home

George Zimmerman: Bank Surveillance and New Discovery

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 08:37:00 AM EST
Tags: George Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

New Discovery will be out this morning in the George Zimmerman case. It may just be the audio tapes and/or transcripts of the 6 jail calls between George Zimmerman and his wife Shellie Zimmerman.

While we're waiting, here's a question: When the state filed its list of items included in the second round of discovery turned over to O'Mara last week, the list included surveillance video of M&I Bank on Feb. 26, 2012.

Many assumed, including me, it was video of Shellie Zimmerman when she was transferring money. But, it can't be: It was taken on Feb. 26, 2012, the day of the Trayvon Martin shooting, which was a Sunday, and the bank was closed. All that would have been open was an ATM. So what is the significance of the camera surveillance? Some ideas below: [More...]

George Zimmerman told police he was going to Target that night to go shopping. His father told investigators in a recorded interview in discovery that he goes shopping every Sunday night for groceries for the next week, that he even texted with his sister before he went.

Police would have questioned Zimmerman about his activities the entire day. Did he tell them he went to the ATM at M&I bank, which prompted them to get footage to check if he was there? Or did he not tell them he was there and learned through obtaining his bank records he was there, and then check the video to prove it, so they could claim an inconsistency in his statements?

Here's a map that includes Target, 7-11, M&I Bank and the entrance to Twin Lakes (bigger version here):

Is it possible Zimmerman had been to Target and the bank and was driving home from Target when he first saw Trayvon, who was walking back to Twin Lakes from 711 on Rinehart Rd? Did he see him use the cut through path between houses at the northwest, and then drive around the circle once following him, before he parked his truck to call the non-emergency number and report a suspicious person?

I think this is unlikely. According to Google Maps and directions, this is the route he would have taken -- but it seems to me he could turned right on Rinehart Rd from the bank to get to Target, or gone back that way as well. (Larger version here.)

While the M&I Bank is also on the same road as the 7-11, it is far east of it. I can't imagine Trayvon is in the video since I doubt he had an ATM card when he carried no other identification.

The state has said there are inconsistencies in Zimmerman's statements, but Zimmerman was emphatic during cross-examination at the bond hearing that he did not change his account of what happened when speaking to police. Since the state has to turn over exculpatory evidence, I don't think we can determine if the video is evidence that contradicts or confirms his account.

What relevance do you think the bank camera surveillance could have? You can also discuss other aspects of the discovery here.

< Sunday Open Thread | O'Mara Releases 6 Jail Calls, Seeks Reconsideration For Remainder >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    George Zimmerman: Bank Surveillance and New Discovery | 101 comments (101 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I find it annoying that commenters here (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 12:46:44 AM EST
    accuse the prosecution of trying to annoy by turning over discovery as required by the U.S. Constitution.  

    Maybe it's just unimformed folks (none / 0) (#13)
    by spectator on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 06:09:34 AM EST
    trying to understand "discovery" and the old "burying",  then making the mistake of commenting.

    Parent
    Well, the state did reduce the volume (none / 0) (#14)
    by cboldt on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 07:36:06 AM EST
    What's required to be turned over to a criminal defendant "by the US Constitution" (actually, by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83. S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963)) is all exculpatory evidence.

    The open book discovery process of Florida is, I believe, the result of statutory law.  There is tension between the personal privacy protections provided for in Article I, section 23 of the Florida Constitution, and the discovery process as it works in tandem with Florida's sunshine laws.  This tension is explored in the civil litigation process, in Berkeley v. Eisen, a 1997 Florida case.

    In the instant case, the state reduced its production from 151 calls to 6 calls, on the basis that 145 of the calls had no bearing on or relevance to either the murder charge against George Zimmerman, or the perjury charge against Shellie Zimmerman.

    FWIW, I too find many of the posts here annoying, but that's life on the internet.  That said, it appears to be a fact that the state agrees that it is sweeping irrelevant materials into discovery.

    Parent

    I too find many of the posts here annoying (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by lore hahn on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 09:06:23 AM EST
    I guess on this topic everybody is necessarily annoyed occasionally.

    Are you especially annoyed at people with no knowledge of US law, or with people that find it hard to believe that TM really endangered GZ's life?

    Parent

    The law be understood and properly applied (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by cboldt on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 09:18:03 AM EST
    -- Are you especially annoyed at people with no knowledge of US law, or with people that find it hard to believe that TM really endangered GZ's life? --

    I'm fine with ignorance, lack of knowledge, and so forth.  Doesn't bother me at all.  I guess a good example of what I find annoying would be to point to the press, rather than commenters here.  I'm annoyed that the photo of Martin is still that 12 year old in a Hollister shirt, and I was annoyed at the reporting that Zimmerman's head showed no injury (based on the grainy video).  I'm annoyed that the press does such a poor job of educating the public about the law (e.g., Crump says the law should not benefit an aggressor - well, that is the current condition of the law).

    As for "hard to believe that TM really endangered GZ's life?," the question in law is whether or not a reasonable person in Zimmerman's predicament would have feared death or serious injury.  Whether a the life or limb of a person who uses deadly force in self defense was in fact endangered ends up being irrelevant.


    Parent

    Crump (none / 0) (#20)
    by lore hahn on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 09:54:45 AM EST
    Personally I would prefer it, if Crump criticized in a factual and unemotional manner. From the little I saw, I found his partner Parks (?) a lot better.

    the question in law is whether or not a reasonable person in Zimmerman's predicament would have feared death or serious injury.

    I can easily imagine that Zimmerman will be acquitted based on US law. But considering the above, I can't help but have this phrase ringing in my ears:

    he's got his hand in his waistband

    Incidentally George is mirroring were his own gun is back at Trayvon Martin. It's this mirroring or George's state of suspicion that turns TM into a dangerous thug.

    Post 911 I was admittedly fascinated by US conspiracy theories; and as a close second mirroring, rooms full of mirrors. The core element is paranoia. So yes, at least to the extend I understand US laws, the wisdom of a law that ultimately may mix up paranoia with reality, surely can be questioned. So yes, I also can understand Crump's critique. But I can surely also see it would be enormously difficult to keep them apart in the real world. Additionally in a context without witnesses and with the supposedly suspicious and dangerous thug dead, it also seems a perfect scenario for "the perfect murder". All the perpetrator needs is fear for his life or alternatively pretend he did. I am by the way not suggesting this is the case here? But I also don't trust GZ's statement that he thought TM was "only slightly younger" than himself. What age do you need to carry a gun in Florida?

    Your cboldt could be pronounced like my real name, I am using my mother's maiden name here. ;)

    Parent

    All speculation, but I'll play too (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by cboldt on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 10:10:41 AM EST
    -- It's this mirroring or George's state of suspicion that turns TM into a dangerous thug. --

    I think Zimmerman thought Martin was a petty burglar, at worst.  If he thought Martin was bent on shooting him, he'd have been nuts to get out of his truck - instead he'd put it in gear and drive away.  IOW, I don't think Zimmerman thought Martin was a dangerous thug.

    Looking at how Zimmerman handled past issues of suspicion -- and recall the big deal made of his many calls to police -- provides insight into how he might handle this case of suspicion.

    I don't believe Zimmerman wanted to get close to Martin.  I don't believe he wanted to talk to Martin.  I think the extent of Zimmerman's interest was to keep Martin in view, or notice his direction of escape from the neighborhood; so Zimmerman could inform the police.

    Parent

    I agree.. (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by deanno on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 10:38:04 AM EST
    Zimmerman was on his way to Target and must have noticed something amiss with Martin. The idea that he chased or stalked him (knowing that the SPD could be coming around the corner any second) seems ridiculous to me.

    Since he called the cops he obviously wanted to keep an eye on the person he had called about.

    Parent

    This (none / 0) (#27)
    by lousy1 on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 10:24:29 AM EST
    Is speculation based on what we know now  - but well reasoned. I agree on all points.

    Parent
    I agree with this as the most likely scenario. (none / 0) (#30)
    by leftwig on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 10:44:36 AM EST
    I think this is what he most likely thought initially.  This thought likely changed at various points throughout the time when he first observed him until he pulled out his gun and shot Martin.  His statements to police should shed more light on how his thought process evolved that evening.  For example, a petty burglar likely wouldn't have come to "check him out" as he was sitting in his vehicle, or would have approached him as he was walking back to his vehicle and finally initiating an assault on him (noting this is Zimmermans account).  I imagine each of these events changed his perception.

