, it isn’t necessary that he be a “hero” in order for us to stick up for his rights.
True he was armed with a can of ice tea, a bag of candy, a cigarette lighter, and a few other deadly weapons of that nature.
— Humans have enjoyed the capability of killing each other with their bare hands for many thousands of years now. I know this because I saw a dramatic re-enactment proving it on Discover Channel.
“I think Dave has a Ouija Board…”
Must be a pretty good one, because right from the get go I said I thought it was murder, and by golly the guy’s been charged with murder!
— Is that how it works, Surls? To be charged is to BE guilty, and to be charged but acquitted is to have ‘put one over’ on the system?
You can’t possibly hurt me, so I have no reason to engage my cowardice.
— And yet, still you are afraid to face facts. Puzzling.
I almost never make predictions, because I don’t have a crystal ball
— Stained-glass nuts?
But, I wouldn’t want to be in Zimmerman’s shoes.
— Well, of course not. I mean, if you were in HIS shoes then somebody might come along and call YOU a skinhead!
“Surls has not read the police reports”
On the contrary.
— Wanda: You think you’re an intellectual, don’t you, ape!?!
Otto: Apes don’t read philosophy!
Wanda: Yes they do, Otto. They just don’t understand it.
Right. All Zimmerman did was get out of his car. [rolls eyes]
Icy (325253) — 5/23/2012 @ 1:58 am— Next time, try rolling your brain into it’s fully upright and locked position.
“…then somebody might come along and call YOU a skinhead!”
Not likely.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/23/2012 @ 2:03 am“…it isn’t necessary that he be a “hero” in order for us to stick up for his rights.”
I presume you’re speaking of protecting the right of would be vigilantes to stalk and murder unarmed 17 year boys, and then avoid being charged or tried for murder.
You aren’t having much success at it, I see.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/23/2012 @ 2:39 amtrue: “airhead” seems more appropriate for you…
whether that is your natural state, or a contrived one you assume posting here is a different question.
but not one i give a damn what the answer is.
redc1c4 (403dff) — 5/23/2012 @ 2:44 amIf you review the tape of Zimmerman’s 911 call and the timeline it provides
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/videogallery/68871920/News/George-Zimmerman-911-call-reporting-Trayvon-Martin
And the map showing the various physical locations of events
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&t=m&source=embed&oe=UTF8&msa=0&msid=203577346167583507267.0004bbdcc7c71244ae865
Almost the only scenarios that can be imagined require that Trayvon must have circled back to confront Zimmerman, rather than Zimmerman hunting him down. At about 1:37 Trayvon flees and Zimmerman follows and reports that he has headed for the back entrance to the property which suggests TM fled down either Retreat View Circle or Twin Trees. If he had fled through the yards there would have been little reason for Zimmerman to assume he was headed for the exit. From the tape it is clear that GZ only pursued him for about 30 secs. and since when he halts at about 2:10 on the tape he isn’t even breathing hard, he obviously wasn’t going at high speed. GZ than converses with the 911 operator for another 30 secs and the audio seems clear that he is stationary throughout. Since the whole sequence occurred in a fairly limited area, if TM had proceeded on his way he had more than sufficient time to reach the residence where he was staying. Although not explicitly stated the end of the tape suggests GZ intended to head back to where he came from to meet the police. The map shows the shooting location at the back line of the lots on RVC which does allow for the possibility that TM had hidden there and GZ sought him out there but, since TM had easily distanced himself from GZ there would seem to be little logic to that course of action. Besides although I found this map I can’t really attest to its accuracy, but even if it’s not that close to accurate there would seem to be little possibility of GZ closing the gap to Trayvon after hanging up with the dispatcher,since there is according to the timeline in the post only 1:20 between his hanging up and the first 911 call reporting screams for help, unless Trayvon was headed back to him. Bear in mind that 1:20 interval requires the struggle to develop to the point that GZ is screaming for help, the caller needs to hear it, probably go to a window to try to see what was happening, decide they needed to call 911, and finally get to a phone and make the call. That would indicate the struggle had to start within a fairly small number of seconds after GZ hung up on his 911 call. To me this all lends credence to GZ’s version of the events although it’s nowhere near probative. It does however make the notion of GZ as some relentless racist vigilante almost ludicrous. At this point GZ is the only one who knows the entire sequence of events between when he hung up on the 911 operator and when Trayvon ended up shot and his own statements haven’t been released. If they end up including some information that incriminates him it will be another lesson to all of us that if you become involved in a police investigation don’t talk to ANYONE until you have a lawyer present, no matter how innocent you feel yourself to be.
djaces (bbdbc2) — 5/23/2012 @ 2:50 amthe map again makes the point that all Thug Life needed to do was keep going and he’d have been back in the crib smoking more dope by the time the ofay pigs got there…
redc1c4 (403dff) — 5/23/2012 @ 3:03 amHe was stalking the kid.
— And your point is what? that this somehow justifies Martin’s physical attack on Zimmerman? Oh, and by the way, following and observing is NOT the same thing as stalking; k?
You can’t stalk people…period.
And, he was stalking the kid.
— Your not so subtle “Martin’s physical attack on Zimmerman was justified because Zimmerman was stalking him” ploy is pretty pathetic.
It doesn’t mean you can follow someone with malicious intent, calling them an asshole, with a gun in your pocket for five hours and then claim you only did it once.
— Z followed T for five hours? Damn! Thank God we have Dave here to reveal these previously completely unknown facts about the case.
Thank you, Dave.
The fact that he called the cops on someone who wasn’t doing anything wrong, that he referred to the kid as an “asshole” even though he knew nothing about the boy, and the fact that he shot and killed the boy, are pretty good indicators of malicious intent.
— Can one be guilty of malicious intent by thought? ’cause if so . . .
Yeah, that’s usually the case. You don’t generally call the cops on someone because you intend them good.
— Perhaps that dictionary you rely on so heavily should strike the term “suspicious activity” from the English language. Much less confusion that way.
And, you don’t get to go around hassling high school kids who are doing nothing but walk down the street, and then, when the fight YOU provoke,d ends up with you getting punched in the nose, pull out your pistol and start shooting folks, and then claim you had to do it because you were about to be beaten to death.
— Like I thought, you think it’s Z’s fault that M broke Z’s nose.
That’s your “reality”, old hoss…and I ain’t interested in being part of it.
Icy (325253) — 5/23/2012 @ 3:31 am— No kidding.
it is a very strange planet our little troll lives on Icy…
redc1c4 (403dff) — 5/23/2012 @ 3:38 amI presume you’re speaking of protecting the right of would be vigilantes to stalk and murder unarmed 17 year boys, and then avoid being charged or tried for murder.
You aren’t having much success at it, I see.
— You see nothing.
But soon we shall all see.
Make sure you have eyes open when that happens.
Icy (325253) — 5/23/2012 @ 3:42 amI’m not sure why we keep doing this…
Mr. Surls, you “get off it”.
As reminded above by djaces and others, there is NO, that is NONE NADA, KEINE, ZIP evidence that Z was the one who provoked/initiated a face to face confrontation that led to the death of M. The best/only evidence for this is the characterization in the press, without basis, that Z was “stalking” M. It seems you are basing your opinion solidly on one bit of unwarranted MSM editorializing in a news story. Most of us do not think that qualifies as “beyond a reasonable doubt”. And while jury verdicts are important, they do not determine what objective historical reality is, unless you believe OJ did not murder anyone because the jury said so.
If you wanted to argue that you’re not sure what happened as Z seems the “best” witness and Z has reason to alter the story, you would have likely 95% agreement; but by sticking with an opinion which is not best supported by the facts and minimizing the obvious realities of potential consequences of a beating, you are backed way into a corner.
If you have a bet with someone on how well you can “occupy” a web site, I guess you may be winning.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/23/2012 @ 4:57 amDave, I know this is your sticking point: “he called the cops on someone” who you think was just walking down the street meaning no harm, with no rational basis or reasonable basis for thinking him a suspicious person.
Maybe I could just stop with “he called the cops on someone”; you’ve let it slip you think that suspicious person reports are us “wrong” and violation of liberty and should be considered.some kind of crime or tort itself if the suspicious person checks out.
But you are mistaken on both fronts.
Sarahw (b0e533) — 5/23/2012 @ 5:34 amWell it took 80 seconds from when Zimmerman hung up to when someone called 911 saying Zimmerman was screaming for help.
Miikeb (c69273) — 5/23/2012 @ 5:53 amIf Zimmerman was getting beaten then, this means that he was getting beaten for 37 seconds before he fired the shot.
The confrontation must have happened quickly after the phone call ended. Which means either Zimmerman kept following, after he hung up and Martin stopped, or Zimmerman stopped, and Martin advanced to Zimmerman.
So in 80 seconds, they needed to close the distance, start a fight, have Martin win, and then enough time for someone to hear the shouts, recognize the situation, and make the 911 call.
If Zimmerman (Who is a big guy) recognized the possibility of a fight, while Martin was closing the distance, the fight would have taken longer than ~70 seconds to finish (Assuming ~10 seconds to see the fight grab a phone call 911, be routed and connect). Martin seems to have been ready to fight and Zimmerman not. If Zimmerman was looking for a confrontation, that would have been a near record KO time.
Again the location of the body in relation to Zimmermans car will be key.
Nobody here is interested in your fact-free statements or anything else you think. You’re very creepy.
Gerald A (cc0aaa) — 5/23/2012 @ 6:46 amYour hero GZ is a racist speed freak skinhead.
JD (2307e5) — 5/23/2012 @ 7:15 amSeventeen year old
kidjungle thug is walking down the street. Sees some guy following him. The guy is somemall ninja with a gun and muscles like spaghettiwell-known, well-liked local. Seventeen year oldtakes umbragelet’s his cannabis buzz get the better of him, kicksstalker’scitizen’s sitting place. Stalker shootskidthug.I take it back, it is not a toss up. Zimmerman is
toasta hero who is about to walk.Comment by nk — 5/22/2012 @ 2:54 pm
FIFY, so the results of your urban education aren’t quite so obvious.
Bull Conner (189ca1) — 5/23/2012 @ 7:22 amTroll.
SPQR (91931e) — 5/23/2012 @ 7:26 amFIFY, so the results of your urban education aren’t quite so obvious.
Bull Conner – Yankee, you must be from the Michigan, Connor’s. We don’t put up with your kind of BS down here.
Bull Connor (bf33e9) — 5/23/2012 @ 7:30 am___________________________________________
Mr. Surls, you “get off it”.
Puzzling, isn’t it. One would have to probe his background and history to understand what makes him tick.
Was he a troublemaker in his youth, perhaps a bully at school, or had a mix-up with a kid who liked to enforce the rules? More recently, did he have a run-in with a security guard, a cop, an overbearing boss or supervisor? Maybe he likes to drink and is irked at the notion that at certain times in his life he’s been behind the wheel and could have been pulled over by cops?
Many of us on occasion have heard a siren suddenly blurt out behind our car and at that moment think “oh, damn, some friggin’ cop just happened to be around at this moment—what a nuisance! Go away!”
Or if Surls has kids, did one of them end up a delinquent? Does the racial background of his family have some bearing on his perceptions?
Something is scrambling his common sense, and who knows what’s behind it.
Mark (2d5b49) — 5/23/2012 @ 7:46 amWhile Zimmerman was slightly heavier than Martin, he was significantly shorter. I personally have no problem accepting the theory that Zimmerman would have been overwhelmed quickly whether he saw it coming or not. A large part of victory in unarmed combat is skill and aggression. Martin’s history indicates that he had some skill, and Zimmerman’s injuries argue that Martin had an abundance of aggression.
Immolate (5200fb) — 5/23/2012 @ 8:58 am“You see nothing.”
I see your hero’s has been charged with second degree murder.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/23/2012 @ 10:14 am“Dave, I know this is your sticking point: “he called the cops on someone” who you think was just walking down the street meaning no harm, with no rational basis or reasonable basis for thinking him a suspicious person.”
Yeah, I don’t like people who make baseless accusations, and try to sic the government on folks that aren’t doing anything wrong (especially when the person doing it chases folks with a gun in their pocket and ends up killing the person that they’re hassling).
You guys don’t like it either…but, only if the person doing it is named Brett Kimberlin.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/23/2012 @ 10:22 am“Or if Surls has kids, did one of them end up a delinquent?”
That’s nice of you to suggest that my children are delinquents, without having a shred of proof to back it up.
No wonder you love Zimmerman so much.
Birds of a feather.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/23/2012 @ 10:27 amSurls @ 270. That only proves that you could be charged with second degree murder tomorrow. It only takes a prosecutor with the authority to sign his/her name to the bottom of a charging document and the willingness to do so without any evidence.
shipwreckedcrew (a19a61) — 5/23/2012 @ 10:33 amSurls, oh now you think claims should have at least a shred of evidence? How droll.
SPQR (91931e) — 5/23/2012 @ 10:37 am“That only proves that you could be charged with second degree murder tomorrow.”
Well, there’s a slight difference between myself and your great hero.
The cops haven’t found me next to a dead teenager that I’ve stalked and harrassed, and who’s been killed by my pistol.
That being the case, I’m not too worried about being charged with any degree of murder.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/23/2012 @ 10:50 am“Well, there’s a slight difference between myself and your great hero.”
