Mar 26 2012
As Details Come Out, George Zimmerman’s Claims Crumble
Update: As the Zimmerman’s camp calls for patience, one wonders where Zimmerman’s patience was on the night he cornered (and probably threatened if not enraged) Trayvon?
Update: Read this as well, because it lays out the reasoning that shows Trayvon was the victim, Zimmerman the obsessed vigilante. It means Zimmerman is the likely culprit:
If you have been advised to not approach the subject, but you do, you then become an aggressive participant in an unknown matter. Your level of training may not be vast enough to prepare you for unknown events. You certainly are not in a situation that requires immediate action. You are in a safe position to watch and wait for assistance. Unless you are trying to stop great bodily harm to yourself or others, you have time and distance to choose differently.
Now we have a person who saw a kid he thought was suspicious – for what? Do we know? He decides (after being advised not to) to approach a person in the dark out of sight that he said was suspicious. And do what?
…
Did he say something to the person that was threatening or fearful — so intimidating that it would frighten you and make you fear for your life in an isolated dark area where no one else could see you? Was that person so aggressive that it scared you to a mode of defense?
With so many robberies, murders, abductions going on today, may be the kid felt for his life, maybe he thought this guy was trying to do him bodily harm. Maybe he was right. But we won’t know, because he has no voice. He is dead, and everyone knows dead men tell no tales.
…
Since when does the aggressor get to call it self-defense when the so-called perpetrator is moving away from them and not to them?
Exactly. Why go after the ‘suspicious’ person with a loaded gun? – end update
You’re a 17 year old kid visiting with your Dad’s fiance’. You went to the nearby 7-Eleven to get some candy and drink at night. On the way back some yahoo in a pick up truck starts shadowing you. You’re in a strange town and some guy finally stops his truck and follows you on foot. You duck away, but you don’t know your way around. You just need to get home.
But you are also a 17 year football player, used to physical encounters. And as most 17 year olds, you are dangerously fearless. Worse yet, you are talking to you girlfriend on the phone and now is not the time to be timid.
This is a recipe for disaster.
Now switch shoes. You are an egotistical 28 year old playing sheriff. You see someone in your neighborhood and you jump to conclusions based purely on stereotypes. You stalk a 17 year old kid at night, first by car and then on foot. You are king of this little pond, and you are armed. You too are fearless in a dangerous way.
So who is the victim here? Who is being ‘hunted’? Not the kid with the candy and soda – he is talking to his girlfriend with no intention of an altercation. He is not pushing for confrontation, he is not looking to show his manhood.
George Zimmerman escalated his eventual confrontation with Trayvon Martin. And now we know he failed his last chance to avoid trouble. Zimmerman was not attacked from behind – by his own admission:
Zimmerman was on his way to the grocery store when he spotted Trayvon walking through his gated community.
Trayvon was visiting his father’s fiancée, who lived there. …
Zimmerman called police and reported a suspicious person, describing Trayvon as black, acting strangely and perhaps on drugs.
Notice how Zimmerman, from a distance, had already tried and judged Trayvon. How strange was Trayvon walking, drinking his soda and talking on his cell phone? Good lord, what is Zimmerman’s definition of ‘acting strangely’? One thing we do know, Zimmerman was an obsessive vigilante type who loved to play sheriff.
Anyway, back to Zimmerman’s crumbling excuses:
Zimmerman got out of his SUV to follow Trayvon on foot. When a dispatch employee asked Zimmerman if he was following the 17-year-old, Zimmerman said yes. The dispatcher told Zimmerman he did not need to do that.
There is about a one-minute gap during which police say they’re not sure what happened.
Zimmerman told them he lost sight of Trayvon and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from the left rear, and they exchanged words.
Trayvon asked Zimmerman if he had a problem. Zimmerman said no and reached for his cell phone, he told police.
Ahh. They exchanged words. Words like “I am visiting in the neighborhood” or “Just went to the 7-Eleven”. Or how about words from Zimmerman accusing Trayvon while being derogatory? You think Zimmerman simply said ‘no’? When he finally gets to be the big bad sheriff in town?
Zimmerman’s last chance to back off. He could have said “was just checking” or “OK kid, just get home safe”.
If Trayvon hauled off and hit Zimmerman in the nose, it was because Zimmerman was being a jerk. And I hate to tell this to Zimmerman, but if you cause a fight with words you cannot later claim self defense.