    Parent
    As long as we're full of speculation (none / 0) (#31)
    by cboldt on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 11:04:41 AM EST
    -- For example, a petty burglar likely wouldn't have come to "check him out" as he was sitting in his vehicle, or would have approached him as he was walking back to his vehicle and finally initiating an assault on him --

    From Zimmerman's perspective, he sees an arrogant punk, maybe casing the neighborhood.  I think he'll agree with the state's theory here, that he thinks of Martin as a f'n punk.  The fact that this punk visually challenged him (stare, hands in waistband) doesn't necessarily cause Zimmerman to change his mind to, "oh, this can't be a would-be burglar."

    I think Zimmerman was surprised out of his shorts by Martin appearing so close, and Martin initiating verbal contact.  First the guy runs away, and eludes visual contact.  Oh well, "they always get away."  Then he appears!  So yeah, at this point Zimmerman probably doesn't know what to think, and likely "burglar or not" isn't part of his immediate calculus.

    Maybe he reaches for his phone; maybe he reaches to grab and restrain Martin.  I'll go back to Zimmerman's past conduct when calling suspicion into police, and find it more likely that not that Zimmerman is averse to making more than visual contact with those he is suspicious of.  But maybe, believing the police are on the way, he decides to hold Martin, and that unlawful use of force set off a violent chain reaction.

    Parent

    On what basis (none / 0) (#33)
    by Leopold on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 11:11:50 AM EST
    would Trayvon Martin be seen as an 'arrogant punk' and/or 'maybe casing the neighborhood'?

    Parent
    On this basis (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by cboldt on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 11:22:28 AM EST
    The basis for seeing him as "maybe casing the neighborhood" is slow or aimless presence.  Assuming it's raining, a resident, if out walking about, would be moving purposefully toward his home.

    The basis for seeing him as an "arrogant punk" is taking the above suspicion, and coupling it with Martin stopping to stare, making that visual challenge of hands in the waistband, then running to elude visual contact.

    There is a progression during the course of Zimmerman's call to SPD, from "suspicious person," to "f'n punks, they always get away."  I attribute the progression to Martin's reactions to being watched.

    Parent

    I attribute the "progression" ... (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Yman on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 12:23:51 PM EST
    ... to Zimmerman's mental state.

    The basis for seeing him as "maybe casing the neighborhood" is slow or aimless presence.  Assuming it's raining, a resident, if out walking about, would be moving purposefully toward his home.

    Or, they're taking shelter from the rain (shelter mailboxes), then trying to figure out what to do when a stranger is watching them.

    The basis for seeing him as an "arrogant punk" is taking the above suspicion, and coupling it with Martin stopping to stare, making that visual challenge of hands in the waistband, then running to elude visual contact.

    Staring back at someone who is watching you makes you worthy of being labeled an "arrogant punk"?  Walking with your hands in your waistband is a "visual challenge"?  Running away from the stranger watching you is the mark of an "arrogant punk"? - (although, given that Zimmerman had already concluded that Martin was one of the "@$$holes" that "always get away" even before Martin ran away, I'm not sure how much influence Martin's reaction had on Zimmerman's conclusions).

    Well, ... at least it's okay to walk with something in your hand.

    IMO, leaping to those conclusions about actions (or reactions) that are perfectly reasonable says much more about the person drawing those conclusions than the actions of the "arrogant punk".

    BTW - When did Zimmerman claim that Martin was "stopping to stare".  It does make it sound more challenging/threatening than simply staring back at someone watching you, ...

    ... but not as accurate.

    Parent

    The consequences of bias (none / 0) (#53)
    by cboldt on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 12:40:26 PM EST
    -- Staring back at someone who is watching you makes you worthy of being labeled an "arrogant punk"? --

    Well, the "punk" part probably depends on their age, appearance, etc.  I probably would call an old man a "punk."  But yeah, staring is unusual behavior.  If you can assign Martin the right to see Zimmerman as arrogant, etc. for staring, the same works the other way.

    -- I'm not sure how much influence Martin's reaction had on Zimmerman's conclusions --

    I think it's fair to assign bias to Zimmerman.  He admits it.  "We've had some burglaries, there's a suspicious guy."  Martin's actions certainly wouldn't go toward ameliorating Zimmerman's suspicion.  Martin coulda given a friendly wave to the nice dude watching him.  That's what I do to the loss prevention folks at the department stores.  Smile and a wave, and go about my business.

    -- leaping to those conclusions about actions (or reactions) that are perfectly reasonable says much more about the person drawing those conclusions than the actions of the "arrogant punk". --

    That one swings both ways too, eh?

    Parent

    Except (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Yman on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 03:14:32 PM EST
    -- Staring back at someone who is watching you makes you worthy of being labeled an "arrogant punk"? --

    Well, the "punk" part probably depends on their age, appearance, etc.  I probably would call an old man a "punk."  But yeah, staring is unusual behavior.  If you can assign Martin the right to see Zimmerman as arrogant, etc. for staring, the same works the other way.

    ... I wasn't "assigning a right" to anyone.  I was pointing out that it would be strange for Zimmerman to characterize Martin's looking back at him as the act of an "arrogant punk" (or, at the very least, extremely hypocritical), given that Zimmerman was looking at Martin for some period of time before he says Martin is "staring" at him.

    -- I'm not sure how much influence Martin's reaction had on Zimmerman's conclusions --

    I think it's fair to assign bias to Zimmerman.  He admits it.  "We've had some burglaries, there's a suspicious guy."  Martin's actions certainly wouldn't go toward ameliorating Zimmerman's suspicion.  Martin coulda given a friendly wave to the nice dude watching him.  That's what I do to the loss prevention folks at the department stores.  Smile and a wave, and go about my business.

    A lot easier to do that in a public department store with security people that you have identified as security people, than a stranger watching you alone at night.  More importantly, it would be pretty amazing if Zimmerman was basing his conclusion ("These @$$holes.  They always get away") on Martin's running away, given that he said this before Martin ran.  You could try to make the argument that his "fu@king punks" statement was based in part on Martin's running, but Zimmerman had already concluded that Martin was one of "These @$$holes.  They always get away." before he saw him run.


    -- leaping to those conclusions about actions (or reactions) that are perfectly reasonable says much more about the person drawing those conclusions than the actions of the "arrogant punk". --

    That one swings both ways too, eh?

    Probably, although if the person is carrying a gun, they should be particularly careful about jumping to conclusions.  Moreover, I wouldn't try to justify someone's "arrogant punk" conclusions based upon someone staring back at them (not "stopping to stare"), walking with their hands in their waistband, or for running away from a stranger watching them at night - particularly since Zimmerman had already decided Martin was one of those "f@cking @$$holes" who "always get away" even before Martin took the "arrogant" decision to run away.

    Parent

    So what if he's a hypocrit? (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by cboldt on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 04:37:29 PM EST
    -- I was pointing out that it would be strange for Zimmerman to characterize Martin's looking back at him as the act of an "arrogant punk" (or, at the very least, extremely hypocritical), given that Zimmerman was looking at Martin for some period of time before he says Martin is "staring" at him. --

    So, can't it be strange for Martin to jump to an incorrect conclusion?  Not saying he did, just saying that your lens ought to be capable of looking both ways.

    -- Moreover, I wouldn't try to justify someone's "arrogant punk" conclusions based upon someone staring back at them (not "stopping to stare"), walking with their hands in their waistband, or for running away from a stranger watching them at night --

    Yes, you've made that clear.  You have concluded that Zimmerman was in the wrong.  My point is that you've done so somewhat in hindsight, and without giving Zimmerman the same benefit of human reaction that you give to Martin.

    As you can read from my remarks, my opposite conclusion is based on Zimmerman being biased in favor of looking out for burglars, and suspecting that Martin might have burglary on his mind.  That bias is reflected in his "always get away" remark.  Martin running away reinforces the bias.

    All of that is independent of Zimmerman being armed.