Dave – I also haven’t been spotted on private property peeping in peoples’ back windows, which apparently counts as walking down the street doing nothing in your lexicon. Go figure.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/23/2012 @ 11:04 amThat whole hero meme is so cute.
JD (47dea0) — 5/23/2012 @ 11:17 amAmong the many things that baffle me about Surls’ bizarre comments is the fact that he does not realize that prosecutors refuse to file charges in situations no less ambiguous than Zimmerman’s … the difference only being that Al Sharpton hasn’t gotten involved.
There was a case some years ago in the local metro area where a white man visiting a restaurant in a corner strip mall got into an argument with a black couple. The white man shot both of them with a legally carried concealed handgun after the black male struck him with a lug wrench; killing the male and seriously wounding the female.
Police did not arrest. Didn’t take the DA very long to decide not to charge.
SPQR (3deba4) — 5/23/2012 @ 11:22 amMr. Surls;
You sem to place a great deal of credence in the notion that if person is not in possession of a gun, a knife , or a club that they really can’t do much that would inflict serious damage on your person. I suggest a small experiment. You select your favorite piece of concrete pavement and I’ll meet you there. You get to lay down on the concrete. I get to straddle your chest and commence to punch you in the face. You agree to lay there and take it until my stamina or enthusiasm or both wanes enough for me to stop. Are you up for it?
djaces (bbdbc2) — 5/23/2012 @ 11:35 amDEATH THREAT!!!!!!
JD (47dea0) — 5/23/2012 @ 11:52 amI’d appreciate it, if you would leave my family out of this.
My kids have never harmed you in any way, and they have NOTHING to do with our dispute.
Don’t make little cutesy suggestions, framed as questions, suggesting that they’re delinquents.
That’s way out of line.
You don’t like me? Fine. Go after me. Not my kids.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/23/2012 @ 11:54 am…or is it an educational opportunity?
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 5/23/2012 @ 12:01 pmI agree with Surls, Mark. No reason to drag his family into this. None
He is plenty wrong all on his own.
JD (47dea0) — 5/23/2012 @ 12:02 pmDEATH THREAT!!!!!!
Comment by JD — 5/23/2012 @ 11:52 am
Was that aimed at my suggested experiment? If so, it could not possibly be true because Mr. Surls has repeatedly suggested that GZ had absolutely no reason to fear for his life in similar circumstances. Obviously no one who was not brain dead or seriously yearning to be so would agree to participate in my test, but unless you are willing to do so, you might be a little more circumspect about accusing GZ of being a murderer for making exactly the same choice.
djaces (bbdbc2) — 5/23/2012 @ 12:08 pmDave is talking, not his kids,
nk (875f57) — 5/23/2012 @ 12:11 pmMarkc**s****.BTW, in regard to the notion that GZ was going armed on his Neighborhood Watch rounds hoping to have the opportunity to gun down some miscreants. From stories I’ve seen GZ was advised by police authorities to get the gun after he had several encounters with large loose running and vicious dogs which had in at least one instance gotten into one of his neighbor’s homes and thoroughly terrorized the inhabitants thereof.
djaces (bbdbc2) — 5/23/2012 @ 12:22 pmFor backround on the above you may find this interesting
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/25/us-usa-florida-shooting-zimmerman-idUSBRE83O18H20120425
djaces (bbdbc2) — 5/23/2012 @ 12:35 pmIt was an inside joke.
JD (47dea0) — 5/23/2012 @ 12:48 pmTwo thoughts: If you need a gun to be there, don’t go there. And then: know how, where and when to use the thing.
nk (875f57) — 5/23/2012 @ 12:52 pmBTW, Dave,
Zimmerman is no hero to me or a lot of people I’ve talked to. We call him “mall ninja”.
nk (875f57) — 5/23/2012 @ 12:55 pm“I get to straddle your chest and commence to punch you in the face. You agree to lay there and take it until my stamina or enthusiasm or both wanes enough for me to stop. Are you up for it?”
Nah.
Been there, done that.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/23/2012 @ 1:18 pmThere is substantial ground between hero and heartless murderer. If you read the Reuters story I linked above you may come to suspect that GZ’s suspicions about young Trayvon were the product less of racist paranoia but actually constituted a considered judgement based on over a year of increasing criminal activity in his neighborhood in which in many cases the perps were identified as “young black men”. He may have done things differently than I would have in similar circumstances, but I have seen no actual evidence that what he did was even morally wrong, let alone illegal. If you remove the events of the night Trayvon died from that Reuters story, what remains is a portrait of a man willing to go well beyond average to be a friend and good neighbor to those in his community and though that wouldn’t necessarily make him a hero in my eyes, it certainly is greatly at odds with the propaganized vision of him as a hate filled villain.
djaces (bbdbc2) — 5/23/2012 @ 1:29 pm“I get to straddle your chest and commence to punch you in the face. You agree to lay there and take it until my stamina or enthusiasm or both wanes enough for me to stop. Are you up for it?”
Nah.
Been there, done that.
Comment by Dave Surls — 5/23/2012 @ 1:18 pm
Well that may at least partially explain the quality of your logic.
djaces (bbdbc2) — 5/23/2012 @ 1:32 pmI don’t think Mark really meant anything, but let’s leave family out of it.
Of course, if one of my boys comes over here and starts holding forth, then they’re on their own.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/23/2012 @ 1:32 pmDave is guilty of murdering logic. There’s a cold case where he’s connected to the death of respectful debate and thoughtful opposition too.
Birdbath (ce2227) — 5/23/2012 @ 1:36 pmdjaces- I don’t remember seeing you post much (I may have missed it), but, FWIW, JD was referencing your post re “death threat”, but often when JD posts, if his tongue was any further in his cheek, it would be touching his elbow…
I didn’t read about having a gun for dogs, but when my son was on (police) patrol he had to shoot a charging dog more than once, but don’t start referring to facts or who knows where the discussion goes.
Yes, for some reason Dave claims enough experience in being on the floor in barroom brawls that he doesn’t see why Z would have had reason to shoot even if things were exactly as he (Z) claims. Very foolish. Daughter’s sensei, 8th degree black belt and multiple time world champion, said to never take any potential street conflict for granted, no matter how good you are, and #1 defense is to avoid.
Between that belief and the assertion that Z stalked and provoked, if not started, the fatal conflict, Dave is entrenched on his position, no matter how many thousands of posts this thread goes.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/23/2012 @ 1:49 pmSomeone who has extensive experience of being on the floor in bar-room brawls needs to reconsider the manner in which they interact with others.
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 5/23/2012 @ 1:58 pmTwo points:
Surls is correct that who was crying for help is not “evidence”. It could possibly be used as exculpatory for Z as showing he was in fear of his life.
But Surls is wrong that Z “knew” M was unarmed. Z had NO evidence available to him at the time that this person he was watching was unarmed. We this sort of tactic a lot. After the fact (usually after an office involved shooting) people descry the shooting of an “unarmed” citizen by the police. Usually the police have NO idea whether the person in their sights is unarmed or not unless they have personally searched them. Thus the courts’ tend to give them a lot of leeway on presuming that anyone refusing to obey an order or acting aggressively is armed and take action accordingly.
Me; I want to know whether M DID have any skittles and/or tea. The reason why? To examine whether or not M was on a drug run or not or perhaps using the run to the store to case the residences for easy targets for later or even an impromptu spur of the moment theft. Why did he walk in the rain? One reason could be is that night time and inclement weather are the perfect times for casing out a neighborhood as their are fewer encounters with locals and windows are closed and doors shut thus limiting observers.
Just sayin’.
jakee308 (f860a6) — 5/23/2012 @ 3:03 pmWe SEE this sort of tactic a lot.
Sorry.
jakee308 (f860a6) — 5/23/2012 @ 3:04 pmJustice has proven itself so malleable;
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-05-22/news/os-george-zimmerman-key-witnesses-20120522_1_witnesses-change-shooting-fdle-agent
narciso (1c125b) — 5/23/2012 @ 3:10 pmdjaces- I don’t remember seeing you post much (I may have missed it)
I haven’t commented here previously and I’m not entirely sure why I chose to now except that I’ve the found the incredible rush to declare judgement on this matter extremely distasteful. No one except GZ and the deceased knows what really happened in the critical moments of this confrontation. Even the statements and documents which have come from official sources have been little better than gossip. the media coverage except for a limited number of blogs has been completely dishonest and in most cases remains so. The photo of TM as a cherubic 13 yr old is still the one most often presented when any coverage of this story comes up, even though it has been long established that he was a six foot plus 17 yr old who in his hoody and felony shoes could probably have scared the pants off his own mother skulking up on her in the dark. I don’t know what really happened that night, but it’s clear to me that no one else does either. We’ve only had snippets of GZ’s version and most of those from sources who don’t deserve much of our trust. I don’t suspect that GZ’s version is necessarily the truth. In matters like this no ever really knows the truth. In the aftermath of trauma our brains tend to be so disrupted by stress that our sometimes vivid memories are seldom reliable. What I do know is that in all the bilge circulating about this case I’ve seen nothing that even suggests, let alone proves, that anything GZ has said about it is a lie. On the contrary most of what I’ve encountered suggests it is truer than we have any right to expect, given that in similar circumstances, most of us would be stretching the truth like a big ole rubber band.
djaces (bbdbc2) — 5/23/2012 @ 3:18 pmTo my eye the closest thing to criminal activity, at least among those who haven’t assumed room temp, is exocrable behavior of the prosecutor.
They have corrupted so much of the auditory, and visual evidence, and apparently, have now nudged
narciso (1c125b) — 5/23/2012 @ 3:41 pmthe witness testimony, all toward poisoning the jury pool.
Understood, djaces; lots of people would have rightly been eager to suspend judgement, but when it was clear how much distortion had been done by the MSM on it, and people wanting to hear facts, not altered evidence.
welcome, I just wanted to clarify for you what would have been a puzzling response to you. Interaction over the computer has the potential benefit of allowing time to think before making a response, but we lose a ton of info in body language, tone of voice, etc., etc., so it can be hard, for example, to know when a statement is sarcasm, etc.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/23/2012 @ 3:41 pmJustice has proven itself so malleable;
“Witness 12
A young mother who is also a neighbor in the town-home community never gave a recorded interview to Sanford police, according to prosecution records released last week. She first sat down for an audio-recorded interview with an FDLE agent March 20, more than three weeks after the shooting.
During that session, she said she saw two people on the ground immediately after the shooting and was not sure who was on top, Zimmerman or Trayvon.
“I don’t know which one. … All I saw when they were on the ground was dark colors,” she said.
Six days later, however, she was sure: It was Zimmerman on top, she told trial prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda during a 21/2-minute recorded session.
“I know after seeing the TV of what’s happening, comparing their sizes, I think Zimmerman was definitely on top because of his size,” she said.”
As I pointed out above the coverage then as well as now featured the photo of the 13 yr old TM. Do you suppose anyone made her aware that TM was the much larger of the two combatants?
“Witness 13
He is important because he talked with Zimmerman and watched the way he behaved immediately after the shooting, before police arrived.
After this neighbor heard gunfire, he went outside and spotted Zimmerman standing there with”blood on the back of his head,” he told Sanford police the night of the shooting.
Zimmerman told him that Trayvon “was beating up on me, so I had to shoot him,” the witness told Serino. The Neighborhood Watch captain then asked the witness to call his wife, Shellie Zimmerman, and tell her what happened.
In two subsequent interviews about a month later — one with an FDLE investigator and one with de la Rionda — the witness described Zimmerman’s demeanor in greater detail, adding that he spoke as if the shooting were no big deal.
Zimmerman’s tone, the witness said, was “not like ‘I can’t believe I just shot someone!’ — it was more like, ‘Just tell my wife I shot somebody …,’ like it was nothing.”
Those witnesses are likely to be interviewed at least once more before Zimmerman’s trial. Defense attorneys in Florida routinely question witnesses under oath as they prepare for trial.”
From Wikipedia
Symptoms of acute stress reaction
The symptoms show great variation but typically include an initial state of “daze”, with some constriction of the field of consciousness and narrowing of attention, inability to comprehend stimuli, and disorientation.
djaces (bbdbc2) — 5/23/2012 @ 3:43 pmThis state may be quickly followed by either further withdrawal from the surrounding situation (to the extent of a dissociative stupor), or by agitation and overactivity, anxiety, impaired judgement, confusion, detachment, and depression. Autonomic signs of panic anxiety (tachycardia, sweating, flushing) are also commonly present.
The symptoms usually appear within minutes of the impact of the stressful stimulus or event, and disappear within 2–3 days (often within hours). Partial or complete amnesia for the episode may be present.
Comment by Dave Surls — 5/23/2012 @ 10:22 am
Where you are wrong, and I brought it up in the same post, is that he didn’t call police in bad faith just to hassle or punish some black kid walking down the street.
He had a rational basis to call.
It’s not illegal to get out of a car and see where the kid, who spotted him on the phone and took off – had gone.
NONE of that is a tort or illegal act, and police recommend that crime-ridden neighborhoods – and just ordinary neighborhoods, call in when there is a suspicious person hanging around property in sketchy-appearing circumstances. Not, apparently, heading anywhere in particular in the rain…but you’ve heard his impressions.
Z said the kid looked like he was on drugs. There’s nothing to disprove that he was and some indication that he might have been. You have no basis to say that subjective impression was related to police in bad faith.
