Image 01 Image 03

Soap in a sponge: The enduring myth that George Zimmerman was told not to get out of his car

Soap in a sponge: The enduring myth that George Zimmerman was told not to get out of his car

There are many lessons to be learned from the media miscoverage of the George Zimmerman shooting of Trayvon Martin.

We’ve dealt repeatedly with the false “hoodie” and racial narratives, the ludicrous audio and video analyses, and the misunderstanding of the role Stand Your Ground played [actually, did not play] in the case.

We’ve seen post-trial articles about how the prosecution failed to “humanize” Trayvon, without addressing that the prosecution deliberately didn’t go there because it would have brought into evidence Trayvon’s history of fighting, drug use and illegal weapons possession. Rachel Jeantel’s post-trial interview on CNN also raised the possibility that the fight was started by Trayvon out of homophobic fear that Zimmerman was a sexual predator.

In this sea of media malpractice, one enduring fabrication lives on despite conclusive trial testimony, the concept that Zimmerman was ordered, instructed, or told not to get out of his car by the 911 operator.

I completely debunked this concept when it was assumed by Jonathan Capehart at WaPo, In busting Zimmerman myths, Jonathan Capehart perpetuates the greatest myth of all.  I emailed Capehart about it, he responded “fair point,” and as of this writing the offending comment about Zimmerman being told not to get out of this car no longer is in Capehart’s column.  Good for him.

But the myth lives on in part because other media is not as responsible.

One example brought to my attention by a reader was an article by Paul M. Barrett at Bloomberg BusinessWeek, George Zimmerman’s Acquittal: Four Blunt Observations (emphasis mine):

Business Week Four Blunt Observations Zimmerman

1. George Zimmerman was at fault for killing Trayvon Martin.

Ignore the pious post-verdict declarations by Zimmerman’s (skilled) defense lawyers. The police dispatcher told Zimmerman to stay in his car. If the wannabe cop had followed reasonable instructions and/or had decent training as a neighborhood watchman, he would have remained in his vehicle. Zimmerman deserves heavy blame.

The reader emailed Barrett on July 15, referencing my prior post, with the following subject line “Your Bloomberg Zimmerman Blunt Observatio​n #1 factually wrong…”:

Regarding your recent Bloomberg Businessweek OpEd (available at ):​

​Per William A. Jacobson, Clinical Professor of Law at Cornell Law School, Zimmerman was out of his car before the police dispatcher
told him the police diidn’​t “need” him to follow Martin:

I was copied on the email, and responded to Barrett as well:

Yes, that’s pretty outrageously wrong Mr. Barrett. I trust you will correct your column promptly and clearly.

William Jacobson
Legal Insurrection Blog

I also sent out two tweets calling attention to the error and wondering why it had not been corrected:

As of this writing, no correction. There are over 2500 comments to the post, indicating it was fairly widely read. By people many of whom will never know that Blunt Observation #1 was factually wrong.

This is hardly the worst example. But it’s illustrative of the problem with a media which gets it wrong, and refuses to correct the record once the error is called to its attention.

There is a second and implicit part of the myth, namely that Zimmerman was told not to follow Martin (in addition to being told not to get out of his car).  Jonathan Capehart, in the column noted above, correctly debunked that myth, Five myths about the killing of Trayvon Martin:

“Are you following him?” the operator for the Sanford police’s non-emergency line asks Zimmerman. “Yeah,” he says. The dispatcher on the phone tells him: “We don’t need you to do that.”

Who the aggressor was that fateful night is the central — and most unanswerable — question of the case. Those who fault Zimmerman have latched on to this back-and-forth with Sean Noffke, the operator, as proof that Zimmerman defied a direct police order.

Not so. Noffke testified on the first day of the jury trial that it is dispatchers’ policy not to give orders to callers. “We’re directly liable if we give a direct order,” he explained. “We always try to give general basic . . . not commands, just suggestions.” So, “We don’t need you to do that” is different than a more direct “Don’t do that.”

Under cross-examination, Noffke added more context to his “suggestion” when asked whether his requests for updates on what Martin was doing encouraged Zimmerman to follow the unarmed 17-year-old. “It’s best to avoid any kind of confrontation, to just get away from the situation,” Noffke said.

If the media refuses to correct the obvious factual inaccuracy that Zimmerman was told not to get out of his car, it seems hopeless to get the media to correct this other part of the myth.  Capehart made a good attempt at it, as have others, to no avail..

The myth will survive because it is part of the background narrative, an assumption upon which arguments implicitly rest.

Regardless of what they think of the verdict, most Americans will go to their graves believing the myth that “if only George Zimmerman had not gotten out of the car when the police told him not to.”


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


txantimedia | July 17, 2013 at 1:40 pm

These myths survive because they are good for business. Were the shoe on the other foot, the corrections would be immediate and prominent. The liberal media could care less about correcting errors (that they created to begin with) when those errors further their statist agenda.

Sadly, a sizable portion of our country is going insane right before our eyes, aided & abetted by DOJ/Holder. No cure in sight. Yet.

    george in reply to Daiwa. | July 17, 2013 at 1:51 pm

    yes, the spreading of the “low information voter” to the “low information citizen” has happened (long ago). It is found at all levels of society — rich, poor, middle; educated; uneducated; highly educated.

    being a unthinking dumb ass with forceful opinions is where we are at….might have something to do with ESPN and the ugly sports fan mentality

      Fabi in reply to george. | July 17, 2013 at 2:17 pm

      I’m an unthinking dumbass with forceful opinions when it comes to sports – it’s an escape.

      In other aspects of my life, I still have forceful opinions.

      I used to think they were “low-info”. They’re not.

      As Ronald Reagan once said (and similar sentiments have been stated by countless others): “Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.”

      These are not “low-info” people. They suffer not from a lack of information, but from heads full of misinformation and disinformation. Years of propaganda have done their job well.

      Better to call them “mal-info” people, or “dis-info”.

    Exasperated in reply to Daiwa. | July 17, 2013 at 6:14 pm

    Royal Baby, maybe, til every last drop of traffic and revenue has been wrung out of it.

Also, seems the myth is that a “police officer ordered” GZ not to follow TM.

1. As noted, there was no “order”
2. A police radio dispatcher is not a police officer
3. GZ — nor anyone else — was not obligated under law to listen to suggestions from civilian police employees, or to even listen to police “orders” (unless it is an emergency situation). Cops needs subpoenas and court orders to command citizen to act (in non emergency situaions)

Slightly OT to this thread – if DOJ files a CR suit, or the Martins try to grab ANOTHER gold ring (over and above the one they already got from the HOA settlement), what are the standards in those cases, as far as admissibility of evidence, discovery, proof (preponderance vs RD etc ) ?

IOW – will those cases open up TM’s background, the FULL contents of his phone, his school records, etc ? Or will GZ still be open to vilification of his background, while St. Skittle remains …. St. Skittles ?

    Judyt2013 in reply to pjm. | July 17, 2013 at 4:30 pm

    Yes, any further litigation should open up all of Trayvon’s background as contributory factors to his death.

    smokefan in reply to pjm. | July 17, 2013 at 6:49 pm

    St. Skittles’ background, including the contents of his phone, will be fair game in a wrongful death suit. Relevant both to comparative fault and to damages. Surely his parents have been warned that the de-canonization of St. Skittles will begin with the first salvo of discovery requests.

      Rand in reply to smokefan. | July 17, 2013 at 9:21 pm

      Does Florida use a pure comparitive negligence standard on torts? Modified comparativie negligence (i.e. comparative except no recovery if more than 50% at fault)? Does anybody here know?

[…] rioting and repeating “facts” that do not exist (like Zimmerman racially profiled Martin), the black racist grievance mongers are perpetuating […]

PersonFromPorlock | July 17, 2013 at 1:57 pm

Maybe GZ should simply incorporate a business whose sole function is to go after libelers, however petty. I suspect there are more than a few contingency-fee lawyers who’d jump at a shot at so many soft targets.

    Only then he would be lowering himself to the likes of Angela Corey. Ew! Someone I would not want to emulate. Esp if she is disbarred.

      Baker in reply to Sally MJ. | July 17, 2013 at 2:51 pm

      Sometimes you have to do very unpleasant things in self defense.