    Do you think that if Martin had given a friendly wave, things would have turned out differently?  Serino assigns responsibility to Zimmerman for not being friendly enough, and I think that same standard should be swung both ways too.  If Martin coulda prevented the outcome, why not blame him?

    Parent

    Maybe because TM was still a minor? (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by Mary2012 on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 07:41:54 PM EST
    Serino assigns responsibility to Zimmerman for not being friendly enough, and I think that same standard should be swung both ways too.  If Martin coulda prevented the outcome, why not blame him?

    GZ was a good 11 yrs older than TM and it doesn't appear it once even entered GZ's mind that perhaps he'd profiled TM incorrectly.  Don't we still expect more from adults? or has that all gone by the wayside with the "profiling" of male teenagers?

    Still, after it all & before the scuffle, TM was adult enough to ask the "crazy" man (TM's description of GZ) a question.  No one here seems to acknowledge it was very adult of him to do so (if this is how it happened) and he deserved an answer to his question.  I agree with Investigator Serino and I'm sure I'm not the only one.  
     

    Parent

    Not sure I understand profiled incorrectly. (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by leftwig on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 07:58:54 PM EST

    I mean I know its an assumption, but it looks that the most likely scenario has Martin starting an assault on Zimmerman after running, then returning to confront him, so I'd say his profile seemed pretty accurate.  We don't know why Martin ran and we don't know why he returned to the area he ran from, but there seems to be little doubt the first exchange between the two occurred in the open at the 'T' back where he first ran from.

    Parent
    Profiled incorrectly... (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Mary2012 on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 01:29:29 AM EST
    What I'm saying is GZ was mistaken in his profiling of TM: he has no criminal record and was not on the verge of burglarizing anyone's home: all he had on him was his phone and 7-11 purchases and there's no evidence he was "casing" homes.  I don't even think GZ used those words on his non-emergency call but maybe I missed it?  

    What you have is supposedly GZs account of what happened (and we really don't know yet exactly what he told the police re how it all happened), so we really don't know yet, what actually happened.

    IMO, having seen both of TM's parents and hearing them speak, observing them different times they appeared on tv (including the bond hearing), their demeanor, etc., correctly or incorrectly, I have no trouble believing TM asked GZ, "Why are you following me?" Others may disagree but I find it very believable.

       

    Parent

    Minors can't prevent outcomes? (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by cboldt on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 08:39:02 PM EST
    -- GZ was a good 11 yrs older than TM and it doesn't appear it once even entered GZ's mind that perhaps he'd profiled TM incorrectly. --

    But, if Martin had given a smile and a wave, instead of running off, it coulda turned out different.  Maybe Zimmerman never gets out of his truck.  The act of running seems to be a pivot point in the chain of events.

    -- TM was adult enough to ask the "crazy" man (TM's description of GZ) a question. --

    But it never gets to that point, if Martin doesn't run; or, in the alternative, if Martin runs, eludes, then doesn't present himself to Zimmerman.

    Serino's standard, which you expressly adopt, appears to be one-sided.  If we are going to assign legal actions (watching, staring, following, getting out of a truck) as the basis for finding an outcome to be criminal, the standard of "coulda prevented the outcome" should be applied to both actors (let's look at running, coming close enough to initiate a conversation, etc.), not just one of them.

    Parent

    We don't know what happened and the only (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Mary2012 on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 12:48:36 AM EST
    account we have right now from GZ are the accounts offered up by his surrogates.

    But, if Martin had given a smile and a wave, ...

    Maybe TM did that initially or started to do that initially when they first crossed paths as he entered the Retreat using the popular short-cut and it was met with an icy glare or apparent mean-ness and/ or threatening-like look of some kind.  Put yourself in GZ's shoes -- how do you think he'd look at someone he suspected might be/ was a burglar thug entering his retreat on your (his) 'watch'?  We just don't know what happened.

    ----------

    Maybe Zimmerman never gets out of his truck.  The act of running seems to be a pivot point in the chain of events.

    I don't know (re "pivot point") -- the way I'm looking at it currently, GZ's pivot point of no return was his seeing TM; end of story, imo.  TM asks him a question (this all speculation here of course) and it never enters GZ's mind "How many real criminals would walk up to the person following them and ask such a question?" and once closer to GZ, TM supposedly looked somehow "older" to GZ but he never said "maybe my whole profile of this 'kid' is off".  He gets all nervous while still in his truck; you almost expect to hear the person approaching GZ to attack him somehow, but, instead, TM takes off, away from GZ.  To me, that sort of speaks volumes, at least potentially. And yet, GZ continues on, on the same track.

    If TM had tried a smile and wave at the point you suggest (instead of running off), GZ might have taken it as some kind of taunt, wouldn't you think?

    I'm quite curious to see how GZ described TM's "suspiciousness" because one thing he might not have taken into account as he talked with investigators the night of the shooting, is that TM wasn't a criminal.

    -------------

    Serino's standard, which you expressly adopt, appears to be one-sided.  If we are going to assign legal actions (watching, staring, following, getting out of a truck) as the basis for finding an outcome to be criminal, the standard of "coulda prevented the outcome" should be applied to both actors (let's look at running, coming close enough to initiate a conversation, etc.), not just one of them.

    The problem I have with this line of thinking (just above) is who wouldn't be susceptible if tracked down, provoked/ threatened sufficiently enough to fight to defend themselves, and then shot to death in the name of "self-defense"?  Would you want that to happen to yourself or someone in your family? (rhetorical questions of course)

    I do not see Serino's standard as "one-sided".  I'd describe it more as appropriately weighting each side.  GZ was a member (captain?) of his neighborhood watch group and as such, imo, he had an added responsibility in this situation. He (GZ) should have known this; it is something he should have known. He was also armed.  Yet another responsibility and therefore carries a greater "weight"/ responsibility in what happened.  Aren't police officers held to a higher standard (i.e., greater weight is place on them)?  I would imagine neighborhood watch would be held to a higher standard in a case such as this -- perhaps not as great as that of a police officer, but, at least to some degree I would think.  

    TM was a minor still living at home with his parents and was unarmed and trying to get back home from the store while talking on his hands-free phone with a good female friend from school.  

    They (TM & GZ) are not really "equals" in what happened and/ or as they each approached what happened that night.  And we don't know that he (TM) doubled-back or that he was lying in wait for GZ.  That's GZ's story (that TM either doubled back or lay in wait) supposedly (we don't know yet what he actually said) but we really don't know if that's how it actually happened.  

           

    Parent

    Minor with no history of violence AFAIK (none / 0) (#83)
    by WentAway on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 01:53:05 AM EST
    My problem lies with the difference in age as well.
    M turned 17 three-weeks prior to being killed.
    AFAIK he didn't grow up in a thug neighborhood.  His brother is in college. Z had a couple scrapes and was the guy with the gun.  However, I do see the logic of, why would Z call the cops if he was going to kill M?  I just don't know if Z could ever be so frustrated w/ crimes, etc. that he would  play rope-a-dope unless he flipped out "He was mad as hell and he wasn't going to take it anymore". Paraphrasing F. Taaffe.   Either a 17 yr old flipped out b/c he was pissed that a guy looked at or followed him, or a 28 yr old snapped.  Either or, IMO.  It's a shame the FBI lab could not determine who was yelling for help.  
             

    Parent
    They are strangers to each other (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by cboldt on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 04:45:27 AM EST
    -- Minor with no history of violence AFAIK --

    Past history isn't relevant to Zimmerman's perception, nor is it relevant to Martin's perception.  They are strangers to each other.

    Zimmerman starts out with a bias of watching for suspicious activity.  Something in Martin's actions catch his attention, and the prosecutor's notice that Martin was there legally and wasn't committing a crime doesn't do much to rebut Zimmerman's basis for suspicion.  I can be in a place legally, and commit no crime, and draw all sorts of suspicion.

    -- Either a 17 yr old flipped out b/c he was pissed that a guy looked at or followed him, or a 28 yr old snapped.  Either or, IMO. --

    I agree that highly more likely than not, only one of the was was a criminal that night; that it's probably not a mixed bag of both being criminals.  I don't see any need to assign anger to Martin, although if he administered the beating Zimmerman accuses him of, then anger seems to be the most likely emotion.