He lost track of the kid. He stops following. He stays in one place for 93 seconds after his OK to the dispatcher’s “you don’t need to do that” and is giving her information – but then says he doesn’t want to give certain personal information because he doesn’t know where the kid is.
Kid pounces There’s less than a minute and a half between the time Z hangs up and the neighbor calls 911 – a neighbor who didn’t see the beginning of the fight , just Z on his back getting pounded and crying out – and who had to go into the house to call.
Sarahw (b0e533) — 5/23/2012 @ 3:58 pmComment by djaces — 5/23/2012 @ 3:43 pm
Witness 12
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/23/2012 @ 4:22 pm1915:23 – Approximate time call with Zimmerman ends
1916:43 – 911 call placed by (blacked out name) where Zimmerman is heard screaming for help
23. The timing is off. GZ’s call to the dispatcher ended at 19:13:41. It’s well documented.
Comment by Tara — 5/21/2012 @ 10:29 pm
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/23/2012 @ 4:27 pm1915:23 – Approximate time call with Zimmerman ends
1916:43 – 911 call placed by (blacked out name) where Zimmerman is heard screaming for help
23. The timing is off. GZ’s call to the dispatcher ended at 19:13:41. It’s well documented.
Comment by Tara — 5/21/2012 @ 10:29 pm
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/23/2012 @ 4:27 pmDave,
Police departments typically recommend that residents report suspicious persons and activity. For instance, the LAPD recommends residents report anyone loitering in their neighborhood or who seems suspicious. Police departments in two Washington DC suburbs (College Park MD and Montgomery County MD) ask residents to report suspicious persons or activity. The Montgomery County website specifically recommends that residents continue watching the suspicious person or activity, presumably until police arrive.
The Sanford FL police department has issued a Neighborhood Watch Program booklet that asks residents to watch for and report suspicious activities. It also recommends posting a Neighborhood Watch sign in the neighborhood that says “Warning: All suspicious persons and activities are immediately reported to the Sanford Police Department.” Given the prominent press Zimmerman’s Neighborhood Watch program has received, what are the odds there’s a sign like that in his neighborhood?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/23/2012 @ 4:34 pm1915:23 – Approximate time call with Zimmerman ends
1916:43 – 911 call placed by (blacked out name) where Zimmerman is heard screaming for help
23. Comment by Tara — 5/21/2012 @ 10:29 pm
The timing is off. GZ’s call to the dispatcher ended at 19:13:41. It’s well documented.
They got the time of 19:15:23 because they knew the call lasted 4 minutes and 9 seconds (that’s the l;ength of the recording) but whoever made the timeline placed the beginninmg of the call the call at 19:11:12 which was when the record
of a event to which police were called was created, and not when the call began, which was 19:09:34 (7:09:34 PM EST)
Actually the call itself lasted 4 minutes and 7 seconds.
The record was created 1 minute and 34 seconds into the call, at about the time when zimmerman says “How long until you get an officer over here?”
The call actually ended at 19:13:43
19:16:43 is likely more accuarte, making the time between the end of the Zimmerman call.
At 7:13:12 dispatcher keys in: COMPL WILL 1056 AT MAILBOXES OF COMPLEX.
At 7:13:41 dispatcher keys in: COMPL NOW REQ LEO 1045 BEFORE 1056
That was after Zimemrman said: Actually, could you have them call me and I’ll tell them where
I’m at? [3:49]
And the dispatcher said: OK, yeah, that’s no problem.
Exactly 3 minutes passed between the end of teh call and the first 911 call – the fight obviously started before.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/23/2012 @ 4:39 pmSorry for the duplicate partial posts.
1917:20 – Shot fired; screams from Zimmerman cease
1917:40 – Officer T. Smith arrives on scene
Twenty seconds. Twenty seconds. Twenty seconds, according to this chronology, and the whole thing wouldn’t have ended the way it did and Travon Martin wouldn’t be dead. Twenty seconds is all that separated the gunshot from rescue.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/23/2012 @ 4:44 pmOf course the numbers are rounded so it could be 30 or 40 seconds even.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/23/2012 @ 4:44 pmTara and Sammy Finkelman:
There has been a lot of information and misinformation published about this case, so I’m sure you have a basis for this claim but please provide a link.
The Sanford Police Department records released by MSNBC last week specifically provide that the timeline given in Patterico’s post was obtained from the Seminole County Sheriff’s Office Computer Aided Dispatch. See the bottom of page 39 and top of page 40 at this link.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/23/2012 @ 4:44 pmIt’s amazing to me that the police department records say Zimmerman was screaming but the prosecutor still claims they don’t know who was screaming. I assume the prosecutor will claim the police report was in error — perhaps based on mistaken witness(es) — but she doesn’t seem to have any proof supporting that in the documents produced last week.
In addition, just 4 days ago, the Washington Post reported that the prosecutor says who was screaming will be very important:
The Washington Post makes this sound like an impossible dilemma but my guess is, faced with that decision, the jurors will put their faith in the initial witnesses and the police report.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/23/2012 @ 4:54 pmFrom the OS article that sparked this post
“In a timeline included in evidence documents released last week, Sanford police spelled out down to the second, what happened the night George Zimmerman fatally shot Trayvon Martin, based on time-stamped calls to their dispatch center.
It shows Zimmerman fired 1 minute, 57 seconds after he hung up.
*1911:12 – Call received from George Zimmerman reporting suspicious person
1913:19 – Zimmerman relays that suspicious person is running from him
1913:36 – Dispatcher asks Zimmerman if he is following suspicious person
1913:36 – Dispatcher advises Zimmerman “Okay; we don’t need you to do that”
1915:23 – Approximate time call with Zimmerman ends
1916:43 – 911 call placed by (blacked out name) where Zimmerman is heard screaming for help
1917:20 – Shot fired; screams from Zimmerman cease
1917:40 – Officer T. Smith arrives on scene
1919:43 – Officer T. Smith locates and places Zimmerman in custody.
*The Seminole County Sheriff’s Office, which handled the call, reported it came in at 1909:34.”
Note the line at the bottom about the Seminole County Sheriff’ Office. It suggests there may be a systemic error between the two timelines which would mean making comparison’s between the two different sources would be problematic. The problem may be as simple as the two departments need to get their clocks sychronized.
djaces (bbdbc2) — 5/23/2012 @ 4:56 pmFrom the OS article that sparked this post
“In a timeline included in evidence documents released last week, Sanford police spelled out down to the second, what happened the night George Zimmerman fatally shot Trayvon Martin, based on time-stamped calls to their dispatch center.
It shows Zimmerman fired 1 minute, 57 seconds after he hung up.
*1911:12 – Call received from George Zimmerman reporting suspicious person
1913:19 – Zimmerman relays that suspicious person is running from him
1913:36 – Dispatcher asks Zimmerman if he is following suspicious person
1913:36 – Dispatcher advises Zimmerman “Okay; we don’t need you to do that”
1915:23 – Approximate time call with Zimmerman ends
1916:43 – 911 call placed by (blacked out name) where Zimmerman is heard screaming for help
1917:20 – Shot fired; screams from Zimmerman cease
1917:40 – Officer T. Smith arrives on scene
1919:43 – Officer T. Smith locates and places Zimmerman in custody.
*The Seminole County Sheriff’s Office, which handled the call, reported it came in at 1909:34.”
Note the line at the bottom about the Seminole County Sheriff’ Office. It suggests there may be a systemic error between the two timelines which would mean making comparison’s between the two different sources would be problematic. The problem may be as simple as the two departments need to get their clocks sychronized.
djaces (bbdbc2) — 5/23/2012 @ 4:56 pm“But what happens when a potentially crucial piece of evidence in one of the most explosive court cases in recent memory is a poor-quality recording of overlapping voices and unintelligible yells, essentially a wilderness of sound?”
Reasonable doubt.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/23/2012 @ 5:25 pmdjaces,
There could be several explanations — an error, a technical malfunction, or the two law enforcement agencies may have decided to agree to disagree. Tara and Sammy may be correct but what I’m trying to find out is why they’re so convinced the police timeline is wrong.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/23/2012 @ 5:31 pmI think you’re right, SPQR. One of Zimmerman’s best witnesses is backing off his story. I guess that helps the prosecution — in the sense it hurts Zimmerman — but mostly I think it adds to the reasonable doubt.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/23/2012 @ 6:23 pmWell I think O’Mara will gently cross examine him, with the skill he showed in the Gilbreath hearing.
narciso (1c125b) — 5/23/2012 @ 6:28 pmAfter tons of publicity including threats to zimmerman over many weeks, some of the witnesses aren’t sure what they saw anymore.
I guess if I was a witness and the New Black Panther Party was openly advocating taking Z dead or alive, and nothing was done about it, I guess either my story might change or I would try to find out if there is any extra room where Stacy McCain is hiding out.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/23/2012 @ 6:43 pmYes you know, MD ‘the Luigi Vercotti treatment’ nudge nudge, say no more,
narciso (1c125b) — 5/23/2012 @ 6:45 pmI am sure attorneys love getting witnesses for the other side to waffle on their testimony-
that said, is there any research into how accurate witness testimony is over time? Do we know that the sooner one is asked after the fact the better the recall, or is correct recall actually better after a period of time ‘digesting” the memory (which I doubt).
I had initially been very pessimistic this was going to turn out reasonably, then for some reason I thought clearer heads may prevail. I guess I’m not so optimistic again.
Still, I’d rather have Z in my neighborhood than M.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/23/2012 @ 6:51 pmFrom my limited personal experience, what people say during questioning for jury duty is very suspect. (Like jurors saying “I don’t trust the police” when discussing the case in the jury room).
I’m afraid “reasonable doubt” for some turns into “they didn’t change my mind on what I thought happened”.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/23/2012 @ 6:55 pmSee, folks, this isn’t even sane. Nobody even knew or cared if Surls has kids when Mark speculated what kinds of kids they’d turn out to be given:
1. Surls believes it’s a hostile act to report his activities to the police when he’s acting suspiciously.
2. Reporting his activities to the police is “stalking,” and he doesn’t care less that what he’s describing is not any crime at all. In his mind it ought to be a crime, and that’s all he cares about.
3. Surls believes anyone has the right to react or is at least justified in reacting violently to the crime of stalking, as he defines it in his own personal book of statutes, to hell with the actual written laws, because his personal definition of “stalking” meets his personal definition of “provocation.” And that’s all he needs.
4. Anyone who “provokes” him by “stalking” him loses the right to self defense.
Like I said, neither I nor anyone else knew or cared if Surls has kids. I still don’t care, but for the life of me I can’t figure out why he’d want to confirm it, unless it’s to make the bizarre claim that someone’s “dragging his family into it.”
I believe it’s obvious that pointing out that any man who demonstrates he approves of or is willing to excuse all sorts of violent, erratic, and irrational behavior as long as it’s in response to perfectly legal activity that offends him would be a lousy influence on a child. That’s not “going after” anyone’s family. That’s not “going after” anyone except the guy who’d clearly be a lousy influence on a child; the man who’s posting these inane uninformed comments comments for all to see.
Of course, the time’s long past when I expected anything approaching a rational response from David “Logic Butcher” Surls.
I believe everyone else should get over the illusion that will ever happen as well, and let his inanities stand unmolested as a monument to the fact that we’ve all had him nailed all along. Facts, reason, and justice mean nothing to the “justice for Trayvon!” crowd. They are, in the words of Dave Surls, “not interested” in those trivialities.
Why argue with the trolls while they’re obliging and demonstrating that fact for us?
Steve (773f84) — 5/23/2012 @ 7:18 pmClearly we need to abolish police departments as they are havens of racist white hispanic skinhead cracker stalkers. We need to keep police dispatchers, though, as the recordings prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that anyone who’d call 911 to report suspicious activity is a racist white hispanic skinhead cracker stalker mall cop wannabe.
And clearly we can’t leave such people to be free to wander about in public, able to just look at anyone, anywhere in public, anytime they feel like it. Perhaps even, shudder, observe! Ohh, can’t you just feel the oppressive curtain of fascism descending across Amerikkka if we let people wander around to report suspicious activity whenever they feel like it?
Steve (773f84) — 5/23/2012 @ 7:27 pmYou know this better than me, MD. There are three components to memory: Intake, storage, and retrieval. And any mumber of things can interfere with each. Including lawyers’ framing of questions. So yes, witness testimony can be very unreliable even when the witness does his best to testify honestly with all the good faith in the world.
(I stopped a cross-examination, once, against the judge’s objection, because a little girl (twenty or so) got so confused she did not know night from day. Her mother finished her testimony for her.)
nk (875f57) — 5/23/2012 @ 7:28 pmRe witness waffling, this analysis from criminal defense lawyer/leftie blogger Jeralyn Merritt at TalkLeft, suggests that the waffling isn’t actually very consequential.
Beldar (2a462a) — 5/23/2012 @ 7:38 pm(Whoops, meant to close that tag sooner.)
Beldar (2a462a) — 5/23/2012 @ 7:39 pmNo, Steve or Mark. You’re wrong. Call Dave, “Urethane The Evil Overlord of the Eleventh Dimension”, but leave kids out of this.