Since words were exchanged there was no attack. Zimmerman was the one pushing for the confrontation. To the point he left is truck on foot with a loaded gun. Trayvon, loaded with Skittles, never stood a chance.
You want to know why Zimmerman is all teary and upset. He is just now coming to grips with what he did, and how instead of being a sheriff he is just a child killer. He knows he could have avoided all this many times over. And it is about time he did what is right and truly courageous – and admit it.
AJ, I think you are jumping ahead of the facts somewhat in finding Zimmermann culpable. the recent leak by the Sanford PD of Zimm’s original statement, plus the cop’s report that Zimm had a bloody nose, grass and dirt stains on his back, and head injuries at least suggests the possibility that Trayvon initiated the confrontation.
I think we need to hold off reaching conclusions.
Oneal Lane, careful there, Layman has ‘special insight’ which came down from heaven and bathed him in a holy light when he got his CCP, so he KNOWS. Don’t ever doubt that Layman is right, at least that is what he claims.
Now, when Layman says: ““All is speculation except for one fact.
Zimmerman, by virtue of his actions, was responsible for the encounter with Martin.”
this supposed action by Zimmerman is that he was on Neighborhood Watch and Martin came into a gated community, where he did not live and therefore it’s Zimmerman’s fault. If he had not been on Neighborhood Watch, this wouldn’t have happened.
One could suppose that ‘if Martin had not come into a gated community where he did not live’ that this encounter might not have happened. So now, we have this big controversy. Did the ‘virtue of his actions’ ( being on Neighborhood Watch) ’cause’ the encounter, or did the ‘virtue of his actions (coming into a gated community where he did not live) cause the encounter.
It can be determined very simply: Layman has ‘special insight’ (he has a CCP) so he must be right. Or as he says, it’s an indisputable fact.
Oneal, you might want to get a CCP so you can get some of this ‘special insight’. I’m seriously thinking of heading down and applying, I’d kinda like some ‘special insight’. you get it with the CCP. (it’s part of the package) You might want to verify this with WWS, he has it also.
Change of topic:
Is this finally proof we’re NOT causing global warming? The whole of the Earth heated up in medieval times without human CO2 emissions, says new study
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2120512/Global-warming-Earth-heated-medieval-times-human-CO2-emissions.html
“Evidence was found in a rare mineral that records global temperatures
Warming was global and NOT limited to Europe
Throws doubt on orthodoxies around ‘global warming’ “
Due to the intense media scrutiny of this case, the city of Sanford, FL has made information available at these links:
http://sanfordfl.gov/right/press_releases.html
http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Zimmerman_Martin_shooting.pdf
http://sanfordfl.gov/investigation/trayvon_martin.html
=======
No I have not read all the press releases and listened to the 911 calls, but I’m not getting the impression that George Zimmerman was a swaggering cop-wanna-be out to intimidate the 6’2″ guy in the hoodie. I understand GZ had been a long-time neighborhood watch volunteer (in an area which had already had several burglaries and other incidents) and I haven’t heard any suggestion that he had a history or pattern of belligerence or threatening behavior… (for whatever that’s worth…)
=======
Ultimately, though, I think we’re agreed that EVERYBODY SHOULD CALM DOWN and wait for the investigation to be completed. (And the “Race-Baiting Reverends” Sharpton and Jackson should get off their soapboxes and go home.) (And the New Black Panther Party should withdraw their $10,000 bounty for the capture of George Zimmerman.) (And our President should stand before the country and call for reason and restraint, reminding us that *HE* (a {quasi-} black man, has been elected to the highest office of the land — which proves that racism is NOT the unsurmountable barrier that some grievance-mongers pretend it is; he should affirm that the USA is a country based on rule-of-law, that there *IS* an ongoing investigation in the Trayvon Martin case, and that he is confident that the truth will be discovered and justice will be served.)
A_ NONNY_MOUSE,
A President and his Administration that was an American President for all Americans would be interested in the truth and the rule of law.
However with this bunch of far left Black Activists, headed by the Community Rabble Rouser this will NOT happen.
This President has determined he does not need the White Middle class to win re-election. He and his “justice” department do damage at ever opportunity to the white middle class and thus to the black, yellow and brown middle class.