    Appearances and perceptions can be deceiving, and we humans are susceptible to being deceived.  I'm thinking "Eddie Haskell" and Mrs. Cleaver's beliefs about him.  I don't find it a matter of remote possibility, that Martin had a bit of repressed anger, "tough guy," or other attribute that would allow him to beat on a stranger, in a strange place, where he believes has little chance of being caught, or losing a fight.  By the time their relationship gets physical, Martin knows whether or not he can outrun Zimmerman, if Zimmerman proves to be a tough match.

    I don't know Zimmerman, but generally, any streak of adolescent male anger and "tough guy" attitude dissipates with age.  Zimmerman was mentoring teens, was concerned about his neighbors and their property, and was comfortable being in regular contact with police authorities.

    Which of those two is more likely to "start something" more than an exchange of words?  Even setting aside the fact you remarked about, that Zimmerman had called the police.

    -- It's a shame the FBI lab could not determine who was yelling for help. --

    How much evidence do you need to figure that one out?  Either Martin held Zimmerman at a disadvantage for over half a minute (with Zimmerman screaming for help), or Zimmerman held Martin at a disadvantage for over half a minute (with Martin screaming for help).  What's the evidence that Zimmerman somehow "held" Martin (scare quotes, because in principle, the holding could have been at gunpoint) for over half a minute, concluding with shooting him?  To the best of my knowledge, the only evidence for that is Sybrina's statement that the voice yelling for help is Martin's.

    Parent

    Who is likely to "start something"? (none / 0) (#123)
    by WentAway on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 10:35:47 PM EST
    Considering your entire post...I would lean towards Martin. At this point, I would vote not guilty.  Do you believe Serino's suspicions were valid enough to meet PC?  I don't know how to block quote.

    IIRC, it was Martin's father who initially said "it was not his son yelling for help."  Then he changed his mind after he, Sabrina, and maybe Crump heard the tapes at city hall or wherever it was.  I agree with you, that casts doubt whether it was truly Martin yelling for help.  Thanks for your insight.  

    Parent

    Block Quoting (none / 0) (#124)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 10:59:50 PM EST
    There are two ways to block quote.

    At the top of the comment box is a row of six icons. The last one is a pair of quote marks. Highlight text, click icon.

    The other is to precede the text with the word 'blockquote' inside arrow brackets '<>'. Follow with '/blockquote', also in arrow brackets. You will see what this looks like if you use the first method.

    Parent

    Serino's suspicions (none / 0) (#125)
    by cboldt on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 02:49:55 AM EST
    -- Do you believe Serino's suspicions were valid enough to meet PC? --

    I believe that Serino accepted Zimmerman's account, and still recommended charging Zimmerman.  I think pages 26 & 27 of the 183 page document dump are the Serino Affidavit that Matt Gutman described.  In that "affidavit," the SPD communicates to the State Attorney that it (SPD) believes there is probable cause to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter.

    The basis for the charge (remember that SPD is accepting Zimmerman's account as true, but Corey rejects Zimmerman's account as false) was that Zimmerman could have broken the chain of events by not getting out of his truck, or by identifying himself to Martin as a concerned citizen and initiated dialog in an effort to dispel each party's concerns.

    Do I believe that is valid enough to produce probable cause?  No, I don't.  If the legal standard is "could have broken the chain of events," (that is not the legal standard - but plenty of people have adopted it as the legal standard that governs conduct) then that legal standard needs to be applied to both parties, not just to one of them.

    Parent

    Mary2012 (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by ZtoA on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 09:15:24 PM EST
    No you are not the only one. But views like yours get censored on this site at this point in time. Apparently if one appears to be arguing for justice or even a full view of evidence then one is arguing against the defense. Not my view, but, whatever.

    Nonetheless, I agree that the verbal exchange between the two has been dismissed or worse. Usually the response is some sort of "hey teenagers can cause harm, so there!". Fine. So can toddlers. Not really the point. Or the response is that it does not count. IRL it counts.

    Parent

    That alleged question is only one version (none / 0) (#72)
    by Redbrow on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 08:03:41 PM EST
    Zimmerman's father told an Orlando TV station that it went more like, "Do you have a f----ing problem?"

    Tracy Martin recalls what Serino said: "Trayvon walks off. Zimmerman said he started running between the buildings. Zimmerman gets out of his car. He comes around the building. Trayvon is hiding behind the building, waiting on him. Trayvon approaches him and says, `What's your problem, homes?' Zimmerman says `I don't have a problem.'

    Parent

    Zimmerman's Father and Serino (none / 0) (#98)
    by miloh on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 12:04:20 AM EST
    . . . are just quoting Zimmerman.  The accused murderer's story.  It doesn't jive with TM girl friend's ear witness account.

    Parent
    Yep, there are different versions re what happened (none / 0) (#105)
    by Mary2012 on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 01:50:23 AM EST
    that night.  It would seem the question or one of the questions would be, which one is more believable?

    Parent
    I did not know if he was armed or not (none / 0) (#81)
    by WentAway on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 01:18:58 AM EST
    Any thoughts wrt O'Mara's strategy?  My first thought was the statement was added because Z may have told O'Mara he had brandished his weapon, or maybe that he had his hand on his holster as he walked about.  Other than this just in case scenario, I don't have a clue as to why Z made the statement.  Thanks...

    Parent
    In his apology Zimmerman... (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Gandydancer on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 08:52:01 AM EST
    ...answered exactly and only the questions Martin's mother had said she wanted the answers to when asked by an interviewer what questions she would ask if she could. One of the questions was whether Zimmerman knew if Trayvon was armed. Another was if he knew how old Trayvon was.

    Parent
    Exactly! (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Redbrow on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 03:18:28 PM EST
    Asked what she would like to ask to Zimmerman, Trayvon's mother, Sybrina Fulton, said on The Today Show that she wants an apology from him.

    "I believe it was an accident. I believe it just got out of control and he couldn't turn the clock back," Fulton said, revealing her opinion about what happened the night her 17-year-old son was shot to death. "I would ask him, did he know that that was a minor, that that was a teenager and that he did not have a weapon."

    Parent

    But Zimmerman Had Already Identified TM as a Teen (5.00 / 0) (#101)
    by miloh on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 12:13:10 AM EST
    So he changed his story and, for many of us, lost more credibility.  
    And if he had any notion that TM was armed, why on earth would he chase after him?

    Parent
    @miloh: You are missing the point. (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Gandydancer on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 01:22:28 PM EST
    Namely that GZ didn't volunteer his opinion of whether TM was armed without being asked. This echos the criticism of him for saying TM was black when he'd been asked exactly that question. If you don't think it was a sensible question, then you're directing your criticism at the wrong person.

    And his opinion of how old TM was, when he saw him at a distance and grouped him with the other teenagers who'd been robbing homes in Twin Lakes, may have changed when TM turned out on closer inspection to be rather larger than expected, and homicidally capable and inclined. "A bit younger than me" doesn't seem to be a "changed story" so much as a changed mind, and if it cost him credibility with you... well, frankly, I suspect he had none, with you, to lose, and your implying otherwise doesn't do much for yours.

    Parent

    teen... (none / 0) (#106)
    by Redbrow on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 03:11:30 AM EST
    as in eightTEEN or nineTEEN?

    Parent
    this is true (none / 0) (#87)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 11:49:57 AM EST
    I'm surprised it took so long for someone to point it out here. Thanks, Gandy

    Parent
    Sybrina Fulton's Questions (none / 0) (#90)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 02:48:21 PM EST
    This has been mentioned here on an earlier thread. I don't recall which one.

    Parent
    Apology answered Sybrina Fulton's questions (none / 0) (#122)
    by WentAway on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 09:53:45 PM EST
    Thank you.

    Parent
    Uncertainy about Martin's capabilities (none / 0) (#85)
    by cboldt on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 05:09:24 AM EST
    -- "I did not know if he was armed or not" --

    I don't think this remark by Zimmerman is evidence for any sort of O'Mara strategy.  I think it's Zimmerman talking, and (we'll see soon) I speculate that this remark was a part of his account to police, as well.

    In the universe of self defense cases, there are numerous instances where a reasonable belief was formed that the decedent was armed, and that belief justified the use of deadly force, even though it  turned out that the decedent was unarmed.