      PersonFromPorlock in reply to Sally MJ. | July 17, 2013 at 4:31 pm

      How would that work? He’s been widely libeled and is still being widely libeled, and putting lawsuits on a mass-produced basis (same paperwork, detail changes) is a sensible way to deal with mass-produced torts. Nothing Angela Corey-ish about it.

Obama has turned the presidency into a lawless, post-constitutional seat of imperial power, where executive discretion rules; his DOJ is a politicized disgrace, featuring an Attorney General who had people fired on his way to ensuring commutations for Puerto Rican Separatist terrorists, represented Muslim extremists while in private practice, and who know has turned the full weight of his office not on some terror group (like, for instance, the Mexican drug cartels he helped arm), but rather on a private citizen who had the temerity to refuse to be beaten to death, an offense that frustrates the sensibilities of totalitarian-minded politicians who believe we need to be disarmed so that, as with an increasing number of other things, we are forced to live in fear and rely on the government to act as our protectors.

Jeff Goldstein (protein wisdom)

    Browndog in reply to Daiwa. | July 17, 2013 at 3:59 pm

    Admirable, that anyone still has the wherewithal to try to put to words what has befallen this country…

    I’m flat out of words.

ProfessionalSpectator | July 17, 2013 at 1:58 pm

I was once told that I “didn’t have to” volunteer pro bono legal services under current bar rules. I did it anyway. I suppose now, in light of the fact that those words constitute a direct order, I should view myself as some sort of disobedient rebel? The thought is laughable.

We’re often told in life “you don’t need to do that.” It’s nothing more than a suggestion. In many circumstances though, disregarding that suggestion is the proper course of action in today’s society. Women don’t need you to hold the door open for them. You certainly don’t have to recycle (and many don’t). But imagine for a moment what the world would be like if people only did what they “needed to do.”

Gandalf the Black | July 17, 2013 at 1:58 pm

I would love for you to go further, Professor.

Not only was he not ordered to stay in his car, he was ENCOURAGED to look for an address. In context, this meant he was asked to GET OUT OF HIS CAR by the dispatcher.

Juror B37 correctly alluded to this in the Cooper interview.

The myth is not only factually incorrect, it is legally incorrect.

Let’s assume, arguendo</em), that GZ was in fact told he should stay in the car and should not follow TM. Let's also assume that he ignored both instructions.

Those instructions were advice from a police dispatcher, not lawful commands from a police officer. GZ would have broken no laws by ignoring the instructions.

Getting out of his car and following TM was not the cause of TM's death. Nor could it be considered an act of aggression that would justify the use of self-defense by TM. You cannot attack someone merely because you think they are watching or following you.

Last but not least, there is no law that says you can't engage in riskier behaviors because you are armed. That is basically the reason people get CCW permits in the first place.

    myiq2xu in reply to myiq2xu. | July 17, 2013 at 2:01 pm

    Oops, I screwed up closing my tag.

    madshark in reply to myiq2xu. | July 17, 2013 at 4:43 pm

    It has frustrated me that even some Zimmerman defenders fault his judgement in getting out of the car. This case is so political that I feel that many people are treating it like a political issue; i.e. that you don’t always get what you want and you have to compromise. And they compromise by saying that perhaps Zimmerman bears some of the blame, perhaps out of fear of offending those Martin supporters.

      inspectorudy in reply to madshark. | July 17, 2013 at 5:38 pm

      You are right to be insulted by the GZ side when they use such stupid logic. My God! It was his neighborhood! He had the right to go anywhere he wanted to go. He had a concern for his neighbors who had been robbed and threatened. The dispatcher only stated what he must state to prevent a lawsuit down the road if something like this mess came up. Take “Stay in your car” to the next level. Was GZ supposed to sit in his car and hope that the cops, when and if they did arrive, would find him? This whole arguement is like the person who got hit by a car saying that if the driver had never left his bed that day he would be ok. GZ did absolutely NOTHING unlawful that night.

        Conversely, imagine if GZ did stay in his car, a plainclothes police officer responded to the call, the officer got out and went looking around to see if trouble was afoot, TM saw the officer “stalking” him, and then things unfolded exactly the same as for GZ — TM sucker-punches officer before the officer can ID himself, does a beat-down on the officer for 40+ seconds, neighbor Good comes and officer asks for help and then Good runs off, TM spots the officer’s gun and goes for it, officer pulls it first and fires…

        …is the officer “at fault” for the shooting because he “got out of his car”? Why or why not? At fault for the shooting because he “stalked” Martin? Why or why not? Guilty of “murder” for “creating” circumstances where TM might feel nervous or unfairly under suspicion which prompted him to circle back and engage in felony assault?

        If not, why is GZ being held to a higher standard, in his *own* housing development, especially since he’s a member of the NW and it’s his appointed *responsibility* to keep an eye out for possible troublemakers?

      Exasperated in reply to madshark. | July 17, 2013 at 6:24 pm

      It’s a kind of magical thinking. In a case like this, that sort of falls between the cracks, and where there is no clear cut person on whom to place the blame, it is consolation to the adolescents.

    pittspilot in reply to myiq2xu. | July 17, 2013 at 10:11 pm

    People who engage in riskier behaviors while they are armed are asking for trouble. Zimmerman made an error getting out of the car. It was not a legal error and it provided no excuse for Trayvon to attack him, but it is always advisable to avoid trouble, especially when one is armed. Zimmerman did not avoid trouble and he is paying a very unfair, ugly and steep price. But life is not fair and there is a lesson in there somewhere.

We don;t need “journalists” to propagandize but obviously do not prohibit it.

Another breakdown of media lies here.

There is no evidence to suggest that GZ continued to follow TM.

What happened right before GZ exited his truck after TM ran? It’s important where TM was to help us better understand time and place on the nen recording when the dispatcher asked GZ if TM was near the clubhouse, and GZ quickly said yes, GZ doesn’t know or remember the name of the street he is on, which is Twin Trees Lane.

The clubhouse was the closest address GZ knew. TM had already passed the club house and walked east on Twin Tress Lane approaching the T. TM is aware he is being watched and followed by GZ. TM disappears behind the NW building; this is the back of the condo at the T where TM confronts GZ later.

TM is now out of site from GZ who is parked on the north side of Twin Trees facing east toward the T. GZ is on the phone with the dispatcher.

TM reappears after a few seconds. Why? He wanted to see if GZ got of this truck. GZ is still in his truck talking with nen operator. This indicated to TM that GZ might not be an undercover or off duty cop. TM now wants GZ to follow him down the dog walk.

GZ says now he’s staring at me, now he is coming toward me. TM doubled back and is now approaching GZ.

GZ also tells the nen operator, he’s got his hand in his waistband, something is wrong with him, yep he’s coming to check me out, he’s got something in his hands, I don’t know what his deal is, please get an officer over here. GZ . GZ is intimidated and unnerved. He refers to TM as an a$$hole in a general way. GZ does settle down when TM is walking away from him back toward the T, the threat is leaving.

TM had circled GZ truck then runs, skips, takes off. Why run? GZ is still his truck looking scared.

TM is now sure GZ is not law enforcement. No cop would allow anyone to approach them in confrontational manner with their hand in their waistband without reacting. TM runs, not because his scared, but as a taunt to goad GZ and draw him out of his truck and down the dog path to confront him.

GZ takes the bait and exits his truck and a few seconds later, under his breath, says “F***ing Punks.” This gives some context to that remark.

Now out of his truck GZ walks in the same direction as TM to see uf, TM. After the dispatcher realizes GZ is out of his truck he asked are following him? GZ said yes, nen operator suggest “we don’t need you to do that.” GZ replies “ok.”

GZ stopped following TM, never going down the dog walk heading south in the direction TM went. The cut though of the T is west to east where GZ remained.

GZ walked east to RVC to get an address. I believe GZ, after getting an address, may have spent a minute looking south on RVC to see if he could spot TM crossing RVC heading for the back gate to relay this information to the officer when they arrived.

From the time TM first ran, approximately 4 minutes pass before TM doubled back again to confront GZ. He had to double back because GZ stopped following him.

    nomadic100 in reply to vmic. | July 17, 2013 at 4:53 pm

    Good analysis and comment! Another thought: Zimmerman’s saying “F****ing punks” is NOT the sort of comment that a self-confident assassin would make. The comment is made to the dispatcher, at no risk to Zimmerman. Had Zimmerman made the comment to Martin, it is likely that Martin would have reacted aggressively. So, in short, this seemed to be a risk free way for Zimmerman to express some machismo while he is following Martin at a respectful distance.

    Exasperated in reply to vmic. | July 17, 2013 at 6:30 pm

    If Jeantel is telling the truth and reporting what TM said accurately, TM suspected that GZ was police or security, that is her definition of “creepy ass cracka”. That is what she testified to and stated in her CNN interview.

One thing that seems important to me is what Zimmerman did after being told he needn’t follow Martin. I assumed that when he said “OK”, he began returning to his vehicle and that before he got there, Martin accosted him. Is that correct and where is it shown?

    Take a long look at the Zimmerman re-enactment for the Sanford police.

    Zimmerman sais he was heading back to his vehicle (after NEN OP said we don’t need you to do that) when Martin jumped out of the bushes, or something.

      Jump to the 8:30 mark. It’s pretty clear. This video was shown to the jury.

        JayDick in reply to Redneck Law. | July 18, 2013 at 6:59 am

        You’re right, this is very clear starting at about the 8:30 mark. Zimmerman said he had told the 911 operator to tell the police to meet him at his truck and he also said he was heading back to his truck when Martin accosted him.

        Why can’t people recognize the importance of this? Apparently, the jury did, but why can’t others?

        Of course, this is Zimmerman’s version of events, but it was soon after the shooting and no evidence was ever presented that seriously contradicts this version. Most of the evidence corroborated his version. Evidence of who yelled for help was biased and contradictory. I don’t know of any other evidence to contradict Zimmerman.

    MouseTheLuckyDog in reply to JayDick. | July 17, 2013 at 5:13 pm

    Zimmerman claims that he was looking for an address. ( Which I believe. ) Went to the next street and then when he was coming back Martin confronted him. I suspect that he is telling a bit of a lie here and when he got to the T he swept the flashlight around a bit to see if he could spot him. Nothing illegal in that and it doesn’t modify his defense.

Admitting a factual error is hard for most anyone. (A direct challenge to their perceived credibility.)

It is doubly hard for anyone in the business of relaying facts. (A direct challenge to their perceived competency.)

It is nigh on impossible for anyone who views their role as telling you what to believe. (A direct challenge to their perceived authority.)

The longer this goes on the more safe it is to assume the third instance holds.

    Aridog in reply to ThomasD. | July 17, 2013 at 2:28 pm

    Oh, I think it is already well established that your “third instance” is the one in play.

    Ragspierre in reply to ThomasD. | July 17, 2013 at 4:13 pm

    “Integrity” is the term.

    Or, as in the great movie “Rob Roy”…”Honor is the gift a man gives himself. No man can give it, and no man can take it from you.” (Paraphrased)

    My favorite quote in that regard:

    “I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”
    — Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoy (1828-1910)

You gotta love the “false, but accurate” line of thought now-a-days, eh?

not_surprised | July 17, 2013 at 2:28 pm

I think this approach of chipping away at those who are perpetuating the myth is worthwhile. send it to MSNBC with a caution that they could be exposed to libel if uncorrected?

” You don’t have to do that”
Is an important statement which has to be made in order to
avoid any pretense of instructing one to take any action whatever, which at a later point might make them a liable party.

Carol Herman | July 17, 2013 at 2:30 pm

These aren’t “independent” journalists! These jobs are only available to a special kind of individual who will always be against a narrative that isn’t left!

Yes, all of them have their hearts in this. And, blinders on. Our only defense? Discredit what you hear from them.

There’s something else to notice. These, here, journalists are not at the top of the ‘respect’ tree! Up where doctors, lawyers, and engineers reside, way up on top. So, these journalists resent the fact that they’re not the most respected people in the world.

Not the first time propaganda moved the giant presses.

Of course, we have the Internet. And, a government that goes to Microsoft, so all the electronics sold, become points were the government knows what you’re thinking.

Why is obama playing hardball, now? Well? It’s NOW. Or never!

Remember, too, that hitler didn’t give up in the bunker! He kept giving out orders. (With the one surprise. Eisenhower wasn’t going to approach Berlin from the West. That’s when hitler saw that he wouldn’t survive, if the russians opened up the door to his bunker.) Eisenhower just didn’t want to commit American kids to a battlefield where our kids would die. And, I’m sure there were other political reasons, made by TRUMAN, to forcing Eisenhower to this position.

    jayjerome66 in reply to Carol Herman. | July 17, 2013 at 4:25 pm

    No Carole, that’s another false narrative. There IS a horrible partisan slant and political bias to the news, from both left and right.

    “Eisenhower just didn’t want to commit American kids to a battlefield where our kids would die.”
    I have not given up on your lengthy posts, but I wonder if you put this is as a test to see if anyone reads all the way to the end?

      Carol Herman in reply to Rick. | July 17, 2013 at 8:34 pm

      Sure, Rick. It’s a bridge too far. But I wanted to point out that hitler wasn’t suicidal down in the bunker, until he realized Eisenhower wasn’t moving in (with Allied troops) from the West. It’s a known fact that Stalin, moving in from the East, had that battlefield all to himself.)

      When hitler realized it was the russians who were going to come in. By opening the door to the bunker. He slipped the gun in his mouth and shot himself.

      Why did Eisenhower refrain? (It was a 3 week battle that should have taken 3 days. All the russian tanks got mired in the mud. And, the russian troops were poorly equipped. Some without guns. Some without shoes. As russian troops dropped, living soldiers went over and took from the dead what they needed.

      Eisenhower wasn’t alone sitting out the “battle for Berlin.” I bet he was ordered to do so from the CiC.

      Here? In this situation Obama has not been a bystander. Even though the State of Florida was supposedly “in charge.”

      It may take many years before we get to a book … (from the WW1: All Quiet on the Western Front.) When those books start to come; those stories will be doozies.

I swear…

The media hype has been worse since the trial ended, than it was before he was even charged.


blood libel

There are many enduring myths. I hear them everywhere from people that really surprise me. Quite a few people have lost their credibility with me. After RJ’s interview I am more convinced than ever why she didn’t come forward. She suggested GZ was a rapist and riled TM up. She knew he was going to confront him. She knew what happened and how it happened. She knew it would not help get GZ in trouble so she wanted to stay out of it. Her testimony about the “get off, get off” was so obviously a lie as was most of it.

Okay just my opinion but makes the most sense to me.

    rekorb in reply to bizbach. | July 17, 2013 at 3:26 pm

    She has now doubled down on HuffPo about TM thinking GZ was a pedophile looking him over. She, as you said, likely egged him into an attack. Probably part of the reason she didn’t go to the funeral.

    Remember, she’s rather sharp. 3.0 and all that. I’m thinking she has no idea what a decimal point is/does. Can’t read cursive. Probably can’t read decimals. More likely 0.3 GPA

    Baker in reply to bizbach. | July 17, 2013 at 3:33 pm

    I think you are on the right track with that. Even if she didn’t know TM was going to confront GZ I think she was complicit in the whole situation. TM virtually taunted (or at least toyed with) GZ before he started running into an area that was dark enough that GZ would never follow at a run so he was safe.

    Later, once he feels in control, it comes to him that his female friend might take this the wrong way. He had outwitted GZ but maybe she might see it as him having run from someone who had disrespected him. She might have even implied it in some sarcastic joke or comment. He had to pump up his reputation and image in some way. Couldn’t be seen as running away from some ‘rapist’. If that got out everybody would be making fun of him.

    This is all conjecture of course but given the evidence and circumstances I think something along this type of line is highly likely.

    nomadic100 in reply to bizbach. | July 17, 2013 at 4:59 pm

    It is rather frightening that Rachel Jeantel has entered our cultural vocabulary as “RJ”. She doesn’t deserve it, of course.

    Her testimony is in fact a myth. In other words, what took place is something very different from what she testified.

    I do think you are on to something but I think it goes a lot further than what we are all surmising.

    I do in fact think that if there was a conversation that she egged TM on to whoop ass.

    On top of that RJ is being controlled by Rod Vereen. She is being scripted in what she says.

      BlueOx in reply to Aussie. | July 17, 2013 at 6:09 pm

      Prosecution speculates in their closing that Trayvon avoided going home to protect his younger “brother” from a scary adult.

      Now, after making no such statement during her testimony, Jeantel offers the exact same thesis.

      During her cross examination at trial, she attempted to describe the sound of wet grass by saying it was like two people rolling around on the ground. BDLR immediately objected and saved her before she could add a whole new embelishment to her prior testimony.

      She was literally making it up on the fly to fit what she saw as the correct narrative.

      She hasn’t stopped.

Uncle Samuel | July 17, 2013 at 2:46 pm

1. George was already out of the truck when the dispatcher said we don’t you need to follow him.

2. AFTER THAT, the dispatcher asked George TWICE during the conversation, “Can you see which way he went?”

This is on the tape and was related to the jury in O’Mara’s closing.

    DriveBy in reply to Uncle Samuel. | July 17, 2013 at 3:14 pm

    But, if you buy in to that line and reverse the argument: George used very poor judgement IMO by trying to find out where a menacing teen had gone for the police, that were on the way, and as a result he almost got sent to the penitentiary for a very, very long time! I’m glad that did not happen to him – but it very well could have and he is very fortunate.

    George was going out of his way trying to help the police and his community by going to the other side of the complex, in the darkness and in the same direction that Treyvon took (read: following), to get an address (after they had told him they did not need him to follow). He was helping too much (in my opinion, and in the opinion of at least one (1) juror), and he should have just freakin’ gone to Target for his groceries instead, because the police were on their way and George had not witnessed any crime what so ever, he was just suspicious.

      Uncle Samuel in reply to DriveBy. | July 17, 2013 at 3:55 pm

      In asking, twice, “Let me know if he does anything else” the Dispatcher is directing George Zimmerman to ascertain the location or direction of flight of the suspect, if possible, until the police get there.

      nomadic100 in reply to DriveBy. | July 17, 2013 at 5:26 pm

      Disagree! Zimmerman believed he had a responsibility to watch Martin by dint of his position as the coordinator of the Neighborhood Watch program. Suppose, for a moment, that he had NOT checked up on Martin and that it had later emerged that Martin had been arrested for burglarizing (or worse) some home in the Retreat. Suppose, moreover, that it became known that Zimmerman had seen Martin reconnoitering the area and had done nothing.

      Martin had a history of fighting, drug use, and stealing/burglary. Google those issues, if you doubt them. Zimmerman did what he believed to be proper and the evidence supports that contention. That Martin had no criminal record for those behaviors is a result of the Miami-Dade School District’s police department’s policies (yes, the school district has its own police department apart from the local police departments (that should tell us something about the area)). The Miami-Dade school PD had a policy of under reporting its students’ criminal behavior which resulted in Martin’s being suspended rather than being arrested.

      Zimmerman’s behavior was, in my opinion, absolutely correct and comported precisely with his responsibilities in Neighborhood Watch. And the jury agreed.

        DriveBy in reply to nomadic100. | July 17, 2013 at 6:11 pm

        I am aware of all of the negative things that you note about Treyvon, including the burglary and the alleged burglary “tool,” a screw driver. I did watch the entire trial, as well as read and participate in discussions here.

        “Suppose, for a moment, that he had NOT checked up on Martin and that it had later emerged that Martin had been arrested for burglarizing (or worse) some home in the Retreat.”

        If Treyvon was intent on burglary that night, he would have brought his favored and necessary burglary tool; his father would definitely have a screwdriver laying around, everyone does. Treyvon would have had that on him when they found his body. Or, as many here will likely suppose, he would have used it as a weapon to wound or kill George. IMHO

        “Suppose, moreover, that it became known that Zimmerman had seen Martin reconnoitering the area and had done nothing.”

        But George had already called 911 (NEN) and he had already reported Treyvon to the police. So he could never be accused of “doing nothing,” in fact by making that call he had done exactly what he was supposed to do! During the trial, Wendy Dorival, who helped George found the NHW Program said the following:

        “She [Wendy Dorival] said neighborhood watch volunteers shouldn’t follow suspicious people. She emphasized that citizens shouldn’t engage anyone suspicious, but rather, contact police.”

        And it gets confirmed by Donald O’Brien, president of the Retreat at Twin Lakes homeowner’s association.

        “Since day one with the neighborhood watch, they said at that meeting and every meeting we had after that, ‘Do not get close to anyone, stay at a safe distance, call 911 and let the police handle it,'” O’Brien said.”

        Source for the two witness testimonies:

          “If Treyvon was intent on burglary that night, he would have brought his favored and necessary burglary tool;”

          Utterly misses the point. GZ had no way of knowing that. He did know that TM was *acting* like a possible burglar, and the point being made is that GZ had to weigh the possibility that “staying in his car” may have allowed a serious crime, perhaps even another home invasion, to occur, and if so he would be partly responsible for not doing enough when he could have.

          “Stay in the car” is what you do if you’re fine with sacrificing the welfare of others for your own safety, but that’s not the kind of guy GZ is.

          “But George had already called 911 (NEN) and he had already reported Treyvon to the police. So he could never be accused of “doing nothing,””

          Again utterly misses the point.

          “She emphasized that citizens shouldn’t engage anyone suspicious, but rather, contact police.”

          GZ did “not engage”. Getting out of your car is not “engaging”.

          “Since day one with the neighborhood watch, they said at that meeting and every meeting we had after that, ‘Do not get close to anyone, stay at a safe distance, call 911 and let the police handle it,’” O’Brien said.””

          …which is exactly what GZ did. If he hadn’t been ambushed by TM, GZ wouldn’t have “gotten close to anyone”, and GZ had kept a very “safe distance” during the time he could see what that distance was.

          Even if the neighborhood watch policy had been “never leave your car, ever, weld the doors shut with you in it!” (and lord knows some of them pretty much do have such a policy, although not GZ’s), surely you understand that all this is for the safety of the NW people, not because it’s somehow the only “right” thing to do, or somehow criminally negligent to do anything else, if one decides to have a look to acquire information one can’t get from inside the car.

          Taking a small risk with your own safety to try to better help others is an admirable thing, not a despicable one — no matter how many people try mightily to spin it the other way around.

          Uncle Samuel in reply to DriveBy. | July 17, 2013 at 8:23 pm

          A ‘slim jim’ burglary tool was found in the bushes at the scene of the shooting. For some reason, it was not brought into the trial as evidence (like a lot of other pertinent information).

          DriveBy in reply to DriveBy. | July 17, 2013 at 8:37 pm

          Yes Uncle Samuel, I know that a slim-jim was found; it was actually described as “possibly it could be used for that,” not an actual slim-jim. It was more accurately described as a part of a metal window frame. It was found days later, and far away from the attack and struggle sites in some bushes. So putting that in Treyvon’s hands as likely his is a stretch for me. Besides, it would make a nice weapon to use in an attack. IMO

          Matt in FL in reply to DriveBy. | July 18, 2013 at 3:02 am

          DriveBy, I find your posts of the past couple days absolutely hilarious, given your indignation when I exposed you as a concern troll over a week ago. It’s beyond that now. Your own words show you to be a Trayvon apologist and anti-GZ commenter, even if you don’t admit that to be the case. It’s unbelievable of you to expect that we would believe you think GZ should walk, and yet find fault with every single thing he did. Those two things are mutually exclusive.

      inspectorudy in reply to DriveBy. | July 17, 2013 at 5:52 pm

      You are making assumptions on unknown information. GZ was under no obligation to stay away from observing TM and I am sure he NEVER confronted him. All he was doing was trying to keep TM location to a general area that he could relay to the cops when they arrived. He KNEW cops were on their way and would not have risked any confrontation with an unknown possible thief. If you remember he described TM as tall and in his twenties. He was not looking for trouble and gun or no gun GZ was not the kind of guy who had any ability to get into a street fight. His time at the MMA style training gym had taught him that he was not suited for that.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to Uncle Samuel. | July 17, 2013 at 3:41 pm

    Closing 45:44 O’Mara goes through the timeline.

    At 48:30 – 49:13 O’Mara relates the part where the Dispatcher asks twice, “Let me know if he does anything else.”

    This was after George got out of the truck and also after the Dispatcher said, “we don’t need you to follow him.”

      bizbach in reply to Uncle Samuel. | July 17, 2013 at 3:45 pm

      As soon as I heard the dispatcher say let me know if he does anything else it indicated to me the dispatcher preferred he keep Martin in sight. Made sense GZ followed. Honestly it it were me I would have stayed in the car. To me him following meant that he did just think TM was a “punk” and not a real threat, wrong assumption, unfortunately. I am sure he thought he would just try to get a visual on him and if possible talk to him to see what he was up to as well as get an actual address of where he was.

      DriveBy in reply to Uncle Samuel. | July 17, 2013 at 4:18 pm

      I follow what you are saying. But I am thinking along a different line than you are. I do not believe every single detail that George put forth; but I do believe the important ones! Let me lay out my thoughts in more detail and then you can either agree, or show me where/how I am wrong in having my current opinion(s) on a few seemingly small details, or you can ignore me!

      As the “persecution” tried to relay to the jury, you, and me, George was parked in front of a house with an address on it. His truck was parked there. The 911 (NEN) told George “not to follow” seconds (IIRC) after he left his truck and began walking. There are only three (3) streets in that community, and as a long time resident and a dedicated NHW person I do believe that George knew the name of the street that he was standing on. And I do believe he could have walked to the door of the house nearest to him to get the address number on said street.

      I do believe that George took cues from the 911 (NEN) operator and he followed Treyvon’s path to the “T”. So I am saying that George fibbed a little because he did not do as advised (instructed) and he followed anyway to see where Treyvon had gone, but his intention was only to help the police!

      At the point of reaching the “T” George was attacked by Treyvon, I believe. Because George never called 911 (NEN) from the opposite street with a house number when he reached that other street and saw a house number, nor as he walked back past the “T” to his truck. In fact his phone was in a pocket at the “T” when he was attacked.

      None of us will ever, ever, know for certain. But I know this for certain: people lie, even good, well intentioned people.

      One more thing. Someone else pointed out that RJ knew the fight was taking place and she may have egged Treyvon in to confronting George. I agree with that completely! RJ really is not very bright, I was looking forward to reading her “tell all” book! She has other interviews in video now other than the PM one, BTW.

Kathleen Parker in the WashPo did the same thing. I sent her an email today and told her that she should be ashamed of herself. No wonder 77% of the people don’t trust the media.

Are they just lazy, repeating the same inaccurate and deceptive narrative, or feeding the agreed-upon meme (a la Journolist)?

Carol Herman | July 17, 2013 at 3:15 pm

Dee-Dee’s been all over the TV channels. If you saw any of thse interviews, you’d learn she has a 3.0 at high school. And, she actually has a voice you can hear. On sets, she has no trouble talking clearly (in her vernacular), into microphones.

You’d also learn that in her “Blood’s” neighborhood, all Trayvon was doing was a “beat yor ass for being a cracka.” He wasn’t going to kill Zimmerman. Just a cultural misunderstanding. That’s all.

And, that’s why so many Blacks, not just ghetto blacks, are furiously angry. They think out system stinks. They rather like lynching “white” folk.

Okay. You point out that Zimmerman wasn’t white; and blacks respond “his dad is Jewish.”

The left is angry! And, I’ll bet part of the reason for this anger is that they feel they may be losing the battle over the hearts and minds of the American people.

Sure, not the black people. Because there the media trucks go (not just offering solidarity) … but all the paraphernalia so that looters can be seen on the TV.

What if, when Princess Cate finally pops out the heir to the British throne? Will that just shove this story away from its superficial surface of “wall to wall coverage?”

You know we’ve lost “that” fight, don’t cha?

The journalists will be giving each other prizes. Winning audience shares any which way … and with any lies you can. If you want to publish a story that goes against this mantra, Amazon won’t list it. And, you’ll never find a publisher.

What can the Internet do?

We’re having a contest. It’s like a “speak-easy.” Knock three times and tell em “Joe sent ya.” Or? Knock twice, and become a juror.

    ConradCA in reply to Carol Herman. | July 18, 2013 at 8:47 am

    “The left is angry! And, I’ll bet part of the reason for this anger is that they feel they may be losing the battle over the hearts and minds of the American people.”

    Your forgetting that the whole purpose of this incident for Tyrant Obama and his crew of progressive fascists it to win the 2012 election by stirring up black hatred. They were successful and by having their backs in this conflict they are further cementing the blacks loyalty towards their masters, the Democratic party.

Like a whole lot of you, I am thoroughly outraged at how Zimmerman and his family are being treated and suffering. So many media lies, so many protests. I’m sure that a lot of folks at those protests didn’t even watch the trial. And I’m convinced that a lot of the media didn’t watch the trial, and they keep the lies going strong.

Here’s the thing, in my opinion, Zimmerman’s civil rights are seriously being violated. He’s not guilty, was found not guilty. Not George’s rights only, but also those of his parents and brother, sister.

So why can’t we have a massive class action lawsuit against the DoJ and the NAACP? Since George Zimmerman’s civil rights are being violated, isn’t ours as well? You could say that each one of us could be in GZ’s shoes, so to speak. Maybe I’m not wording this correctly, but George Zimmerman is suffering, and it’s affecting all of us one way or another. Isn’t there some way that we can fight for him? I guess I’m saying that there must be something that we can do to support him, and I don’t know what it is.

I was thinking about the ACLJ, that’s American Center for Law and Justice. It’s . It’s the place with Jay Sekulow. I don’t know if this is the right place to use or not. Here’s what their mission says:

“The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) and its globally affiliated organizations are committed to ensuring the ongoing viability of freedom and liberty in the United States and around the world.

By focusing on U.S. constitutional law, European Union law and human rights law, the ACLJ and its affiliated organizations are dedicated to the concept that freedom and liberty are universal, God-given and inalienable rights that must be protected.

The ACLJ and its worldwide affiliates engage in litigation, provide legal services, render advice to individuals and governmental agencies, as well as counsel clients on global freedom and liberty issues. They also support training law students from around the world in order to protect religious liberty and safeguard human rights and dignity.

As a non-profit organization, the ACLJ does not charge for its services and is dependent upon God and the resources He provides through the time, talent, and gifts of people who share our concerns and desire to protect our religious and constitutional freedoms.”

Yes, the Precious Jeantel interview with PM is shaping up as a complete debacle and it is single-handedly deflating even the trash talk about a federal prosecution.

Because she outright admitted that Trademark was the aggressor, liable for at least three felonies: state charges for assault and hate crime and a Fed hate beef as well.

I don’t believe in ‘hate’ crimes but, hey, irony’s a bitch!

How absurd to even try to go after Zimm when Trademark is now exposed as a violent homophobic bigot.

And, oh yeah!, bring that civil suit, Mom and Dad, and we’ll be ‘humanizing’ ol’ Saint Skittles to pieces.

Zimm’s lawyers have still got to ‘win the peace’ and its time to stow the magnanimity and get down to the nitty gritty on this little goon.

The homophobia is the cudgel to shatter the anti-Zimm front.

OMG, if she has a 3.0(good or above-average) that means over half of her classmates are dumber than her. Double Yikes!
Surely she just got the decimal point wrong—-0.3

    LibraryGryffon in reply to rekorb. | July 17, 2013 at 4:09 pm

    My guess is that they award a significant amount of the grade based on skin color. We can’t discipline kids based on what they do unless we discipline the same proportion of white kids (which is why St. TM was in Sanford to begin with – he should have been in Juvie). If we can’t discipline disproportionately, no matter what the misbehaviours/crimes are, we certainly can’t grade disproportionately, no matter what the actual work turned in is worth. (I wish that was sarcasm.)

    And then again, there is that wonderful grade inflation and social promotion. I know a young woman (white) who has a HS diploma, and if you ask her how many batches of a recipe which takes four eggs she can make with a dozen, (or 12), she starts looking blank and panicky. She admits that she should never have passed those math classes, but they just kept pushing her along, presumably because they didn’t want to hurt her self-esteem. That said self-esteem is seriously damaged by her knowledge that she can’t do the basic math which she needs in everyday life doesn’t matter to the educrats, she got her diploma so all’s well with the world. And I guarantee she’s brighter than Ms J.

    I gather Ms J says she’d like to go into law enforcement. God help us all.

      nomadic100 in reply to LibraryGryffon. | July 17, 2013 at 5:40 pm

      Well, I wouldn’t go so far as to claim grades are based on skin color, but if Rachel Jeantel has a 3.0 GPA, then that says a lot about the Miami-Dade school district, which somehow has the need for its own police department, apart from the local PD’s.

      I have read that Rachel has been given numerous scholarships and tutoring support to attend college. I am pleased for her. I would be willing to bet, however, that she will never graduate from any college, even from a “historically black college” where one of her benefactors requires that she attend.

      She is just plain stupid.

    madshark in reply to rekorb. | July 17, 2013 at 4:51 pm

    You suppose we’ll ever get to see her grades, or are they locked in a vault next to Obama’s transcripts?

    Jack201 in reply to rekorb. | July 17, 2013 at 4:51 pm

    I’d be surprised if it was 3.0.

    “We talked to her people today and it’s going to take some work, first of all to get her a high school diploma, and get her ready for the SAT test, and then entered into college. But we are going to do that,” he said.

    Tom Joyner has offered to pay her ‘full ride’ in college. I hope he has budgeted for the 8-10 years it would probably take her to graduate.

      pjm in reply to Jack201. | July 17, 2013 at 6:03 pm

      And that would be from a 2 year community college.

      Milhouse in reply to Jack201. | July 19, 2013 at 5:12 pm

      His money is safe. Since the historically black colleges don’t have to worry about affirmative action, they have actual standards, and she’ll never get in to them.

    inspectorudy in reply to rekorb. | July 17, 2013 at 5:58 pm

    Two things; first she may have heard the teacher tell her that she had a 3.o out of a possible 10. which is a failing grade, and two she hasn’t a clue what a decimal place is.

    pjm in reply to rekorb. | July 17, 2013 at 6:02 pm

    As someone said above, she doesn’t read ‘decimal’.

How can the media misrepresent, fail to check facts, and be negligent in their reporting with no true legal recourse? Lawyers and doctors are sued for malpractice. Businessmen, teachers, and policemen can be sued for negligence. To my knowledge, journalism is the only profession where you can practice with impunity. I realize you can sue for defamation and slander, but the standard that must be met to show negligence seems higher than that for other professions.

Trayvon Martin’s parents “loosed the dogs of war” against George Zimmerman, or you could call it a “sharkanado”. There is some country singer (found his name its Ted Nugent) says that GZ should bring an action against Trayvon’s parents because:

“Trayvon Martin’s vicious attack on George Zimmerman and Martin’s tragic death have no doubt surely dragged Mr. Zimmerman through 18 months of untold emotional hell, pain, distress, anguish, fatigue, nightmares and financial ruin. Again, following the narrative of the pro-Trayvon media types and other race-baiters, if Trayvon Martin was a minor, then Trayvon Martin’s parents may be held liable for the emotional pain and suffering Mr. Zimmerman has been put through for the past 18 months, and surely for the rest of his life.”

Sounds reasonable to me.

    bizbach in reply to betty. | July 17, 2013 at 3:50 pm

    No offense at all Betty but I am not sure I would call Nugent a country singer, more of a rocker at least in his hay day. He is an avid advocate for the right to bear arms. Pretty straight forward guy and I agree with him to a point but there are multiple parties that Zimmerman should be suing, not sure it is the parents rather the media, the special prosecutor, etc are more likely targets.

      Uncle Samuel in reply to bizbach. | July 17, 2013 at 4:09 pm

      Crump and Julison marketed the false narrative to the media to create a media blitz. They are the most liable.

      Then entered the DOJ under the auspices of Community Relations. (Sybrina’s brother in law was a Miami chairman of the DOJ Community relations board)

      The DOJ organized, printed posters, etc. and paid for the pre-trial protests.

      During one of those protests where Crump, Sharpton, Sybrina and Tracy appeared, the New Black Panther Party handed out Wanted dead or alive posters – and posted a $10,000 reward for the life of George Zimmerman LINK

      As David Burge @iowahawkblog wrote: “We have a “Dept of Justice” that organizes pre-trial protests, and eggs on post-trial vigilantism. In a sane world, this is impeachable.”

      DriveBy in reply to bizbach. | July 17, 2013 at 4:51 pm

      It would be much easier and much faster to go after the parents. They got paid, they shouldn’t have. IMO So let them pay, it is only fair in our system.

      The lawsuit against NBC and any other potential lawsuits will take years and there is certainly no guarantee that George will ever be awarded anything.

      I don’t have a clue about how George and his parents are able to afford the Security that they have now, much less to keep it in place for possibly many years to come. I would hate it if he/they had to leave America, but if I were him any Latin American country where I could walk freely to have lunch or go shopping without bodyguards and a bullet proof vest would be paradise!

        Going after the “poor suffering parents of the boy he killed” would hand a major PR victory to those intent on demonizing GZ.

        But I see nothing wrong with making it clear that O’Mara et al have long and detailed lawsuits ready to counter-sue with five seconds after the Martins file any kind of lawsuit or do any further defamation against GZ…

Trayvonites are the New Birthers. They are in hysterics over unfounded suspicions and ridiculous legal analysis. The problem is, the Democratic leadership encourages them in this nonsense.

How can you laugh at Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s silly Birth Certificate investigation, when Eric Holder is doing worse on the Zimmerman verdict.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

    kittycat in reply to SqueekyFromm. | July 17, 2013 at 4:04 pm

    Sheriff Arpaio and Zullo aren’t birthers. Wish people could get their facts straight. They aren’t arguing where BO was born. If you don’t know this, Zullo has been investigating the fraudulent BC because that is what it is, a false document, and it’s a felony. As well as the phoney SS registration card.

      Actually not. Zullo and Group just can’t figure out how the document image was uploaded to the net, and that is their basis for claiming it is a forgery. They have disputed exactly ZERO about any information provided on the long form. Which is why prosecutors won’t touch it, and why Zullo himself says there, “isn’t enough evidence to convict him [Obama] of jaywalking, much less anything else.”

      The Cold Case Posse investigation is a laughable farce, and Eric Holder seems poised to take over their first place standing in the Guinness Book for attempted PIMPing, aka Partisan Inspired Malicious Prosecution ‘ing.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

        kittycat in reply to SqueekyFromm. | July 17, 2013 at 4:21 pm

        Again, you don’t have your facts straight. But I’m not going to get in an argument with you right now. Not interested, period. It’s a waste of my precious time.

        I gather, though, that you must be an Obot.

        hfaweva in reply to SqueekyFromm. | July 17, 2013 at 6:17 pm

        SF, you’re typing pure, unadulterated nonsense into this record concerning the Cold Case Posse. You apparently know zilch whereof you speak. Anyone reading this could be better informed by a pet rock than reading your drivel.

          Well, let me know when the CCP has enough evidence to file charges. Because from what I have been reading, Zullo is up in Washington trying unsuccessfully to get Congress to look at their SEKRIT report. Since they have had NO luck with actual prosecutors.

          Which, is exactly what the Trayvonites are doing since they also experienced a few bo-bo’s with their ridiculous prosecution of Zimmerman. There are a whole lot of similarities between the Birthers and the Trayvonites, the mention of which seems to irritate members of both groups of conspiracy theorists.

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

    Browndog in reply to SqueekyFromm. | July 17, 2013 at 4:21 pm

    unfounded suspicions…

    requires a tad more investigation before you set off on your reporting.

    inspectorudy in reply to SqueekyFromm. | July 17, 2013 at 6:01 pm

    Squeeky, its all about keeping the left wing and the Blacks fired up for the 2014 midterms and nothing more. All of the hangers-on know that if Obama can have his last two years with both the House and Senate he can give them a lot more than Obamaphones.

      OH, I know! I think Al Sharpton ought to get nominated for a Lester Maddox Award (gold colored, and shaped like an axe-handle)for Best Race Baiter of 2013. It might also be a good strategy to compare the Trayvonites to their inbred country cousins on the right. Because one thing I have noticed is when you start using the “B” word, (which I am NOT saying so that a couple of “Bs” can’t accuse me of threadjacking!), anyway when you use that B word, most semi-sane people start ducking and covering to keep the poo off.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

I have used this link of the transcript of the Zimmerman/NEN operator to inform several folks that GZ was NOT told to stay in his vehicle:

    robbi in reply to Redneck Law. | July 17, 2013 at 5:18 pm

    I’ve used it too and they come back with GZ should have stayed in his car. Then I tell them that TM should have gone into the house.

Regarding Capehart’s article, there was another error regarding the picture of Trayvon, although Capehart relied on the agenda-free Martin Family attorney Benjamin Crump to fill him in:

“Martin family attorney Benjamin Crump told me in February that the Hollister T-shirt photo of Trayvon was taken in August 2011, when he was 16 years old. That was six months before he turned 17, on Feb. 5, 2012. He was killed three weeks after that.”

I call B.S. on Crump’s explanation.

Read the whole Capehart article here:

Midwest Rhino | July 17, 2013 at 3:54 pm

Stefan Molyneux, host of Freedomain Radio, gave an example of a guy telling 911 he was going to try to save someone that was falling off a cliff. He said the response would be “we don’t need you to do that”. I searched a little and couldn’t verify that was taught as routine, but the trial witness seemed to verify they would not endanger a caller, (though were very interested in “where is he now?”).

Clearly George had no expectation to find Trayvon waiting for him. Most burglar types will disappear, though the initial approach to GZ’s vehicle was unusually bold.

There is laziness in reporting, but there is an agenda above that, which censors one side, but allows “laziness” on the other, in a methodic pattern. Plausible deniability can equivocate away bold lies with the irrelevant sloppiness charade. When they refuse to correct, it is confirmed deliberate.

Uncle Samuel | July 17, 2013 at 3:58 pm

This tweet says it all:

David Burge @iowahawkblog

We have a “Dept of Justice” that organizes pre-trial protests, and eggs on post-trial vigilantism. In a sane world, this is impeachable.

Henry Hawkins | July 17, 2013 at 4:13 pm

I assume Zimmerman’s legal representation is now or already has reviewed as much media coverage, press releases, tweets, blog posts, etc., as possible, winnowing out the best actionable, soon to start raking in some quietly rendered out of court settlements. The NBC suit won’t be quiet and the primary Obama/Left propanganda machine – NBC/MSNBC – might be gagged on ‘reporting’ the suit, being a party in it. Ha! Then CNN, NBC, and CBS could earn some propaganda overtime pay covering up for the benched NBC/MSNBC

    Jack201 in reply to Henry Hawkins. | July 17, 2013 at 4:45 pm

    I have no knowledge of civil law in this sense but I hope GZ can sue corey for that slanderous ‘murderer’ comment. That was disgusting for her to say for several reasons.

    I am hoping that they will add the Murdoch Press in Australia to the list because the Daily Telegraph has been guilty of printing false information too.

    Trust me, I am very angry about what the Australian media has been reporting.

Uncle Samuel | July 17, 2013 at 4:16 pm

Eric Holder: Self-defense is deadly; ‘People who feel threatened have a duty to retreat’

Trayvon Martin had 4 MINUTES to retreat. Only 400 yards, as far as a junior high school kid can throw a football.
Trayvon did not retreat.

Instead, Trayvon doubled back, confronted and assaulted George Zimmerman and did not cease even when John Good commanded him to do so and told him the police were on the way.

Trayvon Martin instead saw and reached for George Zimmerman’s gun and said, “Tonight you gone die, Mfkr.”

George got to the gun first and shot.

    rekorb in reply to Uncle Samuel. | July 17, 2013 at 4:18 pm

    400 feet

    DriveBy in reply to Uncle Samuel. | July 17, 2013 at 4:34 pm

    Agreed! Nice catch, and nicely put!!!!

    kittycat in reply to Uncle Samuel. | July 17, 2013 at 4:37 pm

    Uncle Sam,

    Does Eric Holder mean trying to retreat like Joshua tried?

    Eric Holder is such a jerk.

    Midwest Rhino in reply to Uncle Samuel. | July 17, 2013 at 4:38 pm

    That’s a good point. Why didn’t “the child” Trayvon listen to the adult when he was told to stop?

    I’m thinkin’ I’d have been tempted to grab that hoodie and yank him off GZ. But getting involved is always a risk. If only the child had ceased the beating when ordered.

    He was such a child, Good didn’t want to tangle with him.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Uncle Samuel. | July 17, 2013 at 5:11 pm

    I’d like to meet this junior high school kid who can throw a football 400 feet. As would USC, Alabama, LSU, Ohio State, Michigan, Stanford, UCLA, Penn State, Florida, etc.

      Uncle Samuel in reply to Henry Hawkins. | July 17, 2013 at 6:54 pm

      Trayvon’s sort-of-step-brother Chad claimed he could throw a football from his back porch to the T where the dog walk met the sidewalk and the confrontation took place.

        caambers in reply to Uncle Samuel. | July 17, 2013 at 8:36 pm

        Sort of step brother…haha Chad just happened to be the son of Tracy Martin’s latest fling. Best info here is they barely knew each other. That story that Trayvon went to the store for Chad is a myth concocted to make it seem he was this loving, caring soon-to-be sibling. I do remember reading somewhere that Trayvon said to someone during his phone conversation on the bus ride up that his dad had told him to be nice to Chad when he got there….wonder why he had to tell him that?

        Henry Hawkins in reply to Uncle Samuel. | July 17, 2013 at 9:18 pm

        A football field is 300 ft goal line to goal line. Pros can’t throw it 400 ft.

WordsFailMe | July 17, 2013 at 4:19 pm

Let’s say there was some “we” that could hand-over a live Zimmerman to “them” and “they” could beat Zimmerman into an unrecognizable lump, then transport the lump around the country so that all those who felt “wronged” could each have a whack, or a dozen whacks at the white hispanic lump. Is that what black America wants? Really?

Since 1196 279,000 black people have been murdered in the USA. About 265,00 of those murders were done by other blacks, but forgive me, I lapse into mathematics has no affect on blind race hatred and the mothers who nurse their babies on it, then beat them, like dogs, to make them mean.

Say good night, America.

I fired off an email to him a while ago and he responded. I’d like to post it, because his response is very curious, but I’m not sure that I should.

Henry Hawkins | July 17, 2013 at 5:08 pm

Today Rachel JeanTel tells HuffPo “I believe Trayvon hit first.”

What is this girl up to? Is she angling for her own show on MSNBC? Her high school GPA is higher than was Al Sharpton’s afterall…….

    And yet on the stand didn’t she voluntarily describe the bump she heard after the words were exchanged as “that’s when Treyvon got hit”? I seem to recall West jumping on her about that. (I don’t recall the exact conversation and sure don’t want to go back and have to search to find it on the tape. That would be cruel and inhumane punishment.)

The Scheme Team, et al., are on the networks re-writing the facts, dismissing the trial, deriding the jurors, arguing outside the law. They have little kids singing in the State House.

It’s like the trial didn’t really matter and we’re starting again. What-ifs, race-reversals, screaming reverends, prison stats. Stand your ground is racist.

This is insane. Inventing new memes that are worse than ever before. Dangerous.


I’ve been told that though the SYG statute was not applied, an element of it — placing the burden of proof for self-defense on the prosecution as opposed to the defense — was in force.

Thus the SYG statute did in fact play a role in the trial.

Can you clarify whether there is any truth to that?

The source I was given is the following statement by Joshua Dressler, a professor at The Ohio State University Michael E. Moritz College of Law, in the WSJ article Legal Insights on the Zimmerman Verdict (

“The statute itself places the burden of persuasion regarding self-defense on the prosecutor — to prove that the defendant did NOT act in self-defense. In the past, in most states, if a defendant claimed self-defense, it was up to the defendant to prove he DID act in self-defense. So the SYG law in this case had an important legal impact.”

Any clarification would be appreciated.

    avwh in reply to Daled Amos. | July 17, 2013 at 5:35 pm

    From the CNN interview, the first juror to talk seemed to think SYG mattered:

    COOPER: Because of the two options you had, second degree murder or manslaughter, you felt neither applied?

    JUROR: Right. Because of the heat of the moment and the Stand Your Ground. He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right.

    William A. Jacobson in reply to Daled Amos. | July 17, 2013 at 5:41 pm

    See here, written by law prof Michael J.Z. Mannheimer

    Trayvon Martin and Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” Law:

    Some say that the “Stand Your Ground” law makes it exceptionally hard to win a conviction. First, some have pointed out that, in Florida, the prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense, assuming the defendant has adduced sufficient evidence to present a jury question. But this is true in virtually every State: last I checked, only Ohio and South Carolina require a defendant to shoulder the burden of persuasion on self-defense

      I looked at my (admittedly dated) criminal law text, and what it said about self-defense as an affirmative defense is that in some jurisdictions it is a preponderence of the evidence standard even though the overall criminal trial requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Do you know if the states you mentioned require a preponderence of the evidence standard on self-defense? Also, I was just wondering: if self-defense follows the reasonable doubt standard, what sense is there in calling it an affirmative defense? It seems to me that it just becomes another element of the crime that the prosecution has to prove.

    ‘SYG’ has to do with ‘duty to retreat’. It eliminated that ‘duty’. However, if you are pinned down with someone sitting on you, you CAN NOT retreat, thus this was never a SYG case.

    The right to defend yourself precedes it.

    Milhouse in reply to Daled Amos. | July 19, 2013 at 6:45 pm

    You heard wrong. This has nothing to do with “stand your ground” laws. The law is the same in 49 out of 57 states — if the defendant makes a prima facie plausible claim that it was self defense, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that it wasn’t. Only in Ohio, and perhaps in the other 7 states, is the burden of proof on the defendant, to establish on the preponderance of the evidence that it probably was self-defense.

you have a great point, the parents have already profited too so I amend my first response that it makes sense to go after them

Mark Buehner | July 17, 2013 at 6:07 pm

Angela Corey was repeating this calumny as late as a couple days ago. How can a prosecutor go around repeating blatant falsehoods that she knows are false after losing a case?

blacksburger | July 17, 2013 at 6:23 pm

I have a question.

I have been discussing the case at length on a bulletin board, and I have repeatedly said that when the dispatcher asked Zimmermann whether the suspicious person was white, black, or Hispanic, he replied. “I’m not sure. I think he’s black.”

There is a transcript of Zimmermann’s conversation with the dispatcher at This transcript does not contain the words, “I’m not sure.”

Can anyone explain the discrepancy?

    Henry Hawkins in reply to blacksburger. | July 17, 2013 at 9:25 pm

    One possibility: On any transcript of a conversation done over phone or radio, there are really two conversations depending on point of place. There’s a transcription of what one says and a transcript of what the other heard – they don’t necessarily have to agree, due to transmission noise, drownouts by ambient noise on either sender, receiver, or both sides. Sometimes not every word spoken was actually heard or ‘received’.

    (I used this little fact about comm transcripts as a plot point in a mystery short story).

    Matt in FL in reply to blacksburger. | July 18, 2013 at 3:09 am

    blacksburger, I have never once heard or seen a version of that call where he says “I’m not sure.” or “I think he’s black.” I’m not sure where you got that idea, but every time I’ve ever read or heard that phone call, it has been exactly as that transcript you linked shows. And I’ve followed this case very closely since the very beginning.

RJ just told Sharpton that she gave her testimony about the contents of her and TM’s phone calls before the city played / released them to the family.


Carol Herman | July 17, 2013 at 8:26 pm

Wasn’t there a shoe horn found in the bushes? In other words, the “burglary tool could have been a shoe horn instead of a screw driver.”

I don’t think the police (who recovered the shoe horn) did any DNA or fingerprint tests on it. And, the medical examiner (Bao) didn’t fingerprint Trademark, either.

    Exasperated in reply to Carol Herman. | July 17, 2013 at 10:25 pm

    It wasn’t found right away and I don’t recall it being tied to TM with any evidence.
    “Serino says there was no evidence that the piece of awning found behind a neighbor’s home was used as a tool…”It was a piece of an awning; I believe it was a piece of a window, piece of hardware basically. It looked like a slim jim,” said Serino. He explains that this tool is used to break windows”

A question for Andrew or Prof. Jacobson….can you all do a story on “stand your ground” laws, why they came in to being, what they are meant to accomplish. I have ideas but I think it will be very important in the coming days as the debate heats up to have information as to why we need laws like this and what happens in locations where there are none of these laws, or where those laws have been abolished. THANKS!

    Valerie in reply to caambers. | July 17, 2013 at 9:21 pm

    Here’s a copy of the law, for starters. Go ahead, read it.

    There’s nothing wrong with your question, I just think that it’s readable.

    Pauldd in reply to caambers. | July 18, 2013 at 7:54 am

    I think this is a great question: why was the longstanding common law duty to retreat abrogated by the SYG ground law. The duty to retreat does not on its face seem umreasonable and it reflected the collective wisdom and experience off common law judges over the long history of the law of self defense. Why was it changed? There must have been some perceived problem in the traditional common law that syg was intended to correct. Please explain.

      Matt in FL in reply to Pauldd. | July 18, 2013 at 11:01 am

      I don’t think it was a problem in the traditional common law, it was a problem in its application. Overzealous prosecutors, hungry for convictions and reelections and promotions, were pushing the “duty to retreat” far beyond the bounds of rationality. Most people, in a vacuum, would consider a reasonable duty to retreat perfectly rational. But in many cases, prosecutors were trying to prove that people had not exhausted every conceivable avenue of escape prior to fighting back. It wasn’t just “you could have made it to the door,” it was “you could have made it off the balcony, you only lived on the second floor, you’d have been fine to jump from 10 feet up.” SYG laws were passed, in large part, to stop that overzealous prosecution. If those prosecutors had been more rational, it wouldn’t have been necessary to pass laws to protect us from them.

      Of course, there’s also the other side, that I happen to agree with, of “Why should I have to try to run if someone attacks me?” They attacked me. Why is their life somehow now so valuable that I have to go out of my way to avoid hurting them, possibly exposing myself to further danger in the process?

Here is a video I just found on Florida Stand Your Ground statistics. I think I read this somewhere, too.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter


pics, race-on-race, male, female

caseyanderson2112 | July 17, 2013 at 9:53 pm

The hilarious part of this enduring lie is that in saying that none of this would’ve happened had Zimmerman stayed in his vehicle, they’re saying that the only way a law-abiding citizen could be safe from Trayvon Martin’s fists was to hide in a truck.

They are admitting that Trayvon Martin was a thug prone to beating on random strangers, Zimmerman should’ve known it and stayed in his truck!

I’m convinced the people who say it haven’t stopped to think about what they’re saying. They’re simply parroting what they heard someone else say.

A drug dealer used SYG defense successfully TWICE. One victim was 19. The victims were brothers. The events were two years apart. A drug felon with a gun. All were black. Where’s the outrage? Really, were’s the damn outrage. Victim was only 19.

I guess Rev. Al must have missed this one.

[…] not to give direct orders, as they would then be liable. A full treatment on this can be found here, but the summery is that Zimmerman was 1) already out of the car before the operator 2) told […]

theovincent | July 18, 2013 at 2:10 am

I really enjoyed the coverage of the trial on this site, I rarely needed to surf other sites for more information (though the court documents on axiom amnesia were revealing). I listened to that “non-emergency” call, and what I don’t hear anyone talking about is the fact that after the 911 dispatcher said “We don’t need you to do that” George said “Okay” and if you listen to the sounds on the recording, he gets back in the truck (there is no wind or distortion on the call at that point, just like at the beginning of the recording). I don’t hear anyone talking about that.

    The argument that George Zimmerman was told, ordered, commanded, ‘don’t follow’ is often contingent upon or linked with GZs call to 911.

    At no time did George Zimmerman call 911. He called the seven digit local police telephone number to report a non-emergency concern. The supposition that calling police is automatically a 911 call is so prevalent that 911 is now shorthand for calling police, fire, rescue for whatever the reason.

[…] The MSM have been the worst offenders, deliberately spreading lies or spouting misinformation. For example, during the trial the police dispatcher testified he didn’t order or tell Zimmerman to stay in the truck. He said that dispatchers are specifically trained not to provide instructions like that, which could constitute legal advice.… […]

One punch, one knockout. In the altercation between Zimmerman and Martin, there was one punch, and no knockout. In the street ‘game’ Knockout, punches continue until the target is unconscious. There is evidence that was not allowed in court that indicates that Martin was least at least familiar with the game, if not, a participant. It’s possible that there was no racial or sex component to the attack, rather it was the Knockout game Martin was playing. Since the Z/M altercation, there have been several deaths attributed to Knockout which was prevalent in many cities in the years before, so was not unknown to anyone watching You Tube or the news and certainly wasn’t unknown to a high school kid who was videoed refereeing a street fight.

[…] the media’s demonization of Zimmerman hook, line and sinker. I was also not surprised at how many people believe (the myth) that Zimmerman was told to not get out of his car. (See also here.) These people would probably be happier if Zimmerman had just remained on the […]