BTW, Mark, I apologize for swearing at you. I had just stubbed by nailless big toe.
nk (875f57) — 5/23/2012 @ 7:50 pmnk, an you explain to me how saying something along the lines of “I hope you don’t have kids” is dragging anyone into anything except the guy you hope doesn’t have kids?
Because I don’t see any rational connection. Which is why I’d expect Surls to make an irrational one.
Steve (773f84) — 5/23/2012 @ 7:55 pmBy the way, the reason it’s impossible to leave kids out of this is that whatever else Martin was, he was one of those.
And someone influenced Mr. Fight Club while he was growing up that his actions that night were somehow smart.
Steve (773f84) — 5/23/2012 @ 8:05 pmI dunno, Steve, it’s kind of like two people keeping their personal space, while they’re talking?
You know how much I talk about my daughter. Just a couple of days ago, I wrote on one of these threads that I was teaching her how to fight by getting her to punch me in the stomach. If Dave wants to bring his kids into the conversation, let him do it first.
nk (875f57) — 5/23/2012 @ 8:28 pmAnd someone influenced Mr. Fight Club while he was growing up that his actions that night were somehow smart.
If there’s anything stupider than a teenage boy ….
nk (875f57) — 5/23/2012 @ 8:32 pmDid you see this at JeffG’s?
http://proteinwisdom.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Neal-Rauhauser-on-infiltrating-the-right-md.jpg
Explains so many of the obvious socks.
Sarahw (b0e533) — 5/23/2012 @ 8:40 pmWhoops,that was for another thread. But read it anyway.
Sarahw (b0e533) — 5/23/2012 @ 8:41 pm‘stranded wind’ seems very foolish all his lonesome self, but the warning is appropriate.
narciso (1c125b) — 5/23/2012 @ 8:45 pm_______________________________________________
That’s nice of you to suggest that my children are delinquents, without having a shred of proof to back it up.
Why did you focus on that one hypothetical? Something is amiss with you when it comes to this controversy of Zimmerman and Martin, but that’s assuming you’re not devoid of common sense in general. However, if you’re a dumb liberal on most occasions, then there’s nothing much below the surface to have any theories about.
Beyond that, some of your reactions do have a peculiar ad-hominen quality of “me thinks he doth protest too much,” so it would be surprising if there wasn’t a personal chord in you that was being struck by the case in Florida.
BTW, Mark, I apologize for swearing at you.
Actually, nk, given how liberal our culture is becoming, the act of being a c— s—– (or a Monica Lewinsky-er, but involving both genders) will soon be cool, hip and fashionable.
Tolerance, love and compassion rules all.
Mark (34fab5) — 5/23/2012 @ 10:30 pmLet’s see…what’s the latest lunacy from the Zimmerman lovers?
Oh, I’m insane because I politely asked people not to insinuate that my children are delinquents.
You couldn’t make this stuff up.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/23/2012 @ 10:47 pmchildren tend to mimic their parents…
given your behavior, why shouldn’t we expect the same from them?
redc1c4 (403dff) — 5/23/2012 @ 10:50 pm“Why did you focus on that one hypothetical?”
Because I don’t care what you say about me, but I don’t like you making cracks about my children.
Obviously.
What is this? Kindergarten for right wingers of the Neanderthal persuasion?
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/23/2012 @ 10:56 pm“given your behavior”
The only problem you have with my “behavior” is that I don’t and won’t agree with you on the subject of the skinhead killer.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/23/2012 @ 11:23 pm____________________________________________
Kindergarten for right wingers of the Neanderthal persuasion?
Well, Dave, you’re revealing more of what makes you tick, so I’ll have to conclude that there are some idiotic liberal biases in that brain of yours.
Since I don’t follow too closely many of the long-running political threads on this forum (ie, Patterico.com has the most eye-numbing graphic interface of any message board on the web), I wasn’t sure where you were coming from. But I did have a vague sense you weren’t one of this blog’s cast of leftwingers.
I guess you’re perhaps a squish — or a “centrist” (which is a very ambiguous term in 2012, since the mid-point of the socio-political spectrum has shifted leftward over the past 50 years) — which makes it less puzzling when common sense escapes you on various occasions.
Mark (34fab5) — 5/23/2012 @ 11:24 pm____________________________________________
the subject of the skinhead killer.
And are you just as willing to describe Trayvon Martin as a “rowdy gangsta from da hood?”
Mark (34fab5) — 5/23/2012 @ 11:31 pmOh for Pete’s sake.
Dustin (330eed) — 5/23/2012 @ 11:32 pm‘And are you just as willing to describe Trayvon Martin as a “rowdy gangsta from da hood?”’
He doesn’t appear to be a member of a gang, so I don’t think so.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/24/2012 @ 12:01 amThe Skinhead Killer speaks…
‘I was arrested in July of 2005 for assault on a law enforcement officer and resisting arrest with violence. Both charges were immediately dropped to resisting arrest without violence, and then dropped all together.’
‘I was in an altercation with an undercover officer that was taking part in an ATF sting for underage drinking in UCF. He never told me he was an officer and assaulted me first…’
I didn’t assault the cop, he assaulted me!
I believe that bullshit story about as much as I believe his bullshit self-defense claim.
Maybe it was a mistake to let Georgie Porgie plead out on that one, since he was able to go on, secure a CCW permit and then kill an unarmed kid a few years down the line.
If he’d had a felony battery on a police officer conviction on his record, that might have kept a gun out of his hands for keeps, and that young man might still be alive.
Woulda, shoulda, coulda. Too late now.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/24/2012 @ 12:10 am“Oh for Pete’s sake.”
It has a certain ring to it, don’t you think?
Kinda like calling someone the “Speedway Bomber”.
It’s catchy, and it’s accurate.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/24/2012 @ 12:16 amI know it is hard to refrain, as I myself have continued to jump in, but maybe we should leave Dave and his views on this uncontested. As discussed many times already, he holds a few positions to be as established in fact as the law of gravity (without a shred of evidence) and is upping his antagonism bringing BK into the picture.
As discussed on other occasions, some do like to play “whack a mole”/”whack a troll”, and I have no place to ask others to give up this pleasure if it suits them. But, maybe if we started an “Ignore DS” support group/ mutual contract (verbal) we would find it easier to do more worthwhile things. Just offering the thought.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/24/2012 @ 6:34 am________________________________________________
He doesn’t appear to be a member of a gang, so I don’t think so.
And yet your willingness to describe Zimmerman as a “skinhead” is because of what? A positive or neutral characterization of his hair style?
But, yep, you’re correct to have such a soft spot in your heart for Trayvon Martin. He apparently was an upright, wholesome young man. The type you’d be thrilled having your kids hanging out with. The type you’d welcome as representative and typical of most of the student body of the school you’d happily send your kids to.
It’s great when people don’t talk out of both sides of their mouth. I’m sure your kids give thumbs up to the way your judgment and discernment benefits (and protects) them when it comes to someone as rowdy and feckless as George Zimmerman compared with a class valedictorian like Trayvon Martin.
Mark (34fab5) — 5/24/2012 @ 7:03 amI don’t mind engaging Dave. Nobody likes seeing a 17-year old boy killed. And he has made me think about some issues I was already leaning towards.
nk (875f57) — 5/24/2012 @ 7:04 amSeconded. Dave Surls seems like a principled fellow, even if you disagree with him. I don’t think there’s such a thing as “too many principled fellows.”
Leviticus (e445f5) — 5/24/2012 @ 8:23 amI admire your persistence, Dave. I just think that comment is pretty silly even if you find it literally accurate, because of the other meaning of the term skinhead and the attempts out there to inflame racial anxiety.
But I’m not going to get bent out of shape about a disagreement on the internet. Have at.
Dustin (330eed) — 5/24/2012 @ 8:38 amNot that it matters to anyone, but I am in concert with MDinPhilly about this thread and a few that preceded it on this same topic.
All decent people hate that a troubled 17 year old was killed and ultimately we want to try to understand how and why it happened and to seek appropriate justice. It seems that decent people should also detest and rail against seeing any private citizen being vilified, prosecuted, judged and juryed in the media and on blogs by folks who clearly are without full benefit of the actual facts and evidence–and seemingly (and disturbingly) argue mostly on the basis of closed, pre-determined political/social internal biases and motives.
Most decent people should expect and demand appropriate justice for both the killed and killer. This is what most people should want if they took even a moment to consider that they (or a family member or friend) could someday find themselves at one end or the other of (or witness to) a tragic unanticipated situation that got out of control.
The name calling, goading of other commenters, unwillingness to concede any ground, and extreme made-up talking points fouled it for me several days ago. I choose not to participate further on this hamster wheel.
elissa (35e94b) — 5/24/2012 @ 8:40 amBTW, Mark, I apologize for swearing at you.
Actually, nk, given how liberal our culture is becoming, the act of being a c— s—– (or a Monica Lewinsky-er, but involving both genders) will soon be cool, hip and fashionable.
You’re kinder than I was, Mark. Still, I was wrong. Please accept my apology. (And I really had just stubbed a big toe with a missing nail. 🙂 )
nk (875f57) — 5/24/2012 @ 8:48 amelissa, it doesn’t hurt to juggle the questions as long as we don’t go Blank Packther (sic).
I don’t think George wanted to kill anyone that night.
I think Trayvon was just looking for a quiet evening.
Bad congruence. Chthulu? The other Guy who takes advantage of peoples’ weaknesses?
If I were to solidify it, for court: I would say that Trayvon did not have an imminent fear of death or great bodily harm. He could have gone about his business, but still watching his back from the mall ninja. It was a mistake to attack him.
On the other hand, George should not have needed that gun. If you’re where you need a gun, get out of that situation. Or stay in your car and wait for the police.
“Stand your ground” is Audie Maurphie calling artillery strikes on his own position. It’s not, “watcha doing on this street”? Although a little more tough*** attitude on George’s part might have made Trayvon think twice.
nk (875f57) — 5/24/2012 @ 9:04 am____________________________________________
You’re kinder than I was, Mark.
nk, I can’t help but laugh or cry when my attempt at ribbing you no longer should be taken as a bit of flippancy or sarcasm but instead something as actually quite literal and accurate.
^ The public needs to keep trends like this in mind when determining what exactly the labels of “liberal” (or “leftwing,” or “progressive”), “moderate” (or “centrist”) or “conservative” (or “rightwing”) truly mean or represent in 2012.
Mark (34fab5) — 5/24/2012 @ 9:08 amwhat elissa said
Leviticus, yes, one can not have too many principled fellows, and as I said before, I generally recall Dave to be such, but, on this topic he has been insistent on 1) claiming Z stalked M and directly provoked the confrontation that led to M’s death even though there is no evidence for this and evidence suggesting against it, 2) that being on your back and being unable to stop an assailant from banging your head into the ground with no witnesses present is not a dangerous situation and one which should be tolerated, even if one has a weapon to defend oneself with, and 3) that one can determine Z is a racist because of his hair cut and general demeanor in a picture.
I don’t think those are characteristic of a thoughtful, rational, principled, approach.
BTW, Leviticus, if I ever find you in the unenviable position of Z, on your back with your head being bashed into the ground by “MMA-style” blows, I will intervene rather than let you endure the “not dangerous” beating. Even if I have a gun in my possession, I will not likely be required to use it, other than to smack him in the head to make him stop smacking you in the head. Of course, by some standards I would be criminally guilty of some degree of assault, liable for damages in civil court, and awaiting the attention of AG Holder for a hate crime in that I took the side of a non-African American against an African American (not that it makes a difference to me, but since African Americans are a minority in this country and I don’t recall you ever identifying yourself as such, the odds are that you are not).
Of course, if you would prefer that I stay in my car and await for the police to come, I would consider it, but I would still probably get out and come to your aid. In fact, I would probably do so even for Dave, because no matter what he thinks, I would not want someone to do nothing while my head is being pounded in the ground.
back to elissa, the above was directed to Leviticus. Time to make lunch for the family.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/24/2012 @ 9:12 am____________________________________________
If you’re where you need a gun, get out of that situation.
IOW, people need to vote with their feet and the moving van?
But then why do various observers wonder why American society — in terms of places where people choose to live or not live, or which schools they prefer sending or not sending their kids to — remains far more segregated than various do-gooders and naifs would have imagined over 50 years ago?
Mark (34fab5) — 5/24/2012 @ 9:13 amelissa,
I admire the way you write. Your points are effective and well-reasoned, and I agree with you most of the time — including, in general, this time.
However, I also see a point in discussing topics at length. As my parents used to say, “discussing them to death.” I think this is especially true of legal issues at blogs where people talk about both the big picture and the fine points of legal topics. IMO discussions like this aren’t about changing minds; they are about exploring topics from as many angles as possible.
It reminds me of law school. In class we would discuss a minor point for days and it could be so boring. Why talk at length about something so obvious? Other times I was grateful for the extended discussion because it took me days to get those minor points, or opened my eyes to new interpretations. A benefit of blogs like this is we have a forum that allows us to talk but doesn’t force us to, and there’s almost always someone around to talk with. A special benefit at this blog is that it attracts people who write and think so well.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/24/2012 @ 9:19 amRules For A Swordfighter/Gunfighter/Mall Ninja
nk (875f57) — 5/24/2012 @ 9:21 am1. Be alert.