    If the judge or jury finds that Zimmerman reasonably forms a suspicion that Martin might have a knife or a gun, based on something Martin says or does, it benefits Zimmerman's case.  The law give a person the right to use deadly force, based on reasonably having fear of imminent harm.  In general, one more easily obtains this fear if one is aware of or suspects the opponent to be armed with a weapon.

    Pure speculation on my part as to the observations that lead Zimmerman to this question in his own mind ... if we believe Zimmerman was held against his will for over half a minute, and was hit in the face, and had his head slammed against the ground; and if we believe he yelled for help but nobody came to help him; then he might start to wonder what advantage this guy has, other than muscles and reach.  "How does he dare to carry on like this?  What's he gonna do if a few neighbors come out to get revenge?"

    A few seconds later (forming the suspicion late), near the end of the fight, Martin might have said and/or done something to trigger the wonder.  "I'm going to kill you now" or "You're going to die tonight" while backing off would work for me - he's backing off to go for a weapon.  Same words while reaching into a pocket, or waistband might trigger the suspicion.

    Or, Zimmerman may have had the suspicion from early on, before the fight even started.  If so, it would go toward his aversion to maintaining any more than distant visual contact; and would definitely cut against him exercising any urge he might have had to physically restrain Martin against Martin's will.

    Covered lots of ground in that post, not sure if it even comes close to touching on your "why?" question.

    Parent

    arrogance and staring (none / 0) (#60)
    by lore hahn on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 02:07:57 PM EST
    If you can assign Martin the right to see Zimmerman as arrogant, etc. for staring, the same works the other way.

    I don't know how Martin looked, neither do you. All I can say is that Zimmerman perceives it as staring.

    Both staring and arrogance are in the eyes of the beholder, beyond that they are very imprecise terms. Staring could simply mean Trayvon looked his way and that Zimmerman in fact felt discovered or observed, incidentally exactly what he did.

    That one swings both ways too, eh?

    You've clearly never been under unjustified suspicious inspection apart from the prevention staff at an department store. It's a peculiar state believe me, it makes you aware of the very simple fact that whatever you do now may in fact be something expected or interpreted in a specific unfavorite way. Even if you aren't told you sense there is something going on around you and for whatever reason you seem at the center. Suspicion looks for confirmation, it creates a very peculiar connection between you and the suspicious mind.

    The case between you and the person at the department store is too simple. There you have all the information you need, you know what it is all about. You can act accordingly. But if you are confronted with suspicion you often are not told what its source is, all these things can  happen behind your back, you only register it in the shape of peculiar behavior.

    Do you think Martin knew this guy called police because of burglaries on the premises and that he suspected him?

    Parent

    Don't give either one more rights than the other (none / 0) (#63)
    by cboldt on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 03:06:00 PM EST
    -- You've clearly never been under unjustified suspicious inspection apart from the prevention staff at an department store. --

    ROTFL.  You don't know me, you don't know my life experience, and without sharing it with you, I'll just assert you are flat wrong that I've never been stared at as a "suspicious person," or as a "target of opportunity."

    My point was just that if you assign Martin the right to be angry, afraid, or whatever feelings you favor giving him for being stared at, if you are going to be fair, you need to assign Zimmerman exactly the same right.

    That's not to say they "stared at each other equally" or would have the same feelings.  Just that whatever unease any one of us is entitled to at being observed, whatever unease Martin is entitled to, Zimmerman is entitled to it too.  Otherwise, you are not applying your rule evenly.

    What gives Martin any more right to stare at Zimmerman, than Zimmerman has to stare at Martin?  They are both suspicious of each other, they both stare.

    -- Do you think Martin knew this guy called police because of burglaries on the premises and that he suspected him? --

    I don't think Martin knew or even thought that Zimmerman had called the police.  I think if Martin knew the police were involved as he was looking at Zimmerman, he would have acted differently.

    I don't know if Martin was aware of the uptick in petty crime in the neighborhood; and don't have a clue what his attitude toward that would have been, if he did know it.

    Parent

    ROTFL. You don't know me (none / 0) (#78)
    by lore hahn on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 11:19:17 PM EST
    cboldt, since it made you roll on the floor, strictly I do not need to excuse? Well I do anyway.

    I don't know if Martin was aware of the uptick in petty crime in the neighborhood; and don't have a clue what his attitude toward that would have been, if he did know it.

    That's something that obviously was on my mind too. A leaflet with some kind of mug shot of GZ for visitors would have helped a lot.  Some black kids/teen report having felt uncomfortable, one, the witness with the dog(?), was harassed when a bicycle disappeared. Strictly the Ms Green's son could know something about it ;)

    This is something I tried to find out more about.

    12 Feb Retreat @ Twin Lakes Retreat @ Twin Lakes ‏@RTL_News

    Our Neighborhood Watch leads to four arrests in burglaries in the RTL. Great job!

    Unfortunately the special operations SPD Sergeant didn't answer me after he agreed that none of the arrests happened with GZ's help, only confirming what we already know. Were there more arrests?

    Will there be more:

    Count of Incident Reports for Retreat at Twin Lakes 3/15/2010 - 3/14/2012 (2 pages)
    Hardly, 2 pages?

    Pressure to succeed while laboring on the last two credits?

    Parent

    What is "helped arrest"? (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by cboldt on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 12:05:17 AM EST
    -- Unfortunately the special operations SPD Sergeant didn't answer me after he agreed that none of the arrests happened with GZ's help --

    Zimmerman was averse to talking to the people he called the cops on.  Naturally, if he doesn't want to get close enough to talk to them, he won't want to get close enough to arrest them.

    But, he did observe some kids, reported them to police, and it turned out that one of them had possession of a computer stolen from a residence.  He didn't help arrest the kid though.

    You also remarked abut 2 pages of incident reports.  I don't know what an incident report is, or what it takes to obtain the exalted status of "incident report" but I seem to recall that Zimmerman made a small fraction of the calls to police that came from Retreat at Twin Lakes, that there had been a shooting, a few burglaries, and assorted other interesting action in the past 2 years or so.

    Over the course of nearly eight years, Zimmerman made at least forty-six 911 and non-emergency calls to the  police department in Sanford, Florida ... According to the Miami Herald, police were called to Twin Lakes 402 times in the 13 months before Martin's death.

    -- Pressure to succeed while laboring on the last two credits? --

    Aha!  That's it!

    Well, good thing I'm not under that pressure.  My neighbors are on their own.  I won't look out for them, too much risk.  See no evil, hear no evil, that's my motto.

    Parent

    Assuming it's raining... (none / 0) (#80)
    by unitron on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 12:37:30 AM EST
    ...a resident might very well get under the overhang at the mailboxes to wait for it to slack off some instead of unnecessarily getting drenched.

    Parent
    On the basis that it seems to fit (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 11:50:10 AM EST
    better with the end game of George Zimmerman being justified in shooting Martin.

    At least, that's the way it appears to me, because when it comes to speculating in any way that isn't favorable to Zimmerman, suddenly, these same people's imaginations just desert them altogether.

    Parent

    Not that his happened (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by cboldt on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 12:02:54 PM EST
    So, if somebody does a stare-down on you, you don't get some sort of negative impression of their attitude?  Just wondering.  How about (not that this happened) somebody gives you the finger while staring at you?

    The only reason I feel comfortable with the speculation I'm making is that it has the support of some evidence, granted, it's Zimmerman talking, but it isn't pure imagination.

    What's the evidence that Zimmerman's motive was evil?  That he got out of his truck?  That he called the cops?  Why can't Zimmerman be credited with having a decent motive through part of the events?

    The way it appears to me, some people have a hard time crediting Zimmerman, because when it comes to speculating in any way that is favorable to Zimmerman, suddenly, these same people's imaginations just desert them altogether.

    What if Zimmerman is telling the truth?  Does he deserve to be hated and hunted down, driven from his home?

    Parent

    If you were going to produce an (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by lousy1 on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 09:02:02 PM EST
    elaborate charade in order to kill someone. Wouldn't you shoot the victim, plant a weapon and then call the cops?

    It boggles the mind that someone would call the police; engage in a witnessed confrontation and then execute someone.