This President has determined he will win by pitting the have nots against the haves. The non-working laze about and professional baby makers against the hard working family oriented middle class.
He will enlist the Occutards , the Union thugs and the Black Racists to bring this country to his vision of fairness and it will be imposed upon us like the Healthcare scam, in the dark of night, behind closed doors through every conceivable low down dirty payoff, bribe, lie and through the best propaganda effort his Presstitutes can muster.
Gabby Giffords was a trial run Trayvon is another, the pResident will gin up racial strife and Occupy Wall Street Nitwits to march in the streets and deny poll access, he will use the power of the SEIU to finance and organize every anti American leftist he can to mobilize and vote for him.
For those of you who doubt this read the Ulsterman Report more specifically the Insider interviews.
This White House fully intends to use the race card not to heal American but to tear her asunder.
P.S. I too conceal carry and rule number Won is don’t get it out unless you are gonna use it and
2. don’t let the bad guy take it from you…. thus don’t get it out unless you are going to use it!
Way too much early blame throwing here on both sides. The cops have a job to do.
A job made harder by the likes of the Black Racists Jackson, Sharpton and Obama!
dhunter, I see you have the administration figured out correctly, I see nothing to disagree with.
The press keeps refering to GZ as a “White Latino” does that make Obama a “White Negro”
Humm Zimmerman, sounds Jewish. Florida? Yes, could the Non- racist, totally color-blind “Left” be missing a chance to further divide the nation. Perhaps GZ is a White Jew Latino, why is the Press not covering this important new development 🙂
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/27/police-zimmerman-story-is-consistent-with-evidence-in-trayvon-martin-shooting/
So, the police are leaking the details. Violation of criminal law procedures but I don’t blame them. They have to fight the lying race baiters and propaganda DPO media somehow.
Pictures chosen by the media, of what people look like in a publicized event, so often are more indicative of the MSM’s take on how they want this story to be characterized than often what the real facts really are.
Case in point…
When the whole Trayvon Martin killing blasted on the public consciousness, Trayvon’s image was of a smiling, young AA, who Obama said “could be his own son.” Zimmerman, though, was depicted as a glum heavy-set man.
Now, with more and more details being revealed, about each man’s past, those images are being switched. The one of Martin, is a current one (rather than when he was 12 years old). At 17 he is shown to be more sullen looking with facial hair, looking more like a teen going the wrong way. I wonder if Obama still thinks he could be his own son? His history also now has an edge, with school suspensions,drug use and possible robberies. Zimmerman, OTOH, now has a smiling, congenial photo of him posted on Drudge, along with a history, showing him to be a tutor for kids, be well received by friends and neighbors — not the crazed neighborhood watch guy who was originally introduced to the public.
But, nevertheless, Trayvon’s parents are up on the Hill, testifying, and the politicians and race baiters are trying to keep this thing going for as long as possible
jan, very good point. The images of the two parties are seemingly, quickly swapping roles. I was listening to radio a short time ago and they were talking about how great the economy is, and how consumer confidence is rising.
The MSMedia controls the news that most people hear and for the uninformed, it only makes them more incorrectly informed if they hear any news at all. So Obama has the unions, the unemployed, the lazy, the foreigners, the uninformed and the news on his side. Gonna make it hard for the truth to get through.
I sure have no problem with people expressing opinions on this shooting. I do think we should wait until an investigation is complete before we decide to have a trial or not. I think the constitution provides that both sides in a controversy are entitled to justice.
RT: Just can’t drop it, can you???
Let me try once more to explain. The key word here is responsible. Note I did not say legally culpable, guilty, etc.
1) Zimmerman is on “patrol”. OK
2) He sees Martin and calls 911. OK
3) He follows him in his truck. OK, but starting topush boundaries.
4) He gets out of his truck and starts following Martin. Problematic.
5) He begins to pursue him (911 call, out of breath, chasing after Martin – so pursue is the correct adjective). Over-the-line.
6) By this time Martin has to think that some crazed individual is after him (reasonable speculation).
7) Whatever happened next would not have happened if Zimmerman has not left his vehicle to pursue Martin on foot.
8) Ergo, Zimmermann is responsible for the confrontation.
If you can not handle that simple logic then I can’t help you. It requires no special insight, psychic powers, or ESP. Just a modicum of thought.
I do have one recommendation/future prediction for you. Get your CCP because if you continue to act like a jerk you’ll end up being responsible for a confrontation and you’ll need to be able to protect yourself.
RT: By the way, do you have a Neighborhood Watch in your area? Go talk to someone and ask to see the briefing or training materials they got from their local police. I did so yesterday, speaking to the guy a few doors down the block who is our Watch Leader (we don’t call them Captains).
The training materials from our local police specifically state that under no circumstances are we to engage with anyone. We are only to observe and report. I’ll bet (using my ESP) that all Neighborhood Watch programs have the same rules. Doing anything outside those rules opens you up to all kinds of trouble.
Layman
You make good points, but some are attached with conjecture, as well.
I follow your reasoning, all the way to #5, where Zimmerman gets out of the truck and is in fast pursuit following Martin, whereas he makes that call. When told to not follow, by the 911 operator, Zimmerman acquiesces, saying one word like, “ok.”
Now, I don’t think it was illegal for Zimmerman to tail Martin on foot. And, according to Zimmerman, he returned to his vehicle, following the advice given by the 911 operator.
However, upon Zimmerman’s retreat, is when Martin then confronted him. Now the two, could have just exchanged terse words, and that probably would have been the end of it. But, Zimmerman and a witness alleged that it was Martin who took it over the line, by attacking Zimmerman.
Ergo, if the boy hadn’t physically attacked the man, then he would most likely still be alive today… which, IMO, makes his actions at least 50% responsible for his own death.
Layman, nope won’t let it drop. I think if you have a sense of humor you would enjoy the discussion. I haven’t called you any names or impugned you in any way. (I don’t even think you’re acting like a jerk as you think I am) Just disagreeing with your opinions is not a bad thing. Makes both of us more aware of what is going on. I wish more people would inform themselves enough to carry on an intelligent conversation (which I consider you are doing)
Now let me proceed to discuss some of your points.
First, I live in a city of about 10,000 and there is no neighborhood watch in the city. Don’t need one, thankfully. very little crime.
your points (consider them to be in quotes)
1) Zimmerman is on “patrol”. OK so you’re saying it was ok for him to be on patrol and this is not the “by virtue of” which caused him to be ‘responsible’?
2) He sees Martin and calls 911. OK So, you agree that is what Zimmerman should have done. But you overlook, why is Martin in this gated community far from where he lives (could him being where he shouldn’t have been have contributed to the confrontation?)
3) He follows him in his truck. OK, but starting topush boundaries. Here you lose me, isn’t the role of the neighborhood watch to continue to report on the intruder’s location until the police get there? (it doesn’t have to be ‘pursuit’ only observation. which boundary did he push?
4) He gets out of his truck and starts following Martin. Problematic. So, assume Martin has left the road and is going behind houses or other property where he can’t be observed from the road? I’d also like to point out, this is not the point he ‘starts following Martin’ he already was following (observing) him.
5) He begins to pursue him (911 call, out of breath, chasing after Martin – so pursue is the correct adjective). Over-the-line. Here you are conjecturing. You or no one else knows this to be a fact. Evidence seems to indicate that when Zimmerman left his vehicle he lost sight of Martin and was returning to his truck when Martin ran to Zimmerman, asked him a question and hit him on the head, knocking him down. Why is that version so different from your statement?
6) By this time Martin has to think that some crazed individual is after him (reasonable speculation). Pure conjecture, absolutely no evidence of this.
7) Whatever happened next would not have happened if Zimmerman has not left his vehicle to pursue Martin on foot. AND, had Martin not been in a gated community where he had no business being, whatever happened next would not have happened either.
8) Ergo, Zimmermann is responsible for the confrontation. I’m not sure who Ergo is, but your case wouldn’t even be submitted to the jury, dismissed.. No evidence, only speculation.
“If you can not handle that simple logic then I can’t help you. It requires no special insight, psychic powers, or ESP. Just a modicum of thought.”
Layman, old buddy, the reason I can’t follow ‘that simple logic’ is because there is no logic there, simple or otherwise.
You were the party claiming to have ‘special insight’ it came in your box of Cracker Jacks, or something, remember?
“I do have one recommendation/future prediction for you. Get your CCP because if you continue to act like a jerk you’ll end up being responsible for a confrontation and you’ll need to be able to protect yourself.”
If you will clearly lay out what someone has to do to ‘act as a jerk’ then I will try to avoid it. I think I’d rather do that than to try to get my ‘special insight’ so I can avoid what Zimmerman did. I am just distressed that Zimmerman didn’t get his ‘special insight’ with his CCP, maybe he forgot to open the Cracker Jack box.
Lighten up, it might cause you less distress. You do have a sense of humor, right?
OK RT: I’m going to head to the bar after a long day and maybe a couple adult beverages will get me in a better mood. Anyway, sorry for the jerk comment but I take your constant digs about my “special insight” as a personal slam, not a joke.
One question for you. Play along. You are out for a walk, minding your own business, coming back from the 7-11. You notice a guy following you in a car, then he gets out and starts following you on foot. You start to run away and he starts to run after you. 1) Do you assume that this person is up to no good? Or 2) Do you assume everything is OK and he just wants to chat?
I’m good either way. Personally I go with option 1, but if you go with option 2 that might explain why we see htings differently.
Maybe I also have a different defintion of responsibility from everyone else, and I made it abundantly clear I was not speaking in a legal sense. To me it is as simple as “An outcome that results from affirmative action taken by an indivdual is the responsibility of that person.”
Hence when a mother overfeeds her child he is not responsible for his obesity. When I choose to eat 4500 calories of junk food every day I am responsible.
I never said Zimmerman did anything illegal, I simply stated that by his choices of action he was responsible for the outcome (to the point that there was an altercation between the two).
By the same definition, if Martin turned to confront Zimmerman he is responsible as well. He may have been acting in self defense, he may have been trying to be a badass, he may simply have been 17, ten feet tall, and bullet proof. That will be determined by an investigation.
“OK RT: I’m going to head to the bar after a long day and maybe a couple adult beverages will get me in a better mood.”
that sounds like an excellent idea, I’m not in a bar but I’m sitting on my patio with a ‘cool one’.. One word of warning about bars, steer clear of the one WWS frequents, he tells us that if you have too much to drink they lock you in overnight with all the other drunks. Doesn’t sound like much fun at that point.
Sorry you took anything I said as a personal slam, certainly not intended. I try to quote someone when I can and make a statement of my on about it. It certainly is different from what you say at times but I’m almost positive we are in agreement more times than we are in disagreement. I certainly respect your opinion.
Okay, now to answer your specific question.
“One question for you. Play along. You are out for a walk, minding your own business, coming back from the 7-11. You notice a guy following you in a car, then he gets out and starts following you on foot. You start to run away and he starts to run after you. 1) Do you assume that this person is up to no good? ” as you state it, absolutely. But, if you are insinuating that this is what happened in this case, I don’t see how you could reach that conclusion. first, What was Martin doing in the gated community. He didn’t live anywhere near there. No relative of his lived there. Why was he there? If you assume that he was there for ‘no good reason’ then I would expect he would be on the lookout for someone to see him and report him and he might try to confront that person and stop him before he had time to call 911. That is probably a more likely scenario since he was somewhere he didn’t really have a good reason to be.
Since there was no eye witness and no camera recording what happened, I suspect we will never know all the details. The more details I have heard on Martin makes me a lot more suspicious of why he was where he was. But it certainly can be all perfectly innocent.
Let me ask this simple question about Zimmerman. From reports, he has been on that neighborhood watch team for a long time and has made many 911 calls. Why did this one escalate so far above all the others. Assume he acted as he had in the past. Maybe the observed person did something different.
Thanks for you response.
Went to the trouble of registering with WordPress because of this.
AJ Strata. Why do you show a picture of a 14 year old boy as a header in this series?
I lost a daughter to drugs between the ages of 15 and 16 and you expect me to give you credibility when you say a 29 year old over weight male attacked a 17 year old six foot three male?
Bill S,
So sorry to hear about your loss. Hopefully you remember the good as well as the bad. Of course, this poor young man’s parents were going through a divorce, he was being moved out of his High School and away from friends.
As you probably agree, these kinds of family upheavals can wreak havoc with kids.
My point about the overweight 28 year old is how he naively believed the gun gave him license to harass a kid literally steps from where he was staying. Without the gun he would have ‘watched’ and not confronted. And Trayvon would be alive.