2. Get the big picture.
3. Separate hazards.
4. Always leave yourself an out.
5. Learn from your mistakes but leave them behind you.
I feel the same way,elissa, from the outset, I saw it as a tragic mistake, of course, the travesty of
narciso (1c125b) — 5/24/2012 @ 9:24 ama mockery of sham, that Sharpton and Crump, along
with Julison’s help, has been the issue
I, for one, believe in guns and I have no problem with adults with proper training carrying them. You never know where something can happen.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/24/2012 @ 9:24 amZimmerman found out that his KelTeck did not make him Cyrano de Bergerac. Poor Trayvon found what he was still too young to understand.
The Chinese, with their overpopulation problem and need of organs for their elderly ruling elite, are likely happy about this.
nk (875f57) — 5/24/2012 @ 9:26 amThe cops haven’t found me next to a dead teenager that I’ve stalked and harrassed, and who’s been killed by my pistol.
Icy (bfa3b4) — 5/24/2012 @ 9:28 am— Yeah! If you’re smart you dig the hole first.
Trayvon Martin is dead and he can’t learn from this, and George Zimmerman will be dealing with this for years. But other people can learn from this case. What worries me is the lesson they may learn is that it’s better to let someone beat your head on the concrete than to fight back.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/24/2012 @ 9:29 amWell I think O’Mara will gently cross examine him, with the skill he showed in the Gilbreath hearing.
Comment by narciso — 5/23/2012 @ 6:28 pm
— Will gently cross-examine WHO?
Icy (bfa3b4) — 5/24/2012 @ 9:30 amIcy,
I think narciso is talking about John, the witness who lives near the scene who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman and said it was Zimmerman yelling for help. Later, he said he wasn’t sure it was Zimmerman yelling for help. I don’t think this hurts the defense but his original statement was more helpful.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/24/2012 @ 9:35 amI remember very few occasions carrying guns with permission. I have done it many times, without permission, including inside a courthouse for trial practice. The gun is its own permission (maybe a little over the top?)
I do not question Zimmerman carrying; I question his judgment, strength and courage, and his ultimate dsrespect for the weapon.
nk (875f57) — 5/24/2012 @ 9:44 amComment by nk — 5/23/2012 @ 12:52 pm
Two thoughts: If you need a gun to be there, don’t go there.
— One never knows when one might need a gun to defend one’s life. For example . . .
And then: know how, where and when to use the thing.
Icy (bfa3b4) — 5/24/2012 @ 9:46 am— Check, check again, check three! Z’s performance in this area seems to have been pretty solid.
Those are the issues, Icy, and what’s wrong with Dave tickling our brain cells?
nk (875f57) — 5/24/2012 @ 9:52 amAre people aware that Trayvon Martin was 6’3″ tall ?
I’m merely asking if people are aware of that fact.
The MSM continue to show the photo of a TWELVE year old Martin, in an effort to make it look like a fully grown man (Zimmerman) was stealing an ice cream cone from a “child.”
I know that the “lawyer class” love to pontificate with theories and hypotheses about what a person should have, could have, would have, ought to have done.
But when a person is being physically assaulted, their adrenaline is sky-high, and they have to make a decision in a half second about how to preserve themselves.
The “battlefield” is not an air-conditioned classroom at Columbia University.
Elephant Stone (0ae97d) — 5/24/2012 @ 9:55 amAlternatively, people should observe which states honor their most basic human rights. It’s a huge hassle to uproot your family, but for their rights, it’s totally worth it.
You won’t find me moving to Maryland or Florida or Chicago, no disrespect intended to those who live there.
Dustin (330eed) — 5/24/2012 @ 9:56 amTHis may be the dumbest article written yet on the Zimmerman case, captioned “Zimmerman’s Cozy Relationship With Sanford PD Questioned.”
shipwreckedcrew (48cef3) — 5/24/2012 @ 10:08 amI’m afraid “reasonable doubt” for some turns into “they didn’t change my mind on what I thought happened”.
Comment by MD in Philly — 5/23/2012 @ 6:55 pm
— “12 Angry Men”; right, MD? It only takes one person with the courage of their convictions to see and adhere to reasonable doubt that the other members of the jury, whether it be due to pre-judging or other factors, fail to acknowledge.
I know what you’re saying: “innocent until proven guilty” is the ideal, but the opposite is more in line with human nature. Well, until they invent a fool-proof lie detector we’re stuck with what we’ve got: imperfect human beings deciding each other’s fates.
Icy (bfa3b4) — 5/24/2012 @ 10:10 amElephant Stone — ME’s report establishes that Martin was 5’11” feet tall, not 6’3″, and he weighed 158 lbs.
shipwreckedcrew (48cef3) — 5/24/2012 @ 10:17 amThe only problem you have with my “behavior” is that I don’t and won’t agree with you on the subject of the skinhead killer.
— That’s “skinhead, but NOT a racist, killer” to you, sir!
Right?
Icy (bfa3b4) — 5/24/2012 @ 10:20 amThe prosecution of George Zimmerman is to justice as Bret Kimberlin is to Arron Worthing.
ropelight (4c6304) — 5/24/2012 @ 10:26 amDave Surls seems like a principled fellow, even if you disagree with him. I don’t think there’s such a thing as “too many principled fellows.”
Comment by Leviticus — 5/24/2012 @ 8:23 am
— Is it truly “principled” to possess a one-track mind?
Icy (bfa3b4) — 5/24/2012 @ 10:26 amDRJ @9:19am
Thank you for your kind words and for your comment/observation concerning my earlier post. It gives me the opportunity to clarify something that I do not wish to be misunderstood by anybody if it might have been. I certainly didn’t intend for it to appear as though I am urging other people who are still deriving value and insight from this discussion to abandon it. I very much value and enjoy honest and principled and raucous debate even if it may sometimes ruffle my feathers. I do not like thought bubbles. But for me, the discussion here has lost its way, with very little chance of it getting productively back on the main highway. That is not to imply that I don’t still find the overall subject to be fascinating and important. Nor am I suggesting or believe that other intrepid souls should not continue to play in the road.
elissa (35e94b) — 5/24/2012 @ 10:30 amWell put! And I’ll be the first to admit I often enjoy playing in the metaphorical road.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/24/2012 @ 10:39 amThose are the issues, Icy, and what’s wrong with Dave tickling our brain cells?
Comment by nk — 5/24/2012 @ 9:52 am
— Nothing wrong with it, except for the manner in which he sometimes does it. The repetitious accusation that some of us think of Zimmerman as some kind of “hero” is particularly annoying.
Icy (bfa3b4) — 5/24/2012 @ 10:42 amFWIW to elissa and DRJ, I think we all agree in general, I think what elissa and I were saying, which I think you would agree with, is that on the discrete topics I listed above Dave S. seems to have his opinion, irregaredless of facts and reason, and it is of no use to continue on those topics with him
As I’ve said before, I think it was a tragedy for all concerned, I think Trayvon thought he would teach a lesson to someone who was suspicious as to what a Black teen was up to and his stupid gangsta wanna-be attitude (from his own twitter) kicked in at exactly the wrong time.
yes, M can’t learn from his mistake.
As DRJ and Dustin raise, what is Z supposed to learn? “Stay in your own house and shoot people only when they break in to steal your own stuff and refuse to leave when you click the gun to load the chamber, and let the rest of the world out there fend for themselves?”
There were likely thousands of points along the way that this could have been avoided, including all of the things that lead to M using pot and carrying “tools of burglary”, Z deciding to live in that neighborhood, the founding fathers including the 2nd amendment, etc.
Icy- as I’ve mentioned and asked before, my two experiences in court (one as a witness, one as a juror) gave me the impression that lawyers lie and get away with it and people get on the jury in spite of all kind of agendas and prejudices. Both cases were so open and shut it was a waste of time. It would have been better for the defendents both times to have energy put into appropriate sentences that might redeem them rather use up everyone’s time and resources the way they did.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/24/2012 @ 10:58 amshiprwreckedcrew,
Funny then, how Martin’s parents claim he was 6’3″ tall. Perhaps they’re not reliable.
Anyhow, Zimmerman is listed as merely 5’7″ tall.
Either way, Martin is not a little twelve year old pip squeak that the media is attempting to portray him as.
Elephant Stone (0ae97d) — 5/24/2012 @ 11:07 amIcy – Dave is the wind beneath my sheets.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NXYNvqp_pM
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/24/2012 @ 11:20 amI don’t have a criminal law background but from talking to prosecutors, defense attorneys and serving on criminal juries, there are often jurors who have strong opinions about the facts/issues like some people here. Learning how to deal with that is a part of being a prosecutor or a criminal defense attorney.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/24/2012 @ 11:26 am@DRJ: i thought all lawyers had a criminal background?
8)
redc1c4 (403dff) — 5/24/2012 @ 11:59 amred, she said “criminal law background”, but, given it’s DRJ, she might not have a criminal background either.
My question was always what was a juror to do. For example, you say under oath (I think) that you will not be prejudiced for or against a policeman’s testimony just because they are a policeman. Then, when you get back to deliberate, another juror says, “Well, I never trust what a policeman says anyway”. What’s a juror to do?
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/24/2012 @ 12:21 pmI may have principles, but I’m also a liar, a coward, insane and my children are likely delinquents.
Or, so I’ve been told (by people who think I’m a big ol’ meanie for calling George Zimmerman the “skinhead killer”).
I imagine that those negative traits probably cancel out the having principles thing, so on balance, i think you would have to say that I’m the quintessence of evil.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/24/2012 @ 12:28 pmI’m still waiting to see any principles, myself, Dave.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/24/2012 @ 12:39 pmComment by Dave Surls — 5/24/2012 @ 12:28 pm
— The quintessence of annoying.
Icy (bfa3b4) — 5/24/2012 @ 1:37 pmI sometimes feel, ‘like we are through the looking glass’
http://macsmind.com/wordpress/
narciso (1c125b) — 5/24/2012 @ 1:41 pmThere’s now some independent proof about George Zimmerman accusaing the police of a coverup in 2011- the sort of thing mentioned in that letter (whose authenticity was uncertain) by George Zimemrman’s father)
Zimmerman spoke at a public forum and there is a recording.
http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/05/24/george_zimmerman_criticised_sanford_police_before_arrest_in_trayvon_martin_shooting.html?from=rss/&wpisrc=newsletter_slatest
–
Zimmerman Accused Police of 2010 Cover-Up
A year before he shot and killed Trayvon Martin, the neighborhood watch volunteer blasted the local department at a public forum.
By Abby Ohlheiser
Posted Thursday, May 24, 2012, at 10:35 AM ET
The Miami Herald has the latest brush stroke in the increasingly complicated picture of George Zimmerman:
A year before the neighborhood watch volunteer shot and killed Trayvon Martin in what he says was self-defense, Zimmerman stood before a Sanford city forum and accused the local police force of covering up the beating of a black homeless man by the son of a white officer.
Zimmerman also told the forum of his experience on a ride-along with a local officer, who he said was more concerned with finding a good place for some shuteye than he was with doing his job. “What I saw was disgusting,” Zimmerman explained. “The officer showed me his favorite hiding spots for taking naps.”
Those details were first reported Wednesday evening by the Herald, which obtained a recording of Zimmerman’s appearance at the 2011 city forum. The Orlando Sentinel and the Associated Press have similar accounts of what happened at the public event based on transcripts from the forum.
Zimmerman offered his public criticism of the Sanford police on Jan. 8, 2011, days after a video of a homeless man’s beating went viral and then police chief Brian Tooley was forced to retire. His successor, Bill Lee, temporarily resigned earlier this year after his department faced criticism for its decision not to arrest Zimmerman after Martin’s death.
Zimmerman told the 2011 forum that “the law is written in black and white,” and that “it should not and cannot be enforced in the gray for those who are in the thin blue line.” He demanded the repeal of Tooley’s pension and alleged that Tooley allowed the police force to attempt to cover up the beating.
According to the Herald, the public forum recording is a something of a mixed bag for Zimmerman’s defense. On the one hand, it backs up his claim that he spoke out against a case of corruption within the Sanford police. On the other hand, it calls into doubt the Sanford Police Department’s claim that no one in their department knew Zimmerman before Martin’s death. Martin’s family’s law team have previously characterized Zimmerman as a “wannabe cop.”
The latest revelation comes one week after the prosecution made public a mountain of court documents that show that a handful of key witnesses changed their story as to what they saw and heard the night Zimmerman shot and killed Martin.
Yes, they knew him but not in a way that would have made them friendly towards him and disposed to coverup a crime he did – supposing you were the type of policeman who would want to cover up a white on black crime.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/24/2012 @ 1:46 pm=====================================
Two links from Slate:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iFDbkrAs55MHqY3GuQttblW2Ygww?docId=55a14904b58542f4baa3ac826a86ca8e
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-05-23/news/os-george-zimmerman-blasts-sanford-police-20120523_1_brian-tooley-homeless-black-man-white-police
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/24/2012 @ 1:48 pmThanks Sammy, but I’ve seen that before, perhaps from other links by you.
It is information that is not easily reconciled with the idea that Z was racist; perhaps with being a cop-wannabe, but a hard-working and fair cop-wannabe. It also is info that suggests that the police would not look kindly at him and try to do him a favor.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/24/2012 @ 2:07 pmIt seems that Florida may have an ongoing problem in deciding who was the agressor and who was the victim in some cases.
Where is the justice for Fatima Abdullah, who was beaten to death in an honor killing? Instead, the Hillsborough County Medical Examiners ruled that the Muslim woman killed herself by repeatedly beating her face against a coffee table.
I guess if a woman could commit suicide by banging her face against a table then Z could have faked an attack by banging the back of his head against the ground. Who knew there was an outbreak of such activity in Fla.?
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/05/why-is-law-enforcement-covering-up-for-muslim-hate-crime-murderers.html
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/24/2012 @ 2:26 pmA few Skittles or Jolly Ranchers dissolved in Arizona’s Watermelon flavored Ice Tea (purists use Sprite) and mixed with an over-the-counter bottle of Robitussin DM and you’ve got one of Trayvon Martin’s favorite highs: Purple Drank, or Lean, AKA Sizzurp.
It’ll get you high sure enough, but it also makes people paranoid, unpredictable, overly aggressive, and violent.
TraMar was a big fan, he wrote about it repeatedly on Facebook.
ropelight (4c6304) — 5/24/2012 @ 2:27 pmComment by MD in Philly — 5/24/2012 @ 2:07 pm
Thanks Sammy, but I’ve seen that before, perhaps from other links by you.
Whgat was before was a report of a letter from George Zimmerna;s father (it wasn’t verified hat his father had been the one to send the letetr) that George Zimmerman printed and distributed flyers or something about that forum – this is a report of what he himself said at that forum and is new.
The newspaper articles are from yesterday – the Slate article is from this morning. There is a recording and a tarnscript of his remarks (which were proibably rather short – you know these type of things, they give any nonpolitician only 3 minutes or so to speak)
It is information that is not easily reconciled with the idea that Z was racist; perhaps with being a cop-wannabe, but a hard-working and fair cop-wannabe. It also is info that suggests that the police would not look kindly at him and try to do him a favor.
In fact the policeman who responded to the 911 call and who took away his gun was a minor character in that other story.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/24/2012 @ 2:31 pmropelight-
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/24/2012 @ 2:37 pmI don’t remember the details, but there was/is a street combination called “Pancakes and Syrup” that was a combination of a cough syrup (Phenergan, I think, Rx with codeine if they could get a doc to write it) and something else. I had never heard of it until a pharmacist called to tell me after I wrote an Rx for it for a patient “with a persistant cough”. Fool me once…
Here’s a link to Trayvon Martin’s autopsy that was published at the Huffington Post. As shipwreckedcrew notes above, it lists his size at 71″ (5’11”) and 158 pounds.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/24/2012 @ 2:43 pmMD, the original Sizzrup was Rx codeine cough syrup with promethazine, Sprite, and candy flavors like Jolly Rancher.
Teenagers who can’t get a Rx or pay the $150+ street price for a pint of codeine VC use OTC DXM (Dextromethorphan Hydrobromide) instead: Robitussin DM.
It’s a powerful dissociative like PCP or ketamine, however it must be sipped slowly. Gulping leads to psychotic episodes and deaths have been reported: the rapper Pimp C died from overdosing on Purple Drank.
ropelight (4c6304) — 5/24/2012 @ 3:19 pmropelight-
thanks for the info- I can only assume they drank a lot more than the recommended doses
in some states cough syrup with codeine in lower concentrations was OTC, at least years ago. maybe those states changed.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/24/2012 @ 3:43 pmDRJ, note TraMar’s liver presented with “Focal patchy yellow discoloration due to mild fatty metamorphosis present. On sectioning, the hepatic parenchyma is yellow brown, homogeneous and congested…”
Someone with appropriate expertise will have to explain what that indicates, but it certainly isn’t normal for healthy 17 year olds.
ropelight (4c6304) — 5/24/2012 @ 3:47 pmTara: The timing is off. GZ’s call to the dispatcher ended at 19:13:41. It’s well documented.
and Sammy Finkelman: “They got the time of 19:15:23 because they knew the call lasted 4 minutes and 9 seconds (that’s the length of the recording) but whoever made the timeline placed the beginninmg of the call at 19:11:12 which was when the record of a event to which police were called was created, and not when the call began, which was 19:09:34 (7:09:34 PM EST)
Actually the call itself lasted 4 minutes and 7 seconds.
The record was created 1 minute and 34 seconds into the call, at about the time when zimmerman says “How long until you get an officer over here?”
The call actually ended at 19:13:43
313. Comment by DRJ — 5/23/2012 @ 4:44 pm
There has been a lot of information and misinformation published about this case, so I’m sure you have a basis for this claim but please provide a link.
This is not actually misinformation. The problem is that this timeline comes from a document dump and nobody analyzed it critically. Nobody may be holding to that timeline now. Similarly I am not sure anytone now holds that the person in the video buying some drink (but no skittles!!) is Trayvon Martin, and recoirds may show that that opurchased drink was not Arizona iced tea, a can of which was found at the scene.
The Sanford Police Department records released by MSNBC last week specifically provide that the timeline given in Patterico’s post was obtained from the Seminole County Sheriff’s Office Computer Aided Dispatch. See the bottom of page 39 and top of page 40 at this link.
The information that explains what I said was originally published at http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/911CallHistory.pdf
But this was taken down in early April the week before charges were filed.
You can still see the call log, though, at http://www.wagist.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/911CallHistory.pdf
PAGE 46 (the next to last item) reveals that the connection came at 19:09:34 but the record was created at 19:11:12. The remarks entered in by the dispatcher track with the transcript of teh call. Note also “Call source: TEL” – for 911 calls calls it says 911.
This was a record of police being dispatched. If police had not been dispatched no record would ahev been created, except by accident.
I originally assumed that the last item in the list of calls, at 19:20:28, was caused by Travon Martin knocking the phone out of George Zimmerman’s hand when he punched him in the nose (Zimmerman according to a third hand description said he was about to make a cell phone call when Martin punched him)
As a result I put the time of that a little bit later than it was and mistakenly corrected milowent in one of the early Patterico threads on this.
The truth is by then Travon Martin was already shot and the police and emergency medical people there. The duplicate record was created in some other way.
In addtion, a Wikipedia article… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin
..gives you the various audio recordings. If you page down to:
Zimmerman’s February 2012 cell phone calls to police
You’ll see on the right side of the screen:
Feb 26 Zimmerman 7:09:34 PM call to police.
The article states: Zimmerman appears to hang up at the 4:05 mark. The recording ends at the 4:11 mark, approximately 7:13:41 PM.
Also it says: Full transcript of Zimmerman’s 7:09:34PM call to SPD non-emergency number.
Down by Witness accounts
…you have the start times of the 911 calls:
start times hr:min:sec
The first two calls started before the gunshot.
• 7:16:11 “Help” and gunshot in background
• 7:16:41 reports screaming and gun shot
• 7:17:08 reports screaming “Help” and gunshot
• 7:17:15 distraught caller
• 7:17:54 reports gun shot
• 7:18:00 reports yelling “Help”
• 7:19:04 brother of caller was witness
The names and addresses of the people who calleed are edited out but nothing else. Nothing si edited out of the AZimmerman call.
Since the gunshot is heard I think on two calls, the exact time of the gunshot can be deternmined.
Somebody prepared a webpage with calls and times http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-a58plIcrdo&feature=player_embedded#!
This would place the gunshot at 7:16:55 not 7:17:20. The gunshot is edited out of the second call because the person was giving identifying information at the same time.
Timothy Smith reports arrival at the original destination he was given at 19:17:11. He then went to the scene of the shooting. This would sound like it had alreday happened, although this timeline gives 19:17:20 as the time of the gunshot. It seems like 19:17:11 was when Timothy Smith reported by radio he was arriving in the area. This was maybe a bit before he actually stopped. As he arrived he was advised of reports of shots fired in the same subdivision, and went to the second location. He sounds like he got multiple calls. Or does he mean the police did?
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/24/2012 @ 3:57 pm“I’m still waiting to see any principles, myself, Dave.”
Standing in front of a mirror?
You’re wasting your time.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/24/2012 @ 3:59 pmThe call to Trayvon was supposed to be placed between 7:12:00 and 7:12:59 (time is truncated) according to the records at one time supplied by the Martin family lawyer.
If true and correct this would place the time of the start of the call during the Zimemrman call
it would have started on or after:
Dispatcher: OK what’s your apartment number?
Zimmerman: It’s a home. It’s 1950 – oh, c rap, I don’t want to give it out – I don’t know w
here this kid is [inaudible] [3:40]
It could be that Trayvon Martin stopped running to take the call.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/24/2012 @ 4:02 pm“the quintessence of annoying.”
Look on the bright side. I may be annoying to Zimmerman lovers, but at least I’m not accusing you of being up to no good (without a shred of evidence to back up my accusation), referring to you as an “asshole” WHILE chasing you down the street with a gun in my pocket and shooting you in the chest.
It could be a whole lot worse.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/24/2012 @ 4:03 pmThsi is all that’s now at the Sanford gov website:
http://sanfordfl.gov/investigation/trayvon_martin.html
It still contains the press releases to the public.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/24/2012 @ 4:05 pmSurls – you left out the part where GZ beat up Martin with the bridge of his nose and the back of his head.
JD (318f81) — 5/24/2012 @ 4:06 pm“fatty liver” is a non-specific early change in the liver due to some “insult”, commonly would include alcohol, obesity/diet/high triglycerides/cholesterol, hepatitis C (from non-sterile tattoo parlor as one source), other meds and various diseases but over all much less common, perhaps “huffing” depending on the chemicals involved
doesn’t prove anything, but not normal in a 17 year old non-obese, with alcohol most likely
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/24/2012 @ 4:08 pmbut I have seen other things cause it such as the medication in Aleve (once)
I don’t know what that means, ropelight, but in general, I wonder:
(1) Are there a lot of autopsies on young males to compare this to?
(2) How quickly do liver disease or abnormalities develop? My guess is liver problems can develop slowly and may be more common than we’d think, even in the young.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/24/2012 @ 4:10 pmMD,
I didn’t see your comment before I posted. Thanks for clearing that up.
It’s my understanding that Tylenol can cause liver problems in some people, too.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 5/24/2012 @ 4:11 pmDRJ, see 409, likely cross-posting
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/24/2012 @ 4:13 pmtylenol/acetaminophen can definitely cause liver problems (even death) in over use. if staying within top recommended dose it would be almost always associated with significant alcohol in addition
I don’t think you can say much about this as a reflection on his lifestyle
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/24/2012 @ 4:16 pm#409
Chase me down the street with a hostile attitude and a gun in your pocket, and I might sock you in the nose too.
Of course, if I know you have the gun, I might just shoot you first, and have done with it.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/24/2012 @ 4:17 pmHow did you know about the gun?
SarahW (b0e533) — 5/24/2012 @ 4:18 pmAlso there was no “chase”. He got out of the car to spot his location, not to catch the kid.
There was certainly no pursuit when T jumped Z based on timing of calls.
SarahW (b0e533) — 5/24/2012 @ 4:20 pmAn exception to my rule…
Is #414 directed to me?
If I knew someone was chasing me down the street with a hostile attitude and a gun I would have to be on PCP or methamphetamine to turn around and confront the guy, otherwise I would get my butt inside a safe place ASAP, neither of which was the case with M.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/24/2012 @ 4:25 pmSorry, i mean 415
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/24/2012 @ 4:25 pmI’ve called you mistaken, and unreasonable.
That’s because reason and law don’t make a difference to you, you have your emotional reaction, and that settles it.
Suspicious persons are not always guilty.
SarahW (b0e533) — 5/24/2012 @ 4:26 pmIn context, stopping to call was the right thing to do. He wanted police to show, not to deal with the kid himself. I might agree it wasn’t prudent but it was not illegal and it was perfectly reasonable to try to keep the kid in sight so police could check him out.
The released timeline has the gunshot being fired 25 seconds later than it was.
This actually makes more sense.
After the gunshot:
1) Zimmereman got up.
2) Placed his legs over Martin.
3) Noticed he was probably dead.
4) Walked a short distance away and began pacing.
This sounds ,more like 45 seconds than 20 seconds.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/24/2012 @ 4:29 pmhttp://media.nbcbayarea.com/documents/call+log.pdf
Suppoosed to be T-Mobile record that includes record of the call between the girl and Trayvon Martin.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/24/2012 @ 4:29 pmI’m on Dave’s side, for as long as my BAC is 0.057. What was Trayvon’s capital offense, BTW?
nk (875f57) — 5/24/2012 @ 4:31 pmDid someone accuse TM of a capital crime?
JD (318f81) — 5/24/2012 @ 4:32 pmTrayvon MArtin might ahve seen Geirge Zimmerman passing by, then confronted him on the way back, and attacked him to prevent him from placing a cell phone call.
The prosecuitor’s affidavit does not contain the story that was supposed to be coming from the person supposed to be talking to him that gives the beginning of the confrontation, and it would if somebody was asserting that.
So I assume it’s ruled out by the evidence and she’s not saying that anymore if she ever placed herself on the record as saying that..
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/24/2012 @ 4:34 pmTrayvon’s capitol offense was attempted murder.
C’mon nk, it was tragic and maybe Z should have ignored him, but once his brain was bouncing what was Z supposed to do, ask M how much longer he was going to keep doing it???
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/24/2012 @ 4:35 pmJD, nk is saying that TM was killed, so in effect was executed, hence for what crime.
Change that from “Attempted murder” to “Murder, prevented”
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/24/2012 @ 4:37 pm319. If you read the story carefully the witness is not backing off his assertion it was Zimmerman screaming – he just says he actually doesn’t know who it wa sthat was screaming.
Could be the man on top.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/24/2012 @ 4:37 pmDid someone accuse TM of a capital crime?
Comment by JD — 5/24/2012 @ 4:32 pm
Oh, yes. And the sentence was carried out.
nk (875f57) — 5/24/2012 @ 4:40 pmDisrespectful to the dead I know, but Trayvon’s capital crime was stupidity, a condition endemic to teenage boys.
nk (875f57) — 5/24/2012 @ 4:42 pm‘Also there was no “chase”.’
Yes, there was.
P.S. I’m done referring the ignorant to regular or legal dictionaries. I’m not a first grade teacher.
From now on, I just correct your mistakes…and that’s it.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/24/2012 @ 4:44 pmNot at the time of the attack, there wasn’t. Not in any sense.
And “Chase” is a mischaracterization of trying to see where someone went. You chase to catch.
SarahW (b0e533) — 5/24/2012 @ 4:48 pmWhat Zimmerman did was follow.
SarahW (b0e533) — 5/24/2012 @ 4:48 pm“Disrespectful to the dead I know, but Trayvon’s capital crime was stupidity…”
I think people have a reasonable expectation to be able to walk down to the store and buy a couple of things without being bothered, stalked or shot by mall ninjas (love that expression…that’s a good one).
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/24/2012 @ 4:51 pmIf he’d just walked home no one would have stopped him.
He was wandering about.
SarahW (b0e533) — 5/24/2012 @ 4:53 pmLike I said, I’m not going to waste any more time pointing to the dictionary, I’m just going to correct your mistakes.
He was chasing the kid.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/24/2012 @ 4:54 pmZimmerman never stopped him.
Zimmerman was stopped in his car – not following in the car. He stopped, and called, because the kid was on the grass in the wet walking about. The kid looked like he was up to no good – “on drugs”
He could have just walked on home. That’s kind of what made him look suspicious.
SarahW (b0e533) — 5/24/2012 @ 4:55 pmHe was following. You chase to catch. He wanted only to see where he went so COPS could confront him.
SarahW (b0e533) — 5/24/2012 @ 4:56 pmAnd moreover, he was not chasing or even following Martin, when Martin approached HIM. And knocked him down. Z had been on the phone with the dispatcher for at least 93 seconds after stopping. He’d lost sight of Martin, and was giving the dispatcher information about his location and other information that he was reluctanc to give, because he didn’t know where the kid was.
On the time line above there is no time for a chase to resume on Z’s part
SarahW (b0e533) — 5/24/2012 @ 4:59 pmSo Trayvon, instead of going home, chooses to trackback, confront Martin, and knock him down.
That was a criminal act, unjustified.
There is no evidence that Zimmerman precipitated the violence, other than standing there.
SarahW (b0e533) — 5/24/2012 @ 5:01 pmZimmerman was chasing the kid, and obviously his intent was to somehow detain, capture (or perhaps kill) him so he wouldn’t “get away”.
“These assholes always get away”–George Zimmerman
He stands condemned (of that much) by his own words and actions.
And, there ain’t no doubt about it.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/24/2012 @ 5:08 pmmall ninjas (love that expression…that’s a good one).
A person who claims to be an expert on weaponry and likes to brag about their supposed expertise.
nk (875f57) — 5/24/2012 @ 5:11 pmen.wiktionary.org/wiki/mall_ninja
He was chasing the kid.
Despite repeating the assertion, there remains no evidence for said assertion. In fact, it is more likely TM chased and caught GZ than your version.
JD (318f81) — 5/24/2012 @ 5:15 pmDon’t forget that the skinhead stalked him too.
JD (318f81) — 5/24/2012 @ 5:15 pm“Don’t forget that the skinhead stalked him too.”
Don’t worry. I won’t.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/24/2012 @ 5:20 pm443- what you mean is that there is evidence but it does not agree with my bs opinion so I’m ignoring it to call you a liar.
tye (2c42b2) — 5/24/2012 @ 5:22 pmLeBron James – skinhead
JD (318f81) — 5/24/2012 @ 5:23 pmDavid West – skinhead
Dwayne Wade – skinhead
Danny Granger – not skinhead
“tye” – after you tell everyone all the names you have used to comment here, then provide evidence that GZ was chasing TM.
JD (318f81) — 5/24/2012 @ 5:25 pm“A person who claims to be an expert on weaponry and likes to brag about their supposed expertise.”
I don’t know if that applies to Zimmerman or not, but it’s still a great expression.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/24/2012 @ 5:28 pmDave, you would make a good lawyer. I’d hate to be the judge you appeared in front of.
1. The kid just went out walking, on a beautiful Florida evening;
2. Got himself some candy and soda pop;
3. Some mall ninja, who thought his mostly-plastic gun was a magic wand, started following him around;
4. The kid decided to show the mall ninja that a man without a gun is still a man;
5. The mall ninja realized that he, the mall ninja, was not a man without a gun.
6. The mall ninja shot the kid.
And I think I just wrote the prosecution’s closing argument.
nk (875f57) — 5/24/2012 @ 5:32 pmWasn’t it raining?
JD (318f81) — 5/24/2012 @ 5:35 pmWas it tea?
JD (318f81) — 5/24/2012 @ 5:35 pm4. The kid decided to show the mall ninja that a man without a gun is still a man;
Is the kid a kid, or a man?
JD (318f81) — 5/24/2012 @ 5:36 pmOther than leving out the part where the kid attacked the man breaking his nose and smashing his head on the sidewalk, and the other errors noted above, that is one heck of a story, nk.
JD (318f81) — 5/24/2012 @ 5:38 pm“4. The kid decided to show the mall ninja that a man without a gun is still a man;”
nk – I think you just wrote the defense’s argument. Thug life assaulted Zimmerman for no reason to show the white Hispanic skinhead who was boss.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/24/2012 @ 5:39 pmJesse James raided Lawrence at sixteen. Manhood is a state of mind.
nk (875f57) — 5/24/2012 @ 5:39 pmThat’s the knife’s edge, daleyrocks. In an earlier thread, I used the term “tossup”.
nk (875f57) — 5/24/2012 @ 5:42 pmAllright, you wannabe prosecutors, write a stronger argument for convinction. 😉
nk (875f57) — 5/24/2012 @ 5:45 pmNk – TM is dead. Skinhead shot him.
JD (318f81) — 5/24/2012 @ 5:47 pmSkittles/candy, sodapop/tea, is there any time in Florida when it doesn’t rain? Nobody cares, make your point!
nk (875f57) — 5/24/2012 @ 5:50 pmNo, that does not work with an honest jury, JD. You can fool one person, easily, but it is very difficult to fool twelve.
nk (875f57) — 5/24/2012 @ 5:53 pmNk – my basic point was that I suspect that if a prosecutor wishes to win over the jury, they would not get the basic details wrong.
JD (318f81) — 5/24/2012 @ 5:55 pmJD,
Skittles/candy, sodapop/tea, is there any time in Florida when it doesn’t rain? Nobody cares, make your point!
Comment by nk — 5/24/2012 @ 5:50 pm
That wasn’t me telling you how to talk. That was me saying how I talk. Keep it short, keep it simple, keep it clean not possible in this case, keep it hot.
nk (875f57) — 5/24/2012 @ 6:08 pmSurls, I am wasting my time. That’s because I keep challenging you to point to evidence for your claims and you never do.
SPQR (9d1457) — 5/24/2012 @ 6:09 pmHe was 6’2″ and at 17 old enough to join the service. Which is another point where the people calling him a mere “boy” never intersect with reality.
He was also old enough to be tried as an adult, and old enough to shoot in self-defense.
Some people raise their kids as if they want them to get shot:
Black Teen Killed Attemping Burglary – Mom Says: It’s Normal
(The homeowner who shot this kid did so under far, far less clear circumstances of lawful self-defense than the clear-cut case of Zimmerman shooting Martin, but he still hasn’t been charged with anything.)
If you’re willing to turn a blind eye to your kid’s delinquencies, call them “normal,” keep calling your son some sort of child when he’s old enough to either go to an adult prison or the enter the Marine Corps depending upon the choices he makes, then make sure he makes the wrong ones by teaching him that people who don’t turn a blind eye to his delinquencies and instead call the police to check him out are “malicious” and mean him “no good” and that constitutes sufficient “provocation” to confront them to “get his respect,” then you might as well have pulled the trigger yourself.
It’s the same if you make excuses for these kids. And I think you know which commenters I’m talking about here. Trayvon Martin’s dead. And Zimmerman’s hardly likely to be convicted of jaywalking, let alone second degree murder. And that’s going to keep happening more often then it needs to until these enablers wake up.
Steve (773f84) — 5/24/2012 @ 6:12 pmNk – I understand short and simple. I heart brevity. But it helps to be accurate when doing so 😉
“tye” is a coward
JD (318f81) — 5/24/2012 @ 6:12 pm“These assholes always get away”–George Zimmerman
case of wherever
Colonel Haiku (299bb6) — 5/24/2012 @ 6:22 pmyou go there you are it’s not
because you’re perfect
Yes, nk, M’s crime was stupidity, very common in teen age boys, common in other humans as well. I’ve been here done this before. I’ve done stupid things from driving a Pinto with too many high schoolers packed in to forgetting to latch doors to the basement that could have killed myself, others, and one of my children, but I was lucky in my stupidity as most people are most days. M was stupid in a bad way at a bad time. Z could have smiled and done nothing while his head was being dribbled and ended up stupid and dead instead.
Stupid tragedies happen. Multiplying them doesn’t make them better.
We know the shot was fired into the chest, not the back, from close enough range (<18") to give powder burns. We have evidence that Z was the one on the ground being hit by M. Now, if you want to show me a security camera where Z pulls out his gun, M jumps up and begs, "Don't shoot me!", and Z says, "die you n****!" and pulls the trigger, I'll go for murder 1. But unless you have that all you have is a bad overlap of events, a tragedy, a bad feeling about a "mall ninja", some race hustlers, and a bunch of people threatening to riot.
Other than a quote about "these a-holes always get away" (which may have meant vandals in general) you've got nothing to say he was racist, if anything you have evidence to the contrary. If you are going to find someone guilty of murder because they called someone an a-hole, you might as well put all of the innocent people in jail to protect them from all of the criminals.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/24/2012 @ 6:32 pm“(Reuters) – Neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman made statements to police that help establish his guilt in the second-degree murder case against him for killing unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin, prosecutors said in a court filing on Thursday…”
“…Defendant (Zimmerman) has provided law enforcement with numerous statements, some of which are contradictory, and are inconsistent with the physical evidence and statements of witnesses,” the prosecutors said in their court filing.”–Reuters
More bad news for Zimmerman, and despite the dreams of Zimmerman supporters, the news has pretty much all been bad (from his POV).
If you want to go around being a criminal, and/or shoot people under questionable circumstances, remember this:
“Never rat on your friends and always keep your mouth shut.”–Bob De Niro
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/24/2012 @ 6:42 pmSo, after the laughable excuse for an indictment (or whatever the official term is for the document) Reuters says the prosecutor says…
Reuters says a lot of things…
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/24/2012 @ 6:52 pm‘He was 6’2″’
5′ 11”. 158 lbs.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/24/2012 @ 6:58 pmJust a friendly reminder that prosecutors don’t always get it right. And sometimes it’s because they have an agenda. Scary stuff. From The Hill:
==Two Department of Justice prosecutors have been suspended without pay and a Senate Democrat has scheduled a committee hearing following the release Thursday of a DOJ report that detailed the government’s misconduct in its botched case against former Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska).
The DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) released its 672-page report on the Stevens case to top ranking lawmakers after more than two years of investigating the alleged wrongdoing of the federal prosecutors waging a criminal lawsuit against the veteran senator.
The DOJ, also on Thursday, announced it was suspending Joseph Bottini and James Goeke without pay. The report found the attorneys “acted in reckless disregard” for their legal obligations by not disclosing exculpatory evidence to Stevens’ defense lawyers. The two attorneys had already been transferred out of the public integrity division of DOJ in response to their involvement in the botched case. ==
elissa (35e94b) — 5/24/2012 @ 7:00 pmBut Brenda Morris, is still going after public officials in Alabama, William Welch is going after CIA leaker, Jeffrey Sterling, with the possibility
narciso (1c125b) — 5/24/2012 @ 7:04 pmof forcing James Risen to testify.
How about a link for that Dave. Today is Thurs — is this something new?
And, if they have incriminating statements from Zimmerman, those are the kinds of things smart prosecutors ALWAYS ALWAYS put in affidavits in support of charging instruments.
“I’m charging the defendant with 2nd Degree murder, based partly on the fact that he made a post-arrest statement in which he admitted …..”
They didn’t put anything in the affidavit.
I call BS.
shipwreckedcrew (fe3b5b) — 5/24/2012 @ 7:12 pmOK — I’m going to backup Surls here. Surprising I know.
There is an article late today about a filing by the prosecutor’s office to keep Zimmerman’s post-arrest statements under seal and not release them to the public in response to requests made under Florida’s public records law.
The defense attorney has JOINED the motion on the basis that one or more of the statements might be the subject of a motion to suppress.
You generally don’t want to suppress statements unless there is something bad in them. He says the release of the statements would be highly prejudicial to Zimmerman.
So he has said something in his post-arrest interviews that is unfavorable, and the prosecutor is going to rely on his own words to undermine his claim of self-defense.
shipwreckedcrew (fe3b5b) — 5/24/2012 @ 7:17 pmWhat do you know, swc? We know the skinhead stalked, chased, then shot the skittles loving child.
JD (318f81) — 5/24/2012 @ 7:17 pmSo far we have’nt seen anything credible, besides those stress tests are inadmissible, won’t stop Jackson and Crump, from contesting them anyways,
narciso (1c125b) — 5/24/2012 @ 7:29 pmthis has gone way beyond any pretense of fact,
“is this something new?”
The prosecuter’s office has been making noises about having more evidence for days.
Link…
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/25/us-usa-florida-shooting-idUSBRE84O00020120525
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/24/2012 @ 7:33 pmAnd this: Just another friendly reminder that prosecutors don’t always get it right.
One-time top HS football star who spent six years in prison for rape has charge dismissed after accuser contacts him on Facebook to say it never happened.
Right now on CBSnews:
In a strange turn of events, the woman, Wanetta Gibson, friended him on Facebook when he got out of prison.
In an initial meeting with him, she said she had lied; there had been no kidnap and no rape and she offered to help him clear his record, court records state.
But she refused to repeat the story to prosecutors because she feared she would have to return a $1.5 million payment from a civil suit brought by her mother against Long Beach schools.
During a second meeting that was secretly videotaped, she told Banks, “‘I will go through with helping you but it’s like at the same time all that money they gave us, I mean gave me, I don’t want to have to pay it back,”‘ according to a defense investigator who was at the meeting.
elissa (35e94b) — 5/24/2012 @ 7:37 pmThis is why an attorney will/should always, first thing, advise his client to shut his ….ing mouth.
AD-RtR/OS! (2bb434) — 5/24/2012 @ 7:37 pmSo, elissa, she did it for the money.
AD-RtR/OS! (2bb434) — 5/24/2012 @ 7:38 pmWhat do we call people like that?
“What do you know, swc? We know the skinhead stalked, chased, then shot the skittles loving child.”
JD – If that was his intent, why didn’t he just blow the kid away when he approached the car?
Why did he call the police first?
Freaking theories make no sense.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/24/2012 @ 7:59 pmI want to step back a moment as I let myself get pulled in at my last comment.
This is not, should not be, and should never be, a pro- and anti- Z thing as if we were pulling for “our side”. It sometimes feels that way as it seems that Dave is “anti-Z” in his prejudices and when I challenge those prejudices I get to feeling “pro-Z”. But this should not be about pro- or anti- Z, it should be about pro-truth. I don’t know any of us who would want Z to “get away with” anything if his actions were not justifiable.
In summary, the original investigation ended with no charges being filed. After a bunch of public commotion from the likes of Sharpton and Jackson, news reports with unwarranted editorializing, editing to make statements sound incriminating, and mistaken claims about other things he said, a special prosecutor is named. She files an affidavit that conservative and liberal experts alike laugh at and would have given a low grade if turned in as an assignment in law school. As time goes by with unopposed public intimidation by the NBPP, some of the witnesses who gave statements consisting with Z’s account are backtracking. Now we here rumor of the prosecutor basing a case on inconsistencies in what Z has said.
As I said previously, if Z has mischaracterized what happened and did act unlawfully I want that to be discovered and prosecuted. But at the moment, it looks a bit like Scooter Libby getting nailed for something because no crime could be found concerning the original cause of the investigation.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/24/2012 @ 8:00 pmDaley – tongue in cheek
JD (318f81) — 5/24/2012 @ 8:05 pmDitto, MD, it was tragic probably just not actionable, they have been lying from word one,
narciso (1c125b) — 5/24/2012 @ 8:05 pmabout everything except the immediate act, they have incited militia, death threats, to discourage
anyone who would even consider challenging the narrative, we’ve seen this on a smaller scale, in other circumstances, particularly in other countries, like the Al Dura affair in France,
but it’s like at the same time all that money they gave us, I mean gave me, I don’t want to have to pay it back,
She derails someone’s life, gets rich and spends it all, then has a twinge of guilt and wants to say “I’m sorry” in order to appease her twinge of conscience or what??
That’s the entitlement mentality, I can make somebody give me something and it doesn’t matter to anybody else. So, you’ve interfered with perhaps a college scholarship and maybe a pro-football career, and not only can’t you begin to make amends for that, but you don’t want to give up your house and car and whatever else you’ve bought.
I guess prison for fraud could be an equivalent of “debtor’s prison”.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/24/2012 @ 8:07 pmnarciso, did you see my link at #396? “Suicide” by repeatedly beating face into coffee table. Sure she did.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/24/2012 @ 8:15 pmMD – GZ beat up Tray with his nose. Why not suicide by coffee table?
JD (318f81) — 5/24/2012 @ 8:19 pmComment by MD in Philly — 5/24/2012 @ 8:00 pm
In fact, my earliest reactions were that the shooting was a close call that would fall on the not justifiable side of the line. I was never a “fan” of Zimmerman nor considered him a hero. His actions were and remain an example of how not to handle these kinds of incidents – a separate question from whether or not he’s criminally liable for the shooting.
Surls’ repeated invective about how people who find a lack of a prosecutable case as having Zimmerman set up as a “hero” is what set me off on his fact-free expositions.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/24/2012 @ 8:19 pmHey it could happen, MD, it reminds of the Russian coup plotter, who was found to have committed suicide, with multiple shots to the back of the head, from a gun on the dresser, several feet away,
narciso (1c125b) — 5/24/2012 @ 8:19 pmthat was also the fate of Abu Abbas, in Baghdad.
Comment by SPQR — 5/24/2012 @ 8:19 pm
I don’t understand why it is so clear that Z acted inappropriately. By his story, he watches this guy acting strange, he gets out of his car to watch where the guy is going while awaiting the police to arrive, loses sight of him, starts to go back to his car and then is surprised and attacked by the person he lost sight of. He is armed, so when he is on his back and getting his head pounded he draws the gun and shoots in self defense. What was his big error, that he got out of his car to watch where he went so he could tell the police more than, “He went that way, rounded the corner, and disappeared”. That he let himself be taken by surprise? That he carried a gun? That he bleeds when struck?
If he confronted M at close range and immediately provoked the physical struggle then I agree he blew it. I would think he would be right to act before the police got there only if someone was immediately being harmed by M.
Question. We live “kitty-corner” across from a public library, down the block from an elementary school across the street from the library. A few years ago there was a person standing in the yard in front of the library shooting at someone picking their child up from school. This would have been less than 50 yards away from my front door. If I had sufficient skill as a marksman and an appropriate weapon, would I have been justified in “shooting the shooter”? He was actively shooting in the midst of a crowd of children and their parents as school let out, and one child was hit by an errant bullet. Multiple people could have been shot and killed before the police would have gotten there.
To add insult, the same assailant had gone after the same intended victim once before with a handgun.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/24/2012 @ 8:52 pmI’ll check back for responses in the morning.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/24/2012 @ 8:54 pmMD in Philly, to address your first, I have lectured on legal issues on use of lethal force for a friend’s concealed carry training course locally in the past. In similar hypotheticals to the Zimmerman case, I don’t advise anyone to follow “suspicious” people at all because I think it unwise to expose ones self to the increased likelihood of any kind of confrontation at all.
With respect to your second hypothetical, the situation of using lethal force for the defense of a third party is actually a pretty tricky one. Because the law makes you liable for any mistaken case. If the shooter was in fact justified in shooting for some reason unknown to you, in many states you’d lose the legal question of whether you were justified. Its actually, oddly, a stricter standard than that of self-defense. There have been a few cases of “mistaken” defense of third parties, where people rushed into to “aid” someone who they should not have. Indeed, there are many more cases where police shoot someone thinking that they are defending a third party, where it turns out that they have shot an undercover or off duty police officer after confusing who was the “bad guy”.
So your hypothetical would be fraught with risk but if you were indeed correct on the facts of the situation, yes defense of others threatened with death or serious bodily injury with lethal force is justified.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/24/2012 @ 9:21 pm“Daley – tongue in cheek”
JD – Mine too. Honor student, future Rhodes Scholar, church choir soloist Martin victimized by racist speed freak white hispanic cracker skinhead just makes for better headlines and bounties on Zimmerman’s head, I guess.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/24/2012 @ 9:21 pmMD in Philly, I think that the real case of Jeanne Assam’s heroic intervention is similar to your hypothetical.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/24/2012 @ 9:24 pmDaley, you forgot future President of the United States.
Dana (4eca6e) — 5/24/2012 @ 9:33 pm“Daley, you forgot future President of the United States.”
Dana – And future Nobel Prize winner. My bad.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/24/2012 @ 10:34 pmnot to mention Chairman for the 2016 Chicago Olympics.
redc1c4 (403dff) — 5/24/2012 @ 11:50 pm“She files an affidavit that conservative and liberal experts alike laugh at and would have given a low grade if turned in as an assignment in law school.”
Too bad Judge Herr didn’t laugh at it.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/25/2012 @ 1:25 amThis is an example of why I think it is a waste of time discussing this with you, Dave. I make a statement of fact, and you reply with a snark. Snark on snark is fair play in my book, but snark on plain statement of fact indicates not being intellectually honest on the subject under discussion. My reference was to the likes of Alan Dershowitz and our own shipwreckedcrew. Andy McCarthy was not as demeaning in his description, but also thought it was a strangely inadequate document. All of these folks have more legal street cred that you and I put together, probably by a few factors of 10.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 5/25/2012 @ 5:56 amIt’s not really surprising. From the moment they indicted him, they’ve been saying that he provided inconsistent statements and that he re-enacted the events of the night inconsistently for police. I mean, well, duhh! Fights are confusing.
As AD-RtR/OS! says, this is why an attorney should always advise his client to shut his f*****g mouth.
I really doubt that Zimmerman’s lawyer expected to have no battles to fight to get Zimmerman off the hook. Wouldn’t any criminal defense attorney just take it as a matter of course that, since his client had no other prior attorney-client relationship (otherwise that other attorney would be defending Zimmerman) to advise him ahead of time of what to do in the case of a self-defense shooting then the client would have done or said something against his interests?
There’s a lesson here for anyone who has a gun at home or carries one for defense. Surviving the gun fight is just half the battle. Then you have to make it through the legal fight that will certainly follow.
So the time to talk to an attorney is before you need him. And don’t talk to the police without your attorney, other than to say only what you’ve already been advised to say by your attorney and then invoke your right to remain silent (there are attorneys that will provide you with a card to carry in your wallet to tell you what you can and should do and say along with their 24/7 contact info). The police are not your friend. Which isn’t to say they’re your enemy. They’re just not on your side. No matter what they say, you’re a suspect and they will be looking for inconsistencies in your story or any hint that it wasn’t a justified self-defense shooting.
Had Zimmerman contacted an attorney first, he wouldn’t have uttered otherwise unimportant words like:
These made it into the probable cause affidavit and as it also says in the affidavit these calls are always recorded. They’re meaningless on their own and the affidavit also makes clear that Zimmerman had been talking about other people:
Note that this misleading use of Zimmerman’s own words by the prosecutor has not stopped idiots both on this comment thread and elsewhere from seizing upon these meaningless words as if they show some sort of malicious intent. That was the prosecutor’s intent in twisting Zimmerman’s words; to inflame the idiots. And it worked.
The lesson: always understand when talking to the 911 or police dispatcher that you’re being recorded and that your words can easily be twisted by an unscrupulous prosecutor to make you look guilty when you aren’t.
You also need to consider your insurance coverage. In many states you can successfully beat a bogus criminal charge (if you’re charged at all) and still be sued successfully. Here’s a web page that discusses insurance:
Homeowners Policies and Acts of Self-Defense
The important take-away:
The bottom line in the Zimmerman case is that the parents are looking for a civil judgement against Zimmerman. This is why, via their mouthpiece Benjamin Crump, they kept saying from the start that all they want is an arrest.
If the prosecutor can just get this case past the point where the judge decides the SYG law didn’t apply to Zimmerman, for the parents it won’t matter at that point if Z is acquitted of any criminal liability as is likely to happen given the state of the evidence. He loses any immunity that the SYG law would have provided and he can be sued. Quite possibly successfully, since all he’ll have is his savings and whatever his family can kick in for his defense.
I know of no insurance policy that will cover anyone, licensed to carry a concealed weapon or not, for acts outside the home. Zimmerman can defend himself against the criminal charge, but odds are not against a civil suit. It’s doubtful he’ll have the resources and the standard of proof is lower.
This will allow the Sharptons et al of the world to keep inflaming the idiots as if
youths who might be barred from joining the military because they’re drug-using thugs but not because they aren’t old enoughinnocent doe-eyed black children are being gunned down for no reason by racist skinhead white hispanic stalker mall cop wannabe crackers.And that’ll work on the target audience, too.
Steve (773f84) — 5/25/2012 @ 10:14 am“This is an example of why I think it is a waste of time discussing this with you, Dave.”
What’s to discuss? The only person with competence to decide whether or not the affidavit is laughable…ain’t laughing.
That pretty much ends the discussion.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/25/2012 @ 3:36 pm