    How would he know what was witnessed? How would he know he wouldn't end up on the wrong end of the fight?


    Parent

    That can be arranged (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by cboldt on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 09:23:32 PM EST
    -- How would he know what was witnessed? How would he know he wouldn't end up on the wrong end of the fight? --

    Use more imagination.  The possibilities are nearly endless.  You control the outcome of the fight by throwing it, knowing that you have an ace up your sleeve.  You take a beating, to produce injury evidence for your bogus self-defense claim, then, just before the cops get to the scene, you stop the rope-a-dope, pull the gun, and viola, mission accomplished.

    Of course, you have to pick a victim that will beat you, and scream help for you.

    Parent

    How sublime? (none / 0) (#77)
    by lousy1 on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 10:31:28 PM EST
    :)

    Parent
    "That [Zimmerman] called the cops?" (none / 0) (#59)
    by lore hahn on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 01:21:14 PM EST
    What makes you believe Martin was a clairvoyant? If he was, I don't think he would be dead by now. In that case he surely would have gone back as fast as he could.

    Or are you suggesting Martin overheard the call. How do you know?


    Parent

    Not what Martin thought - what the public thinks (none / 0) (#62)
    by cboldt on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 02:48:36 PM EST
    -- That [Zimmerman] called the cops? - What makes you believe Martin was a clairvoyant? --

    I was asking the rhetorical question about what we in the peanut gallery observe, that can reasonably be used to impute "evil motive" to Zimmerman.  The prosecutor assigns evil motive to Zimmerman.  I'm asking for the evidence to support that finding.

    Parent

    We are speculating what Zimmerman thought (3.00 / 3) (#49)
    by leftwig on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 12:31:45 PM EST
    Zimmerman called the police because of behavior he believed was "suspicious" or out of the norm.  He says he saw someone meandering in the rain next to houses and that Martin might be on drugs.  I think its logical to think he called the police because this teen was not acting like a resident would and walking close to buildings would raise suspicion of not belonging to something more nefarious (like casing some places).

    I guess we could speculate that Zimmerman calling police was to provide a cover for "chasing/hunting" Martin down, but to prove this theory, you'd need evidence that doesn't appear to exist.  Seems to me the evidence available supports cbodlt's proposition that Zimmerman was attempting to keep sight of Martin to help police find him when they arrived.  I don't think any reasonable person believes Zimmerman walked Martin down and cornered him into a confrontation given how dark it was, how open of an area this took place in and where the confrontation began.

    Parent

    one of the nost likely scenarios (none / 0) (#42)
    by lore hahn on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 11:59:39 AM EST
    But maybe, believing the police are on the way, he decides to hold Martin, and that unlawful use of force set off a violent chain reaction.

    I agree, that's one of the most likely scenarios.

    I wouldn't completely rule out either than Martin indeed now in turn started to watch the "suspicious" man.  He may have wanted to train his perception. Was this man really watching him as it felt, and why? I mean parking his car somewhere and then walking or running in a different direction would raise my suspicion too. I may even want to run myself for a short time to watch the results.

    Admittedly I hoped that DeeDee would say something similar. If you are not in the same situation, you usually don't trust what the other side tells you. It somehow feels with 15/16 it would have raise  my curiosity. Are you sure, what is he doing? How does he look like? But I am not a black teenager in Florida in 2012.

    Of course it would completely change the picture if Trayvon noticed Zimmerman before. In that case he surely knew this guy was suspicious, the only problem he would have in that case, is to come up with the correct explanation, and it seems Zimmerman didn't give him a chance to understand. I think that is pretty obvious.

    Another scenario of course is, Martin slowed down and chatted with DeeDee, without realizing that Zimmerman was indeed still looking for him.

    I stop to babble now, but interesting discussion here. ;)

    Parent

    "check me out" (none / 0) (#36)
    by lore hahn on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 11:36:00 AM EST
    For example, a petty burglar likely wouldn't have come to "check him out"

    I agree, Martin had to somehow pass Zimmerman, if I didn't want to use a much more unlikely path home, with the additional problem that the houses look the same everywhere, which may result in  walking in circles.

    Let's take that scenario. Zimmerman has parked his car and is on a phone, wouldn't you wonder if you were Martin: What's his business is? I am wondering in cases like this.

    The highest percentage of people parking somewhere would be they either live there, or visit someone, or intend to pick someone up. The last scenario may result in something happening in the house, e.g. a light is turned out. Someone waves at the person, signalling I am coming or give me a second. If you are expecting someone to pick you up, you may not even pick up the phone but look outside if his car is parked there.

    We respond almost automatically to these signals, we may even scan the houses also automatically to look for connections.

    We had some burglaries too, I instinctively react to people on a cell phone, especially when seemingly used as camouflage, e.g. if someone does not talk but uses the tool to be able to slow down his pace enormously. I would want to check that person out too. But I simply ask them before bothering police. Some people don't like being watched.

    Besides, did you ever turn around since you felt someone is watching you from behind your back, and it turns out to be in fact the case? Paranoia like overeating kills natural responses due to overload, almost everything around you suddenly can be read as suspicious.

    Parent

    As long as we're playing coulda shoulda (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by cboldt on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 11:48:01 AM EST
    -- Some people don't like being watched. --

    I figure most people don't like being watched.  I don't like it, that's for sure.

    In the spirit of assigning "coulda shoulda" equally to everybody in society (like we apply the law, but on a "less than illegal" level), Martin coulda skipped that stare and hand in the waistband act; and coulda just walked home.  Or, if he's worried the guy looking at him poses a threat (seems not to be the case, given the stare and waistband thing; but maybe false bravado), he coulda kept walking right out of the neighborhood so as to not give up his home.

    If it is Martin's initiative to get close enough to start a conversation, he coulda skipped that.  If he had, none of this woulda happened.

    Parent

    stare isn't a neutral discription (none / 0) (#51)
    by lore hahn on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 12:38:23 PM EST
    Martin coulda skipped that stare and hand in the waistband act; and coulda just walked home.

    I was a lot among boys when young. The hand in waistband act was a rather widespread custom. When I read it, it triggered the image of my lanky favorite cousin, his typical postures. I am a hands in pockets person too, I have to put my hands somewhere, although it's getting better, getting older. ;)

    You are assuming the knowledge that it could be considered suspicious, obviously neither me nor friends were aware of it at the time. Apart from the usual admonitions to snap to attention with hands and arms next to trouser seams.

    Full disclosure, I had a multitude of suspensions in my last high-school, which we leave around 18/19. The first, because I did not want to wear skirts in summer, which was mandatory; the second, because I hit my chemistry teacher on his hand when it came too close for my taste, he had the habit of groping girls ... two years after I left he was charged with seductions of minors. My father wrote me a letter asking me to pardon him for not having believed me at the time.

    Parent

    Likely an error on my part (none / 0) (#61)
    by cboldt on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 02:41:30 PM EST
    -- The hand in waistband act ... You are assuming the knowledge that it could be considered suspicious --

    Yes, on reflection, I'm picturing something that isn't clear on the evidence.  I was picturing Martin walking to a face to face point, then sticking a hand in the waistband as though to fondle a firearm.  But if he's walking with both hands in the waistband (I do too, thumbs on the belt, hands in the pocket, hands in the hoodie pocket, etc.), that's perfectly innocuous.

    Parent

    comment in response to this (none / 0) (#97)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 12:03:32 AM EST
    deleted. Even DeeDee said Trayvon initiated the conversation with Trayvon. At best, who initiated the verbal confrontation is disputed. Thus, please don't state as a fact that Z. initiated it.

    Parent
    What age do you need to carry a gun in Florida? (none / 0) (#21)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 09:58:49 AM EST
    .

    What age do you need to carry a gun in Florida?

    Any age at all for an illegally carried gun.

    .

    Parent

    Cell phone (none / 0) (#34)
    by dietdrpepper on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 11:22:27 AM EST
    GZ may have been trying to get his phone out of his pocket and not the gun.

    In Virginia it's 21.  My children and husband have conceal carry permits.  They want me to get one, but I'm very suspicious of all people I do not know.  Therefore, I do not want a conceal carry permit.  

    Parent

    S/He made no mention of being annoyed of (none / 0) (#17)
    by Angel on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 09:15:34 AM EST
    either of those things.  

    Parent
    Inconsistencies (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by expy on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 03:27:24 AM EST
    Jeralyn wrote:
    The state has said there are inconsistencies in Zimmerman's statements, but Zimmerman was emphatic during cross-examination at the bond hearing that he did not change his account of what happened when speaking to police.

    Generally, witnesses aren't aware of their own inconsistencies across various interviews unless it is brought to their attention. So it is really not significant whether or not Zimmerman believes there are inconsistencies -- if the statements were recorded then they will stand on their own, one way or another.  

    A "presumed innocent" man (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 12:58:32 PM EST


    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by MJW on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 08:11:12 PM EST
    He had been told expressly Not to get out.

    I'm sure you'll be happy to quote the SPD (non-emergency) operator telling Zimmerman Not to get out.  If you can't, I think it completely impeaches your version of what occurred.

    again, that comment (none / 0) (#99)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 12:08:14 AM EST
    falsely stated the facts and was deleted. Thanks for pointing it out. (But please refer to commenter by name and don't reprint the false part of the comment as my deleting it won't make a difference if it's still on the site.

    Parent
    Sorry about that (none / 0) (#103)
    by MJW on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 12:49:16 AM EST
    I didn't know the rule when I posted my reply, and hadn't seen cboldt's response.  In the future, I'll make sure to follow the rule.

    Please let me know if the following isn't proper:

    Xxxxx, the SPD non-emergency dispatcher never told Zimmerman to remain in his vehicle.  A short time after Zimmerman was out of his vehicle, the dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following Martin.  When Zimmerman said he was, the dispatcher told him they didn't need him to do that.  Zimmerman immediately answered, "okay."

    (My question is whether rephrasing the statement in a factually accurate, negative form is "reprinting the false part.  I assume it isn't, but don't know for sure.)

    Parent

    that's fine (none / 0) (#120)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 03:16:43 PM EST
    a link to transcript of the call would be good if you have time and know how to put it in html format. Thanks.

    Parent
    terrible that zimmerman is in jail (2.80 / 5) (#22)
    by Steve27 on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 10:02:51 AM EST
    How can the left justify having Zimmerman in jail? He was obviously overcharged. No evidence has been presented indicating he did anything wrong. And he did not provoke Martin. This is mob justice in plain view. No one in the establishment cares about our people being killing in Afg. No one in the establishment cares that Zimmerman in being punished before he even gets a trial.  


    The left, the left, the left (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by amateur on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 12:04:40 PM EST
    You realize you're on a site called TalkLeft that is very pro defense of Zimmerman.  He is also being prosecuted by a Republican in a heavily Republican, Christian, right-wing state.

    Parent
    I think left/right still works (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by cboldt on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 12:14:29 PM EST
    -- You realize you're on a site called TalkLeft that is very pro defense of Zimmerman.  He is also being prosecuted by a Republican in a heavily Republican, Christian, right-wing state. --

    Setting aside any affiliation you'd prefer to ascribe to major players in the drama, I think it is accurate to say that as far as the peanut gallery goes, the percentage of those "on the left" who find this prosecution well taken is greater than the percentage of those "on the right" with the same sentiment.

    Parent

    Regardless (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by amateur on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 12:21:57 PM EST
    of any perceived political leanings of any given peanut(how do you know their leanings?), attributing things to monolithic groups like "the left" and "the establishment" contributes to sloppy thinking and an overblown sense of injustice.

    Parent
    CBoldt is right (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 10:20:13 PM EST
    that many of those who defend Zimmerman in the comment threads here are conservatives (and advocates of gun rights). I know this because I read their comments on other sites.  And that many of those bashing Zimmerman think of themselves as progressives and liberals.

    The principal purpose of this site is to protect the constitutional and legal rights of those accused of crime. I welcome anyone who will speak up for the accused -- I don't care what their politics are. (And as TalkLeft readers know, I share their views on individual gun rights and oppose more gun control laws.)

    There may be political aspects to this case but I'm not writing about those, I write about the legal aspects of the case, the factual investigation, and the media bias.

    The people commenting here who are defending Zimmerman are very well-versed on the facts. I see that when I read the other sites they comment on. They've put the time in to analyze the available and known facts and call out the baseless assumptions. They also try to follow the commenting rules I've laid out, and I appreciate that.

    I'm sure they will leave TL when the Zimmerman case ends, as my  politics are not to their liking.  That's okay. I'm not trying to change their politics.

    If this case brings a greater appreciation that the criminal justice system is not always fair or just towards the defendant, that the Bill of Rights was designed to protect those accused of crime from the awesome powers of the Government, and that the presumption of innocence and standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt must be applied to all, no matter how heinous the crime, then this site has done its job.

    In the meantime, I just want the Zimmerman supporters here to know that I welcome their contributions and that their views on this case are taken seriously and respected. I appreciate that given our different views on other topics, they they have chosen to register and comment on TalkLeft.

    Parent

    I did just write (none / 0) (#107)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 03:22:50 AM EST
    a long comment in another thread on the politics of the case, but it was after writing this comment and I don't intend to make a habit of it.

    Parent
    Thanks (none / 0) (#126)
    by Aunt Polgara on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 10:47:58 AM EST
    Thank you for your welcome, Jeralyn, and for keeping the threads on topic. This has been a fascinating look into the justice system for me.

    Although I don't normally have much interest in crime stories, (the "dead white chick of the week" on Fox comes to mind) this story grabbed my attention for a variety of personal reasons; and you are right that I probably won't hang around after this case is resolved.

    It is heartening that those on both sides of the political spectrum can occasionally come together, don't you think?

    Please feel free to delete this as VERY off topic. :-)

    Parent

    Punishment before trial... (4.00 / 1) (#32)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 11:10:46 AM EST
    is standard in America, especially for poor folks who can't make excessive bail.  Or folks who ain't poor who can't make seriously excessive bail.

    I wonder why it takes a case like Zimmerman for the "right" to notice what has been s.o.p. for many years now.

    I agree it is f*cked up and does not jive at all with innocent until proven guilty...but Zimmerman is Case# 5,427,238 or so in that tyrannical file.

    Parent

    we should correct one injustice at a time (2.00 / 5) (#37)
    by Steve27 on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 11:43:10 AM EST
    I am open to any suggestion on making the criminal justice system fair for all.  But it is the left that targeted Zimmerman. He has not been swallowed up by the system same as others. The left tried and convicted him. It was mob justice. The left is showing how indifferent it is to the individual by its behavior in this case.


    Parent
    I think you perhaps (5.00 / 4) (#67)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 03:49:03 PM EST
    do not have the kind of familiarity with "the left" that would be required to make the kinds of sweeping indictments you're making.

    I don't know, when people start making this about "mob justice," I just have to tune out; what kind of justice do you call it when one person can shoot and kill another, and it gets treated as no big deal?

    It is my opinion that all the family of Trayvon Martin wanted was not to have his death treated as if it didn't matter; it kind of seems like the least George Zimmerman can do, as the person who killed Trayvon Martin, is be accountable for his actions.  

    If it is determined that George Zimmerman was justified in shooting Trayvon Martin, it won't be any comfort to Trayvon's family, but it should be a comfort to people of all political stripes that we still have enough of a system that people won't be encouraged to think every day is like a step back to the wild, wild West.

    Parent

    Too broad a conclusion (none / 0) (#40)
    by cboldt on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 11:51:50 AM EST
    -- The left is showing how indifferent it is to the individual by its behavior in this case. --

    Best I can tell, those who think Zimmerman belongs in jail now reach that point by applying their sense of how the law works, in combination with their sense of what Zimmerman did.  In short, they think he deserves to be there, because of his actions.

    That isn't indifference to individuals, it's just getting to the opposite conclusion in this case; for various reasons that have been probed ad nauseum.

    Parent

    Maybe it is insignificant (none / 0) (#1)
    by Redbrow on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 12:29:08 AM EST
    like the nine videos in and around the clubhouse. I did not watch all 7 hours but they are posted on youtube. They show absolutely nothing it seems.

    Why did the prosecution include these clubhouse videos in the discovery?

    Could be just another way to waste O'Mara's time.

    I see things in the videos (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 12:48:23 AM EST
    But I can't tell if it's my eyes playing tricks from staring at it or whether I really see it. I see headlights of cars which could show what time and direction Zimmerman drove, and in various places, I'm sure I see Travyon. I think they may use it to show the time Zimmerman drove past the clubhouse and his direction, and the time that Trayvon was at the clubhouse, and that it was raining during some of it.

    Again, I'm not sure, I wish someone with great eyesight would sit through them. I've watched them several times, but I often see something different, and trying to take screen grabs hasn't worked because the film is so grainy.

    Parent

    Showing that someone wasn't in a particular (none / 0) (#29)
    by Lina Inverse on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 10:41:14 AM EST
    location at a particular time could be useful.

    Parent
    Unless the video features him fondling his gun or (none / 0) (#2)
    by Mitch Guthman on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 12:40:03 AM EST
    or you can lipread him saying that he's going to go out looking for a young black man to murder, I don't understand how this could possibly be
    relevant to any of the issues in this case.  I can't imagine what could be on the tape that would change anything.  

    What difference does it make to anything what he had for lunch or where he went or what he did prior to the encounter with Trayvon Martin.  Even with my pro-prosecution bias in this case, I really don't care whether there any trivial inconsistencies in his story regarding his activities.

    It may not be relevant. (none / 0) (#6)
    by Tamta on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 12:50:06 AM EST
    -I can't imagine what could be on the tape that would change anything.  

    Many doc dumps appear to contain a lot of what may be considered tangential evidence.

    Is this an aspect of broad and open discovery standards?

    Parent

    Open file discovery (none / 0) (#10)
    by expy on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 03:22:25 AM EST
    The basic concept behind "open file discovery" is the prosecution simply gives (or makes available) every piece of evidence they have to the defense.  The advantage on the prosecution end is that the prosecutor is removed from the process of deciding what may or may not be "exculpatory" -- they have simply given the defense everything they've got, so no one can complain later that they've withheld anything.

    In any case, if the prosecution failed to turn over something obvious, like surveillance videos, I think any good defense lawyer would immediately be suspicious and want to see them.  

    And you never know -- something that didn't seem significant at first may become very significant down the line.

    It actually doesn't look like a particularly big document dump to me in any case. It's unusual that all of this discovery is made available to the public... but not particularly unusual in a homicide case for the attorneys to be seeing this.  Often there's a lot more.  

    Parent

    It would be odd (none / 0) (#3)
    by spectator on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 12:43:33 AM EST
    If George was there at 7:05 etc..

    Maybe it's something they investigated and listed just to waste time.

    Doe's anyone know if this is a common tactic?

    Insight CU (none / 0) (#7)
    by MJW on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 01:22:52 AM EST
    We know the Zimmermans had accounts at Insight Credit Union, and refer to it as their bank, which suggests it's where they normally did their financial business.  The branch nearest their home doesn't seem have an ATM available on Sunday.  However, a Publix store at 5240 W State Road 46, about 3 miles from their home, has an ATM that charges no transaction fees to Insight CU members.

    If he was going to Target... (none / 0) (#70)
    by unitron on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 07:44:13 PM EST
    ...he could use his debit or credit card there.  As far as I know they don't discount for cash.

    I don't see what could possibly be on that bank's video that would have anything to do with this case unless it was something like Zimmerman and Frank Taafe standing there in the parking lot trading guns or something.

    Parent

    Cash from which ATM, if either (none / 0) (#89)
    by MJW on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 02:39:14 PM EST
    I didn't mean to suggest Zimmerman was getting cash from an ATM that Sunday.  I was just casting doubt on the theory that the bank video showed him getting money from the M&I Bank ATM.  The Insight CU website lists ATMs available to members.  It doesn't include those at the bank, but does include one at a store near the Zimmerman's home.  So I think that if he needed cash, he would have gotten it at the store ATM.

    I tend to believe the bank video probably shows something interesting, and perhaps significant.  Or it could be nothing.

    Parent

    The thing that I am hoping for: (none / 0) (#12)
    by DebFrmHell on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 04:09:01 AM EST
    Since Jeralyn paid the big bucks for media aspects, is she going to get a gander at the bank surveillance tapes?  

    On her shiney, new computer? ;-)

    That tape has me very curious but I don't foresee anything good for Mr. Zimmerman on it.  Just a feeling.

    O'M stated at one time he has double what we have seen to date.  With his motion for the 30 day delay, could this be construed as an effort to get some potential negatives directed toward GZ during the investigation away from the bond hearing on the 29th?

    European Discovery is Better (none / 0) (#15)
    by RickyJim on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 08:59:08 AM EST
    There is only one file for a case in continental European (and Asian and South American) courts.  Both sides file what they have with the court and no evidence is hidden to be sprung at the trial on the unsuspecting other side.  They mostly don't have sunshine laws, beloved by discussion groups like this.  Best of all, the panel of judges studies the dossier and decides who to call as witnesses and does the bulk of the questioning.  In other words, each side doesn't present its case it the public trial.  They try to get away from the situation where trials are all about which side has the better lawyers.

    Gee, heavenly (none / 0) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 10:13:56 AM EST
    A panel of judges deciding who gets to be a witness.  Have you met one of our panel of judges that we call the Supreme Court?

    Europe sounds like the perfect recipe for Chooo Choooo...railroading in some instances.  Nope...no thanks, I'll stick with my superior in whatever possible justice can be attained messy messy mess.

    Parent

    My guess is that there is nothing in the bank vid. (none / 0) (#19)
    by leftwig on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 09:19:53 AM EST
    If there was anything against Zimmerman, we'd likely have heard about it.  There have been several "inconsistencies" in his statement leaked to the media, that he said Martin tried to smother him and that his head was repeatedly smashed into the concrete.

    My guess would be that they checked it to see if they could determine a timeline for Martin walking to or from the 711, most likely to the store since there may have been enough daylight at that time (he walked into the store around 6:21).  I would think a bank camera would have better resolution, so its possible it picked up something if it was facing the correct direction.

    so why still in jail? (1.50 / 2) (#24)
    by Steve27 on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 10:06:10 AM EST
    I agree completely. If there was any evidence against Zimmerman we would have seen it by now. Yet Zimmerman is still in jail, having to spend large sums of money defending himself. Why?


    Parent
    One reason is that that thedefense asked to delay (none / 0) (#41)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 11:53:42 AM EST
    the new bail hearing until Jun 29. Why? I have no idea.

    Parent
    O'Mara Motion and Calls are available (none / 0) (#23)
    by cboldt on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 10:03:12 AM EST
    At GZLegalCase.Com

    I've posted the calls (none / 0) (#50)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 12:35:36 PM EST
    here. The state has released the transcripts and the credit union records, but I'm not going to upload those unless the MSM doesn't. I haven't read them yet.

    My first comment here (none / 0) (#82)
    by Jello333 on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 01:25:27 AM EST
    I've been reading for the past couple weeks, and finally decided to sign up. Anyway, I know you guys have a general rule here to try to avoid conjecture, but this particular post seems to be inviting it. We're guessing about what might be on the bank surveillance video, right? Well, I don't think it'll show George (or Shellie). I don't think it'll show Trayvon. Now I'm not sure whether this is totally out-of-bounds here, and if it is I apologize and you can delete this comment if you wish. But I have a feeling that the bank video may show the goofy guys we've recently been introduced to from 711 (who some have nicknamed "The 3 Stooges"). That's all I'll say for now... just getting it on the record in case I'm right. If I'm wrong, you're all welcome to laugh at me. ;)

    I had thought of that (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 11:54:05 AM EST
    but I couldn't make it fit. You are right, we don't want to go there now, but if you are right, we'll give you full credit. Thank you for not posting the details the internet speculation on this.

    Parent
    please stay on topic (none / 0) (#121)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 03:21:04 PM EST
    of the jail calls and discovery.

    A discussion of your views on what makes a vigiliante or suspicious person is off-topic -- thread has been cleaned of those topics. When you see someone attempt to hijack the discussion, don't take the bait, just point it out. When I get to it, I'll delete.

    George Zimmerman: Bank Surveillance and New Discovery | 101 comments (101 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment