Law of Self Defense: Flashback to Three Lies Created From Zimmerman 911 Audio
Jay Z’s “Rest in Power” continues usual propaganda about Trayvon Martin’s death
With the “documentary” Rest in Power: The Trayvon Martin Story by Jay Z in the news, I though it worthwhile to make this Case of the Week about the lies created by doctoring the audio file of the call George Zimmerman made to the police moments before he was viciously attacked by Trayvon Martin.
(For those interested in having the complete, un-doctored audio file, you can download that by clicking here. Also, if you’d like to access a video version of this post, with the 911 audio imbedded, see video below.)
On that fateful night, George Zimmerman called the non-emergency police number when he saw a suspicious person, just as he’d been instructed to do in his neighborhood watch training by the police. That suspicious person would turn out to be Trayvon Martin.
Lie #1: “He looks black.”
The first lie derived from the doctored audio is designed to make Zimmerman appear explicitly racist. The doctored “Zimmerman” spontaneously notifies the dispatcher that Trayvon “looks black.” But why would Trayvon being black be noteworthy? Does Zimmerman think all black people are inherently suspicious? Isn’t that racist?
The doctored version of the audio is this:
GZ: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good, or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around looking about. He looks black.”
Sounds pretty racist, right? Well, here’s the actual un-doctored audio:
GZ: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good, or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around looking about.”
Dispatcher: “OK, and this guy, is he white, black or Hispanic?”
GZ: “He looks black.”
Well, look at that. Now we have a bit of context that the doctored version lacked. Specifically, we have an utterly innocent explanation for why Zimmerman mentioned that Trayvon “looked black”—because the dispatcher asked him.
For whatever reason, the “Rest in Power” documentary, at least the first episode, does not make use of this particular lie.
Lie #2: Zimmerman Violated Police Order to Stay in Car
The second lie commonly derived from the doctored audio tape is that Zimmerman got out of his car contrary to police orders (and therefore presumably out of malice), to pursue the fleeing Trayvon, because, I guess, “racist.”
The doctored version of the audio, as presented on Episode 1 of “Rest in Power: The Trayvon Martin Story,” is transcribed as:
GZ: [Giving dispatcher directions for responding officers when …] “Shit he’s running.” [Trayvon runs out of sight behind a building.]
[Sound of car door opening, key-in-ignition chime.]
GZ: [Wind noise heard on cell phone.] “F**king punks.”
Dispatcher: “Are you following him?”
GZ: “Yes.”
Dispatcher: “OK, we don’t need you to do that.”
Obviously, even this doctored version of the audio cannot factually support the narrative that Zimmerman got out of his car against “police orders,” because the dispatcher never referenced Zimmerman’s car at all. Further, the only sentence even vaguely related to Zimmerman being out of his car was the dispatcher saying “OK, we don’t need you to do that.” which happened only after Zimmerman was already out of his car.
Still, Zimmerman getting out of his car on his own initiative must be an indication of malice, right? It can only have been an act of bad faith so that he could close with and attack Trayvon, correct?
Well, no, because here’s the actual un-doctored audio:
GZ: [Giving dispatcher directions for responding officers when …]
“Sh*t he’s running.” [Trayvon runs out of sight behind a building.]
Dispatcher: “He’s running? Which way is he running?”
[Sound of car door opening, key-in-ignition chime.]
GZ: [Grunts] “Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood.”
Dispatcher: “OK, which entrance is that, that he’s heading for?
GZ: “The back entrance.” [Wind noise heard on cell phone.] “F**king punks.”
Dispatcher: “Are you following him?”
GZ: “Yes.”
Dispatcher: “OK, we don’t need you to do that.”
Without the doctoring it’s clear that Zimmerman got out of the car not from malice, but because, being unable to see through the building Trayvon had run behind, Zimmerman needed to exit his car and look around the side of the building in order to fully answer the dispatcher’s question, “Which way is he running?”
Indeed, this is precisely the explanation Zimmerman would provide afterwards for why he exited the car, and it’s entirely consistent with a good faith effort to assist the police rather than a bad faith effort to pursue and chase down Trayvon.
Now, getting out of the car was indeed a tactical error—Zimmerman put himself in an ambush position and got himself ambushed. It was not, however, a legal error.
And, speaking of the narrative of Zimmerman engaging in “bad faith effort to pursue and chase down Trayvon,” that gets us to the third common lie:
Lie #3: Zimmerman Was Non-Compliant With Dispatcher
The third lie built from doctoring this audio is that when Zimmerman was informed by the dispatcher, “OK, we don’t need you to do that,” he refused to comply with this suggestion.
The doctored version of this portion of the audio, as presented on Episode 1 of “Rest in Power: The Trayvon Martin Story”, is as follows:
GZ: [Wind noise on cell phone.]
Dispatcher: “Are you following him?”
GZ: “Yes.”
Dispatcher: “OK, we don’t need you to do that.”
GZ: [Silent, audio ends here.]
So Zimmerman obviously refused to comply with the suggestion, if not order of the dispatcher right? Surely that’s a sign of bad faith? Well, no, because here’s the actual un-doctored audio:
GZ: [Wind noise on cell phone.]
Dispatcher: “Are you following him?”
GZ: Yes.
Dispatcher: “OK, we don’t need you to do that.”
GZ: OK.
Well, how about that. Zimmerman, once informed that the dispatcher didn’t need him to follow Trayvon was immediately compliant with that suggestion. Not much bad faith there, once the full context is known.
My Video Explaining it All
Propaganda Is Brainwashing
In closing, I’d point out that when someone attempts in an organized and systematic fashion to convince you that unreality is reality, that’s simply a form of brainwashing no different than when the Communists put their political prisoners into re-education camps. People acting out of goodwill don’t deliberately generate propaganda to brainwash others; enemies of the truth do.
Law of Self Defense: Debunking “Rest in Power”
For those who might be interested, and as mentioned previously here on Legal Insurrection, I am engaged in an exclusive in-depth debunking of the propagandistic faux-documentary that is “Rest in Power.” I’ve even talked with Attorney Don West, co-counsel to Zimmerman on his trial, about contribution, and he’s expressed very strong interest.
For those who might be interested in obtaining access to that work product, we are taking contributions of as little as $10 through an IndieGoGo campaign, with generous “perks” at various levels of contribution. You can learn more about that opportunity by pointing your browser to: lawofselfdefense.com/Trayvon.
–Andrew
Attorney Andrew F. Branca
Law of Self Defense LLC
Learn more about self-defense law from Attorney Andrew F. Branca and Law of Self Defense LLC by visiting the Law of Self Defense Patreon page for both free and paid-access content, and by viewing his free weekly Law of Self Defense Show.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I know all the football players in the NFL want to keep this conversation going, but…who is even having these conversations? It’s always a one way form of information to to uncritically present an argument to a viewer to sway them.
The internet and dialogue on it, has largely been thwarted in the last couple years by propping up the notion that speech those offends is hateful and therefore ban worthy.
If given the chance to actually engage in dialogue around this issue and this case, I just want to know what people think when they kind out that they are hearing doctored audio recordings?
I mentioned that to my cousin, an educated lady from the South, just last month. She had NEVER heard that the 911 call was edited by the media. She was shocked. I used it as an example of why the media is biased and I do not listen to it. She has just recently started to turn off the news because she is starting to wonder if they are telling her the truth.
Eyes are opening, slowly, but they are opening.
I guess you don’t like that O’Keefe doctors everything he releases. No pimp in outlandish costume ever entered an ACORN office. The questions and answers were edited and moved out of context. Yet he is a hero and continues to enjoy funding.
Does it bother you that the 1st alleged lie that Branca mentions does not appear in the video but it is implied in the headline of this article? Perhaps the series is not biased. What I find inexplicable is Branca’s comment:
It seems that he had a pre-conceived notion of the show. When the show did not conform to his prejudices, he found that inexplicable!
No, O’Keefe does not doctor anything. He edits his videos, of course, just like every video journalist, ever, but he does so honestly. And just to prove it, unlike every video journalist ever, he makes the full unedited footage available online.
He never claimed that he visited the ACORN offices in a strange costume. He said he presented himself to them as a pimp, and that is exactly what he did.
No, it does not bother me that the 1st lie (not “alleged lie”) that Branca mentions does not appear in the JZ video, at least in the first episode. There is no implication in the headline that it does. You seem to be the one with preconceived notions, seeing implications that just aren’t there.
Actually it has nothing to do with prejudices, it is simply complete reporting, since it was one of the main lies that was used to convict Zimmerman in the media and leaving it out would have been unprofessional and inaccurate.
Truth offends those who lie.
Another common claim is that people should mind their own business, how dare they call police or otherwise interfere when blacks want to break laws.
Fight like a man, means fight in a way there they will prevail. Since the dawn of humanity, people have been inventing better ways and better tools to win fights.
The truth is that if Trayvon’s sort of parents had invested even a fraction of the time raising him that they have invested in monetizing his death, he might have turned out to be a productive person.
Trayvon, like many teens, desperately needed a firm hand and tough love. Ma dumped Trayon on dad, and dad was more interested that night in his girlfriend than sitting on Trayvon and making him so sorry for being a delinquent brat destined for jail. If Trayvon had survived that night, he would have been tried as an adult and jailed for assault.
Up until the fight that was allegedly started by Trayvon, what law had Trayvon broken? Why had Zimmerman primarily or exclusively called the police on blacks? Did GZ have a previously description of the person or persons who broke in to a house or were involved in mischief in the development?
Didn’t it turn out that Trayvon had a perfectly good reason for walking in the rain; even walking around (he was talking to his girlfriend)? There was no evidence that he was casing anything or doing anything illegal.
Trayvon had reason to fear Zimmerman; who may well have pulled his weapon. We really don’t know. Do we? Of course, if I tailing someone who I thought was a thug into a dark area, I would keep my gun on my hip and wait to be attacked.
Maybe. Perhaps, with a good lawyer he would have beaten any charges. Perhaps, with the opportunity for TM to offer his side of the story, GZ might have been in jeopardy either criminally or civilly. TM had reason to be in fear for his life since he was being tailed by man with a gun. He had the same presumption of self-defense.
Was there a break-in that night? Did I miss something?
Thank you for offering an excellent example of a biased view. You accepted the word of the only survivor. The jury decided he was not guilty. That is not the same as justified or innocent. GZ was a wanna-be cop who will never-be. He got a chance to play cop and he took it.
“Up until the fight that was allegedly started by Trayvon, what law had Trayvon broken?”
None. It isn’t required for a law to be broken before a neighborhood watch can contact police about someone. It seemed pretty clear that Trayvon started the fight and evidence from the trial supported that.
“Why had Zimmerman primarily or exclusively called the police on blacks?”
Not sure if this charge is true or not, but in the case of Trayvon, it was because he was loitering around the neighborhood when it was dark and raining, which seemed suspicious to George.
“Did GZ have a previously description of the person or persons who broke in to a house or were involved in mischief in the development?”
I believe it was covered during the trial and the answer was yes. I’m not 100% on that.
“Didn’t it turn out that Trayvon had a perfectly good reason for walking in the rain; even walking around (he was talking to his girlfriend)?”
He had a reason, I wouldn’t say it was a perfectly good one. He had gone to the store for candy and a drink (which were ingredients for a drug cocktail called Lean).
“There was no evidence that he was casing anything or doing anything illegal.”
Nope, he ultimately wasn’t doing that. He was not arrested or detained or engaged by anyone over looking suspicious. He engaged Zimmerman in a fight and that was his fatal mistake.
“Trayvon had reason to fear Zimmerman; who may well have pulled his weapon. We really don’t know. Do we? Of course, if I tailing someone who I thought was a thug into a dark area, I would keep my gun on my hip and wait to be attacked.”
Not sure what you’re saying here. Trayvon didn’t know Zimmerman had a gun, so he wasn’t necessarily fearful of him. Your plan of action for dealing with thugs seems illogical and unreasonable. I don’t think anyone would address a situation like that.
“Was there a break-in that night? Did I miss something?”
Not that night, there doesn’t need to be. There were break ins that occurred in the neighborhood.
“Thank you for offering an excellent example of a biased view.”
Pot calling the kettle black.
“You accepted the word of the only survivor. The jury decided he was not guilty. That is not the same as justified or innocent.”
The jury agreed with the story of the survivor and the not guilty verdict does mean that the shooting was justified.
“GZ was a wanna-be cop who will never-be. He got a chance to play cop and he took it.”
So what? How does that change anything?
There is evidence from the phone call that TM was on that TM thought he was being pursued and that he felt threatened and pissed. Can’t a black kid go to the store without being a suspect?
Was TM loitering or going home to get high on ‘Lean’? The 2 are contradictory. Perhaps TM stopped to smoke bananas?
The 2nd half of the All-Star game was coming on and his cousin was waiting. Perhaps GZ was exaggerating and TM was not loitering? We have no time line. We simply have a 911 phone call in which GZ alleges things that are never proven. That is where the wanna-be cop starts to come in. BTW, cops do it, too. It is called testi-lying.
What I was getting at was that we don’t know that GZ didn’t have his gun out. My plan for dealing with a thug would be to back the F up as long as I had a choice. But if I had a gun and was determined to see the thug stopped, (‘The F’en punks’ ‘he’s running’), I sure as sheet would pull my weapon. How else is fat GZ going to detain the punk or even safely follow him?
There is absolutely no evidence that GZ ceased pursuit. GZ’s blood was up. GZ wanted the fu.ken punk caught. Of course he just backed off. This is not evidence and proves nothing. But don’t you conservatives love ‘common sense’? I guess GZ had uncommon sense; although little in the rest of his life provides evidence of this.
Not guilty does not mean that the shooting was justified. It just means that there was reasonable doubt. I don’t dispute that.
You don’t think a wanna-be cop would have an attitude? Okay. I admit that is speculation. But when it comes to the truth, parts of GZ’s story smell. From the final police report:
(This is in response to your other message that I can’t reply to)
“There is evidence from the phone call that TM was on that TM thought he was being pursued and that he felt threatened and pissed. Can’t a black kid go to the store without being a suspect?”
Yes, he was reported to have said someone was following him. Yes, a black kid can go to the store without being a suspect. I agree and everyone else agrees, that it appears on the night of his death, Trayvon was not engaging in any illegal activity prior to the fighting with George Zimmerman.
“Was TM loitering or going home to get high on ‘Lean’? The 2 are contradictory. Perhaps TM stopped to smoke bananas?”
Loitering was not a crime, it was a description of the activities that GZ thought was suspicious. Getting high on ‘Lean’ would have occurred at home. That is not contradictory. I do not know what smoking bananas means.
As a side note, Trayvon’s liver showed signs of damage…which would be consistent with ‘Lean’ usage. That evidence was excluded from the trial, btw.
“Perhaps GZ was exaggerating and TM was not loitering? We have no time line. We simply have a 911 phone call in which GZ alleges things that are never proven.”
We do have the timeline. It was all mapped out during the trial. If Trayvon was loitering, it was not illegal for him to do so. Nothing was wrong about what Trayvon was doing, it was simply activity that George Zimmerman thought was suspicious and led to him to notify the police.
So, to be clear, the activities going on during the 911 call…no laws were broken by Trayvon. That was not the issue. The issue was the ensuing fight that broke out that led to lethal self defense.
“What I was getting at was that we don’t know that GZ didn’t have his gun out.”
Sure, completely true. We don’t 100% know. What we do know is that Zimmerman did not fire his gun at Trayvon in a situation like that. We know a physical fight broke out between the two, something that residents witnessed.
” I sure as sheet would pull my weapon. How else is fat GZ going to detain the punk or even safely follow him?”
I have no idea why this would be your course of action. It seems irresponsible. GZ was not planning on detaining Trayvon, as far as we know. You can follow someone without pulling a weapon.
“There is absolutely no evidence that GZ ceased pursuit. GZ’s blood was up. GZ wanted the fu.ken punk caught. Of course he just backed off. This is not evidence and proves nothing. But don’t you conservatives love ‘common sense’?”
Of course conservatives love common sense. Doesn’t everyone? Was GZ even a conservative? I don’t know his political leanings.
There is evidence that GZ continued to pursue, that’s why he was between the apartments. The article states that he was not dismissive of the 911 operator as implied by the show.
“Not guilty does not mean that the shooting was justified. It just means that there was reasonable doubt. I don’t dispute that.”
Not in this case. In this case it was a question of whether Zimmerman lawfully used lethal force in self defense. The trial concluded that Zimmerman was justified in using lethal force. There was never a question or any dispute, that it was George Zimmerman that shot Trayvon Martin. The conclusion of this case was that Zimmerman was justified in shooting him, which was found to be justified because he was mounted and being struck with punches by Trayvon at the time of the shooting.
“You don’t think a wanna-be cop would have an attitude? ”
He may, but that isn’t the issue. You waiver from calling Zimmerman a coward and a badass, he’s both tubby and a buffoon, but also a rabid racist with a plan to track and detain a black person by himself. Your characterization of him makes little sense.
If Zimmerman went to shoot Trayvon and had a plan to do such a thing, which sounds like you imply, then why would he have called 911 at all?
“From the final police report:
“The encounter between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin was ultimately avoidable by Zimmerman if Zimmerman had remained in his vehicle and awaited the arrival of law enforcement or conversely if he had identified himself to Martin as a concerned citizen and initiated dialog in an effort to dispel each party’s concern. There is no indication that Trayvon Martin was involved in any criminal activity at the time of the encounter.”
Totally agree. If Zimmerman stayed in his vehicle, this situation would have been avoided. Trayvon was not breaking the law prior to the attack. As far as I know, everyone agrees with that assessment.
I don’t think there are many serious points of disagreement between us.
I don’t think the intent of the documentary is to further explore the legalities of the case. The court has spoken. The question is whether justice was truly served.
Zimmerman did not testify. That was his legal right and a strategic success. But any claim that he was justified, as opposed to not guilty, would have required him to testify and be subjected to cross-examination. Let me emphasize that I fully understand that he was under no obligation to testify. But in the court of public opinion he will always remain suspect.
Something about Zimmerman smells bad and I think you damn well know that. He is simply not a poster boy for how you would want whites to act toward blacks in a fair and just society.
BTW, in refreshing my understanding of this case, I ran across articles that described Zimmerman’s previous calls to police. All 4 of his previous complaints were reports about black men. The community had become, as a result of the housing crisis, largely rental. It contained a significant number of black families. Were all the black men in those families to be considered suspect if they were out in the rain or were looking around their neighborhood? Apparently, the answer is ‘YES’.
“That evidence was excluded from the trial, btw.”
This is another great point. Zimmerman was acquitted in spite of a bias Judge who excluded evidence that should have been allowed in trial and with a prosecution team that withheld evidence and acted in such a unethical manner that they were placed under investigation for their actions. Even with all the cards in their favor they still couldn’t get a conviction.
@Mighty_WHrIGHTY
We know that most likely Zimmerman didn’t have his gun out for several reasons.
1: Zimmerman had no history of inappropriately presenting his gun.
2: Martin never mentioned the person following him being armed in the phone call you seem to be so impressed with.
3: I don’t think that Martin would be stupid enough to attack a man with a readied gun.
Also, are you expecting us to believe that Zimmerman was such a criminal mastermind that he allowed himself to be beaten about the head and face, just so he could shoot someone? (If so you watch way to many crappy movies with poor writing.)
Finally, when you say the shooting wasn’t “Justified” nor is Zimmerman “innocent” you are wrong on both points. The shooting was justified according to the evidence, especially taking into light the evidence that was excluded from trial. Also, yes Zimmerman is innocent, you know that whole “innocent until PROVEN guilty” thing. Proven guilty not your delusional fever dreams.
In the deposition of Trayvon Martin’s girlfriend, she reported that Trayvon Martin reached home. If he had felt threatened, his first choice would have been to have gone inside.
Instead, he chose to turn around and venture back into the darkness in the direction he came from, back toward Zimmerman. His choice may have been to satisfy his curiosity or may have been to confront Zimmerman. The result was a confrontation and a fight.
The fight was noisy and lasted quite a while – a long time in terms of being in a fight. Even as Zimmerman was being confronted he did not go for his gun. He did not brandish it in defense or offense.
Most notably, the time between the start of the fight and the firing of the weapon suggests that he refrained from using deadly force until he was seriously losing the fight.
“The question is whether justice was truly served.”
As a matter of law, Trayvon received lawful justice. The same was true for Mike Brown and most of the cases which blacks have promoted as injustices.
I don’t think the vast majority of people like to see black men dying, I do think that blacks need to carefully consider the things which they can do to improve this situation. The solution starts with closely supervised parenting, with reading to children and instilling a love for learning early on, and a culture which values respect for other people and their property, learning and a good work ethic.
The same applies to many poor people, people of all races. Yet blacks have the distinction of over a seven fold higher crime rate than any other major group.
That night, none that we know of. But previously, at least burglary. Zimmerman didn’t know that, but we do.
Because that’s who happened to have been behaving suspiciously on those previous occasions. That’s hardly surprising, since blacks are far more likely than anyone else to commit crimes, and therefore also to behave like they’re committing or about to commit crimes. Further, as you note later the development had recently had an influx of black tenants, so anyone he didn’t recognize as a long-term resident were likely to be black.
The description of the previous burglar was irrelevant; the only relevant consideration was the next burglar, and there was no reason to suppose he or she would resemble the previous one.
<blockquoteDidn’t it turn out that Martin had a perfectly good reason for walking in the rain; even walking around (he was talking to his girlfriend)? No, that is not a good reason for walking around in the rain. It is not normal for a person to walk around aimlessly in the rain just because they’re on the phone. If one is not going somewhere specific one looks for shelter and then takes it.
In any event, even if he’d had a legitimate reason, that would not invalidate Zimmerman’s suspicions. One does not need proof beyond reasonable doubt before calling the police. “If you see something, say something.”
There was and still is no evidence he wasn’t, and it remains the most likely explanation for his behavior. Given what we know (but Zimmerman didn’t) about his criminal past, it seems likely that had Zimmerman not stopped him he would eventually have broken into that house or some other house in the development, either that night or some subsequent night.
Being followed does not give one reason or a right to attack the person following one. There is no right not to be followed. One may be on heightened alert, in case the person intends to attack one, but one has no legitimate reason to expect that to happen. And since you put such credence on his alleged girlfriend’s account of their conversation, she didn’t report his having mentioned any gun, so there’s no basis for supposing he had it drawn.
Oops, I messed up the quoting at the end of that. Let’s try that section again.
No, he didn’t. For self-defense to be legitimate a threat of imminent force must be not only subjectively perceived but also objectively reasonable, and Martin had no legitimate reason to fear an imminent attack.
There wasn’t, perhaps precisely because of Zimmerman’s alertness.
No, he wasn’t. On the contrary, he was offered an official position with the police and turned it down.
BTW the whole “lean” angle seems to come from some unfounded speculation on Conservative Nuthouse, and should be ignored.
“Up until the fight that was allegedly started by Trayvon, what law had Trayvon broken?”
None that we know of, but suspicion does not require certainty, just possibility. The claim, that no one has been able to rebut, that he was standing in the grass looking into apreviously cased house of which Zimmerman knew the owner, in a neighborhood with a string of burglaries was enough to sustain a valid suspicion.
“Why had Zimmerman primarily or exclusively called the police on blacks?”
Probably for the same reason most of the reports from other people, as well as the arrests and burglaries where a person of interest were reported were primarily about black suspects. Demographics of crime.
“Did GZ have a previously description of the person or persons who broke in to a house or were involved in mischief in the development?”
Yes, he did. See above.
“Didn’t it turn out that Trayvon had a perfectly good reason for walking in the rain; even walking around (he was talking to his girlfriend)?”
No, because, one Rachel Jeantel wasn’t his girlfriend, and two, her alibis would be hearsay as well as not being statements recent in time which surfaced only after she was coached by Benjamin Crump, the attorney for Martin’s family. Her being on the phone with Trayvon did not change the fact that a walk back home that should have taken around 17 minutes to get back home, was over 30 before he encountered Zimmerman at a spot that would have taken him roughly 12 minutes to arrive from the 7 Eleven. That is enough to make a reasonable deduction that he could have been casing houses just as much as he could have just been walking around.
“There was no evidence that he was casing anything or doing anything illegal.”
There was no evidence to show the opposite either. The fact that he was found with stolen goods and a commercial screwdriver in his school, that he talked of illegally acquiring guns as a minor with Rachel Jeantel through text, and that missing time would be enough to create a reasonable doubt that Martin may or may not have been up to any illegal activity, but his past did not seem to point that he would be incapable of it.
“Trayvon had reason to fear Zimmerman; who may well have pulled his weapon. We really don’t know. Do we?”
We don’t but we know that Rachel Jeantel never mentioned any gun, that Martin was not afraid enough to walk up to Zimmerman’s car, close enough for Zimmerman to see his pin, and that Jeantel said Martin made it to the back of his house, yet he returned to the alley intersection, all would indicate a lack of fear, especially of a gun.
“Of course, if I tailing someone who I thought was a thug into a dark area, I would keep my gun on my hip and wait to be attacked.”
No evidence he thought he was a thug, but a possible asshole, yes. What there isn’t is evidence he tailed Martin into any dark area. What we know is that Zimmerman claimed twice Martin had run away. Zimmerman also had stopped walking fast and breathing hard after acknowledging the dispatcher’s suggestion not to follow and had a 4 minute conversation with the dispatcher that followed. Furthermore, Zimmerman stated, and no one has proven his claim false, that he stayed on the path to the other side where he was fully illuminated by his truck’s light at that point.
“Maybe. Perhaps, with a good lawyer he would have beaten any charges. Perhaps, with the opportunity for TM to offer his side of the story, GZ might have been in jeopardy either criminally or civilly.”
Maybe, but not likely with the evidence available to us now.
“TM had reason to be in fear for his life since he was being tailed by man with a gun. He had the same presumption of self-defense.”
Not really. No evidence he knew Zimmerman had a gun. Furthermore he ran away and came back. That is enough to invalidate both standard self defense which requires an attempt to retreat and stand your ground which does not allow you to stand ground you have ceded by running away.
“Was there a break-in that night? Did I miss something?”
No need for there to be. Prior break ins were enough to allow for suspicion.
“Thank you for offering an excellent example of a biased view.”
You are projecting.
“You accepted the word of the only survivor.”
And the forensic evidence that corroborated his claims and did not contradict his overall claims.
“The jury decided he was not guilty. That is not the same as justified or innocent.”
The law says you are innocent till proven guilty and claim of self defense is an affirmative action that is deemed justified if the accused is found not guilty.
“GZ was a wanna-be cop who will never-be.”
Actually his only issue was credit. He could have easily overcome that and become an officer
“instead He got a chance to play cop and he took it.”
Nice biased opinion, but no evidence to support it. As of now, the evidence in court has deemed him not guilty, the family attorney avoided bringing a civil suit, and the excluded evidence would have made it in if, Crump had brought a civil suit into play. So it seems not guilty is the determination today.
Thanks, Andrew. Jay Z is a pretty brazen propagandist.
And ignoramus. Goes to show you money can’t buy everything.
Yes, we don’t want people to have power simply because they are rich – very rich.
No worse than NBC News, which was the first to edit the “he looks black” statement. Perhaps Sarah Sanders should tell Jim Acosta about this!
Actually, I think that JZ is worse than NBC. His so called investigator was not investigating anything, in my opinion, he is a stooge sent by JZ to frame Zimmerman.
One of the things I had hoped to see from DOJ and the FBI, was prosecution of those violating Zimmerman’s, his family’s, friends and business associates civil rights. Not just the Zimmerman case, but also a bunch of other cases.
Those behind a nationally organized effort to punish anyone who has the gall to shot and kill a black assaulter, need the same treatment which the KKK and white supremists received for similar conduct.
I thank George Zimmerman for his community service, his service to Sanford, FL, Florida, and humanity, in general.
If racism had any factor in the incident, it is entirely attributable to the decedent, a despicable ne’er do well who’s own mother had thrown him out of her own home and foisted him off on Sanford.
I can’t remember the last objective documentary I watched. There are always advocacy or persuasion pieces, whether it’s ancient aliens or michael moore.
The best part was when the dispatcher testified in open court that he did not order Zimmerman to do anything and in fact had no authority to give any order.
All the lies in the Zimmerman case were totally debunked in court. What came out in court was exactly what Zimmerman told the police happened on more than one occasion. It was supported by witness testimony, both eye and forensic, at the time of the incident and in court. And, the people who put together this video SHOULD KNOW that. But, the truth has nothing to do with this.
When barack Obama was elected he, and the entire race hustling industry, continually pushed the narrative that all whites were racist, all police were racist and even that Obama’s grandmother was racist. This was a contrived narrative to divide this nation along racial lines, nothing more. And, it still being done today. It is part of a plan to destroy this nation. In fact, it has now been expanded to include other minorities; such as Hispanics, homosexuals, Muslims and women. For some reason orientals have been excluded from this pantheon of oppressed minorities. And, of course, the boogeyman is white, heterosexual, Christian males, especially if they are at all conservative.
Thank you, Andrew.
In the sentence, “Zimmerman, once informed that the dispatcher didn’t need him to follow Trayvon was immediately compliant with that suggestion,” I suggest that you insert a comma immediately after the name “Trayvon.”
And there is the medias’ Pictorial Lie, to wit, using a picture of an innocent-looking 12 year old Trayvon vs the gang-banger photos of himself he posted on-line.
The sociopath was already a hoodlum by age 12. The apple did not fall far from the tree.
Perhaps, but the photo the MSM dug up and used showed an apparently Wonderful Child; it was taken when he was about twelve. It would have been much more accurate to have used the one Trayvon posted on-line just before his death, where he as posing with a gun held gangsta-style and looked just like a scruffy thug. Which is what it turned out he was.
I am also an attorney and followed this case closely as I too am of mixed ancestry. There are various dishonest moments in the first two episodes. They edited the part where he describes the clothing as well to make it look lile he folcused on the hoodie. Zimmerman actually states in one of his police interrogations exactly why he found Martin suspicious. Martin was looking into a house that was not on the direct path to the house he was staying in and Zimmerman knew the owner and knew Martin did not belong there. 1460 Retreat View Cir, Sanford, FL 32771
“… as I too am of mixed ancestry…”
I should hope so. Unless of course you’re in the running for the next ptolemaic Pharaoh of Egypt.
ANd Travon had been booted out of high school when “burglary tools” were found in his locker. Zimmerman had a good hunch Travon was up to no good… in this probably casing the neighborhood.
Zimmerman could not have known that, since he didn’t know where Martin was staying, or even that he was staying somewhere in the area.
Zimmerman could not have known that either.
Basically Martin looked like a potential burglar, was behaving like one, so Zimmerman called it in, as he should have. We know, though he didn’t, that his suspicion was likely to be correct.
“Zimmerman could not have known that, since he didn’t know where Martin was staying, or even that he was staying somewhere in the area.”
It doesn’t go towards Zimmerman’s state of mind, but it does go towards Martin’s state of mind.
With Zimmerman out of the news after Apperson, he is basically stayed out of trouble. Now this documentary outs a target on his back again.
Here is something I have to wonder. Isn’t including the doctored tape malice? Couldn’t Zimmerman sue Jay-Z?
Help me out here. I can’t remember which violent gang Trayvon’s daddy was in. Crips or bloods?
None. That’s hardly evidence of his son’s innocence.
Or guilt.
Huh? How could the father’s lack of known gang involvement even be mistakenly thought of as evidence of the son’s guilt?
“https://www.google.com/search?q=tracy+martin+gang+affilation”
Apparently Tracy Martin was affiliated with the Crips.
This is relevant in that it sheds light on how Trayvon’s dad might have influenced Trayvon’s outlook.
The same was true for Mike Brown.
Freemasons
https://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/11/opinion/the-news-we-kept-to-ourselves.html
This was an op-ed penned by then CNN’s chief news executive and president of newsgathering and international networks, Eason Jordan. It was supposed to be a tear jerker. “We didn’t want to lie for Saddam Hussein, but we had no choice or else we would have put our local employees at risk.”
BS. CNN crawled across broken glass to give Saddam Hussein a tongue bath and then handed him a group of Iraqi hostages just for the tagline, “This is CNN, Baghdad.” When CNN news presenters balked at repeating verbatim propaganda from the dictator’s Ministry of Information as if it was hard news he ordered them to do so or be fired. Eason Jordan was an enthusiastic participant in the propaganda war against me, serving in the Navy at the time.
Later, in 2006, still residing as CNN’s chief news executive and president of newsgathering and international networks he pronounced that the US military deliberately targeted journalists.
To be clear, I don’t consider 99.9% of the operatives in the “news” business journalists. I call them presstitutes, as did most us in the military back in the ’90s and to this day. They might as well trade in their press IDs for DNC IDs.
Ordnance is expensive, at least when it comes air launched or heavy artillery. We buy in bulk when it comes to small arms ammo, but even if costs only a penny I wouldn’t waste a round on a “journalist.” I wouldn’t pee on one if they were on fire.
Well, OK, I would pee on one. But only after I was done drinking and laughing, and the journalist had finished thrashing around so as I wouldn’t risk any injury to my wedding tackle as I have plans for its future.
You might be wondering if there’s a point, Andrew. There is. I expect the media to lie to me. I expect the media to lie about me. They’ve been doing both my whole life. So good on you for setting the record straight but you’re kind of preaching to the choir. There’s a syndrome where people know the media is lying about something that we know something about. Usually they’re 180 degrees out from the truth. But then they’ll turn the page or watch the next segment and believe it.
I don’t suffer from that syndrome. I don’t believe many of us here do. In my case I just figure they’re lying to me all the time. I only suffer through CNN in airport departure lounges as I cancelled my cable in 2006. TV is a wasteland. And as been my habit when I need to preserve the charge on my phone I’ll watch CNN report something and wonder if any of what I just heard is true.
And I didn’t need Donald Trump to tell me any of this! But Acosta, Stelter, et al, not just at CNN but throughout their circus think that the only reason I think they’re my enemy is because DJT tells me. And if he would just shut up I’m going to believe their BS. They think I’m some dumb herd animal and if they eliminate the competition they can once again be my cowherd.
Good round up, Andrew, and I realize it was a different case but “hands up, don’t shoot” will never die. F*** the grand jury testimony. Tet was a huge North Vietnamese/Vietcong victory over the US military. George Zimmerman stalked and gunned down an innocent 11 year old Trayvon Martin. Jay Z tells me so.
Arminius | August 11, 2018 at 1:56 pm said
“”… as I too am of mixed ancestry…”
I should hope so. Unless of course you’re in the running for the next ptolemaic Pharaoh of Egypt.”
George Zimmerman was typecast as a White racist. He actually is a person of mixed ancestry. His father is a White American and his mother is an AfroIndigenous Peruvian. Not a racist bone in his body.
Trayvon was a punk and a thug. He got what he deserved. Many more of them are still walking around. The rest of us need to be ready to respond when they get violent.
That’s everything I need to know about this story.
Mr. Branca,
Why would you possibly include a ‘lie’ that was not in the documentary/drama? That presumes bias.
Your second allegation of intentional lie is meaningless without a timeline and a map.
There were a grand total of 2 entrances/exits? I can see why GZ would have had to follow him to discover he might, might, TM going to the 2nd exit. /sarc
Once again a map and timeline would be useful. Was GZ compliant? We do not know that. We only know that he acknowledged the operator.
As for the propaganda claim, please tell me that there has been no propaganda attempting to blame black men for any and all random crime (especially in locales like Sanford). This is a community that had suffered greatly from the fallout of the Great Recession. I can envision that someone in financial peril might loot an empty home. Was that person black? Most certainly if you are to believe right-wing sources. Do right-wingers engage in propaganda or is that strictly the purview of left-wingers?
Lastly – Was it doctored or did GZ referred to Fu.ken Punks? No malice in that!
GZ was acquitted. I understand why. Was he innocent? I don’t think so. It defies credulity that he didn’t draw his gun while attempting to keep a fu.ken punk from escaping justice. GZ was simply not up to the task of accomplishing that without drawing his weapon.
Fredrick Douglas said that is was easier to build strong children than repair broken men. Travon was spiraling down and all of his actions prior to showing up in Sanford were a prelude to disaster. You want desperately to rebuild what happened but it can’t be done. Travon was angry at the whole world and physically striking back. This is not a story of George Zimmerman but the story of trying to justify a failed cultural climate. The everyday Black African was better off under colonial rule and the Black American families were stronger under the oppression of segregation. The terrible days of segregation have been replaced by something far worse and generations have been lost… the majority of it self inflicted.
If what you claim is true, then African Americans deserve to be made whole for the damage that was done to them. The cost of the reparations should be commensurate to the harm.
Here is a thought piece for you since you obviously are a true intellectual who has researched this in great depth and developed a remarkable theory: Do you think someone who is a liar, grifter and was a business failure in most of his ventures wouldn’t be living in the gutter if not for his luck in having exactly the opposite circumstances in life?
Please leave the Clintons out of this
Seems like you got my point.
I have read all your posts and you are to be commended for calmly discussing your opinion of the known facts. The only argument I have with your position is that you are ignoring the elephant in the room: TM assaulted GZ, had him on his back utilizing “mixed martial arts ground and pound” blows.
1. TM certainly wouldn’t have assaulted or confronted GZ if, as you opined, GZ had his weapon out. (IMHO, conclusive proof that you are mistaken on this point.)
2. Regardless of the outrage and disrespect felt by a Black kid being treated by GZ as a potential burglar, TM fatally erred in confronting GZ with violence. (See also SYG case discussed here, in FL, man killed in parking lot after violent assault. See also: Wake Forest coach who punched man who mistook him for an Uber driver. It’s not the way civilized society should be allowed to act.)
Did Trayvon “deserve” to die? No. Should Zimmerman’s lawful conduct deserve a violent assault by Martin? No. Was “Justice” served? A mixed race jury of 12 said yes.
1st, the gun must have been visible. GZ said that TM tried to grab it. That is not proof, but it makes as much sense as GZ’s self-serving statement.
Once TM started, of course he continued. Despite all his “mixed martial arts ground and pound” blows, GZ was not disarmed! Once you started, would you stop before the gun had been dislodged? Of course not.
While this opens a new can of worms, it seems to me that TM might have hidden in the bushes in order to elude someone who had not identified himself and appeared to be a predator with gun. GZ and TM were obviously physically close to each. IMHO, TM did not launch an attack from 30 yards away.
If despite his unsubstantiated claims to the contrary, GZ pursued TM, TM had the right under SYG to use deadly force on GZ. TM had no duty to retreat. He was lawfully on the property (gated community) of his father’s girlfriend.
I doubt TM was familiar with the SYG law and he lost. But that would be a very different scenario from the one that was told to the jury.
Everything I am suggesting is consistent with the facts. I am not disputing the verdict. As I pointed out elsewhere, GZ was not subjected to cross-examination. Some of the detectives wanted GZ arrested.
BTW, I am familiar with the FL case that you cited. I don’t see the parallel. The kids were completely obnoxious. I would have been annoyed and parked at some distance from them (I have done exactly that). You can’t commit murder because you need to walk a few steps. I believe the shooter still had his legs.
It was not a SYG case. It is true that the kids might have had a gun and had time to dispose of it. So this case is pretty close to the opposite. The only thing they have in common is that there was an unnecessary fatality.
I have been confronted in the NYC by loud music and cigarette smokers. Sometimes I move cars. I have also used subterfuge by telling smokers that I was sympathetic but that I had seen a cop in the next car. Then there is Bernard Goetz. He beat the homicide charge, but did time for the unlicensed gun.
Once he had him down on the ground, he may well have seen the gun and tried to grab it, or at least GZ may have thought he’d seen it and was grabbing for it. This doesn’t tell us anything about whether he had it out while following TM, let alone after he gave up the pursuit and returned to his car.
Irrelevant; he had no business starting. Having started he had no right to continue, regardless of the danger to himself. There is no right to self-defense when you attack someone and he fights back.
No, he did not. GZ had the right to follow him, and TM had no right to prevent it by force. There is no such thing as a right not to be followed. Indeed even if, as you speculate, GZ had drawn his gun, TM would still have no right to do anything about it, so long as he was not brandishing it at him. Simply being followed by an armed man does not give rise to a reasonable fear of imminent violent attack, so there is no right to defend against it.
He wasn’t on the girlfriend’s property, but that’s irrelevant, because SYG doesn’t care whose property you’re on. You’re thinking of the Castle doctrine, which would not have applied here. But the whole question is in any case irrelevant because 1. he wasn’t under attack, and 2. had he been under attack he would have been unable to safely retreat, and thus would have had no such duty in any state. And of course this is all under your hypothetical scenario which supposes he was still being followed, which GZ says isn’t true.
Goetz was not confronted with loud music or smoking but with a robbery. He was correctly acquitted on the homicide, and the gun charge was unconstitutional.
Yes, there are people who have done great harm to black people in this country. White liberals and their black leftist accomplices. So white liberals and the members of the CBC as well as race baiters like Sharpton, Jackson, and Obama need to be made to pony up.
You can not trace the ills in the black population of this country to the Jim Crow era let alone all the way back to slavery. Slavery ended over 150 years ago; descendants of slaves in this country have no more right to demand to be “made whole” than the descendants of slaves from other country. My family has slave ancestors. The population of Italy was 25% slave before the Roman empire fell. And they weren’t evenly distributed; my family comes from the Campania region of Italy, and the slave population there was at least 40% of the total. The evidence simply isn’t there any more than you could find evidence I’m traumatized by the legacy of slavery in the Roman Empire. The ills can be traced to harmful social policies that are in place right now.
Trayvon Martin “benefited” from exactly the same twisted logic that that meant that Nikolas Cruz couldn’t do anything to get arrested despite offense after offense until he committed his school massacre.
Trayvon Martin was suspended when school resource officers searched his backpack and found burglary tools and jewelry.
In other words the school swept it under the rug. Here’s how hard they were trying to sweep it under the rug; the school resource officer put the jewelry in the shool’s lost and found. Thus guaranteeing that when the homeowners noticed the burglary and called the police the police would have no knowledge of anything. And neither would the homeowners or the police have any idea they needed to contact local schools and ask if they had confiscated property from their students that matched the description. Although that should be standard procedure now in any state or locality that is stupid enough to adopt these “look the other way when minority students commit crimes because…RAAAACISM” policies.
It was only after GZ shot and killed TM in lawful self-defense (and yes, that makes GZ innocent of any crime) that residents near TM’s school put two and two together and reunited the stolen property with the rightful owners.
Had the school notified the police, and the police arrested him for burglary, TM would never have gotten shot by GZ. I can’t say he wouldn’t be alive today as the way he was living his life meant he would end up either in a prison or a morgue, and quite like one after the other. But he wouldn’t have been running around in GZ’s neighborhood that night casing other houses for more burglaries had he been in detention for the burglary that only resulted in his suspension.
This is a common story and the fact of the matter is that no one is helped by teaching teenage criminals that they can do what they want because there are no such thing as consequences for their actions.
https://www.ajc.com/news/youth-second-chance-another-family-tragedy/E1jgzjHXPceQz6OdWlVEjN/
“Myrick had been arrested at the age of 14 for his role in an armed robbery and agreed to a negotiated plea of 15 years, to serve seven years in adult prison, according to the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office.
But after two-and-a-half years in juvenile detention, the judge gave him a break. She put Myrick on probation and placed him in a special program whose director confidently claimed her program could keep tabs on Myrick and reform him, just as it had many other violent youths, according to a transcript of the hearing.
‘I don’t want anybody else to be held at gunpoint by this man,’ the judge said in court when a prosecutor objected to her plan, according to the transcript. ‘I want to end it. You’re interested in punishment. I’m interested in rehabilitation and community safety for the future, because he is going to get out, and I want him to be a positive influence in the community.’
Now 17, Myrick is accused of shooting Christian Broder, 34, a restaurant manager from Washington, D.C., who was waiting for an Uber ride as he left a wedding reception earlier this month at Atlanta’s Capital City Country Club. Broder, an Atlanta native, died Friday as a result of the wounds he suffered in the shooting. He is survived by his wife and a 9-month-old daughter.”
This judge is delusional. As is anyone who thinks that black teens like Myrick, Martin, or Brown have been irreparably damaged by the legacy of slavery and racism in this country. And I’m sure this judge thinks exactly that as only a leftist could be so deluded as to say this when she let him out of prison after only serving 2.5 years of the 15 year sentence that he agreed to in his armed robbery plea deal:
“’I think he has been in prison now for two and a half years and I don’t think it helped him much,’ the judge said, according to the transcript. ‘I haven’t noticed a whole lot a change, and I am hoping the change will occur with this opportunity.’”
So clearly the judge lied when she earlier said she was interested in community safety. Clearly she doen’t understand the purpose of prisons. They exist not primarily to “help” the criminal bet to keep threats to society away from society. Had she been interested in community safety she wouldn’t have let him out of prison and put him on probation, a probation he continually violated (why these idiots put pictures of themselves on social media flashing guns and drugs while hanging out with known gang members I would say I’ll never know bur I actually believe I do know). So this incredibly stupid, deluded judge let Myrick out of prison and put him on probation and in a program called Visions Unlimited. A program that doesn’t work, like most of these diversion programs (I don’t know of any that work although I’m sure the people running these programs and report their own results have wonderful statistics that say otherwise). A program, by the way, that despite all the bragging by the director that it was extremely “structured” like a “military school” Myrick simply never attended. He simply blew it off. Some structure.
The bottom line is Myrick listened to the judge lecture him on all the changes she wanted to see and what she expected from him and inside he just laughed. He didn’t care; he wanted to do what he wanted to do and that was commit crimes. And why wouldn’t he post pics of himself on social media showing just that. The judge placed him jail for a month after the first violation when the prosecutor placed the pics in evidence. But when he got out he continued doing it and the prosecutor presented more evidence she refused to sanction Myrick at all let alone revoke his probation.
You can’t say Myrick didn’t learn anything from his experience both in juvenile detention and in Judge Doris Downs’ court room. He learned that there were no real consequences for his actions, no consequences that were so harsh he’d want to chart a different course. And the judge no doubt bought into the twin fictions of “mass incarceration” and “systemic racism,” so he learned that no crime he committed the judge was going to see him as the victim instead of his actual crime victims. And that was his get-out-of-jail-free card.
As well as Christian Broder’s death warrant since anyone with two brain cells to rub together could see, like Trayvon Martin, Myrick was going to move on to bigger and bigger crimes.
So, yes, delusional liberals no matter the ethnic group who are actively doing a great deal of harm to the black community like this judge need to start begging all of America for forgiveness and making reparations. This judge should however start with Christian Broder’s family, the man she allowed Jayden Myrick to murder in what was even then an entirely predictable crime.
Because this post isn’t about the Jay-Z video, so the fact that this lie doesn’t seem to appear in it, at least in the first episode, is interesting but not terribly relevant.
No, it isn’t. The only context required is what’s on the recording: the dispatcher asked Zimmerman which way the suspect had gone, so he got out to look.
How is the number of entrances relevant? The only relevant point is that he had lost sight of the suspect, and there was more than one direction he could have gone, so he got out of the car to get the dispatcher an answer.
“Compliant” is the wrong word to use here. It implies an order, or even an order he was required to obey. It was nothing more than a suggestion, and his acknowledgment gives us reason to believe he took it; there is no reason at all to suppose he didn’t.
There has been no propaganda attempting to blame black men for any and all random crime. It’s simply a fact that black men are more likely to commit such crimes, especially in locales like Sanford. Not all of the crimes are committed by black men, and of course not all black men commit the crimes, but nobody is claiming either of those things; the simple fact is that when considering any one crime of this sort there’s a high likelihood that it was done by a black man.
Here we go, with the stupidest and most dishonest left-wing propaganda point ever. Crime is not caused by poverty. It is caused by bad character. Bad people commit crimes no matter how rich they are, and good people don’t no matter how poor they are. Nobody in America is so poor that they literally have no other choices than crime or starvation.
No, there’s no malice in calling punks punks. It’s a fair description, and it certainly doesn’t reflect poorly on Zimmerman. But the recording was doctored by some people to make it sound like he said something else, that would reflect badly on him.
“Which way did he go?” did not require Zimmerman to get out of his car in contravention of his training. He knew the general direction. The community is gated and has only 2 exits. To any cop who responded, he could have said “I saw him head in that direction.”
Apparently, he was unable to answer that question despite pursuing. He never caught sight of TM. When was he going to stop? Well we know the answer to that one.
Milhouse, I need to commend you. Apparently, you have never said ‘okay’ or ‘sure’ to someone and then continued doing exactly as you pleased.
Milhouse, that’s it for me. I will respond to anything you wish to add on this response. Beyond that I have written my piece. If you don’t think there is malice in calling someone a ‘Fu.ken Punk’ while armed, angry and in pursuit, then we have no common ground.
There were two ways he could have gone; he wanted to know which one. Sure he could have been lazy and left it to the cops to track the suspect down, but he wanted to be helpful. The dispatcher had asked him so he tried to find the answer.
Sure, he could have said “OK” and meant “Your information that I don’t have to follow the guy is noted, but I choose to do so anyway”; and if he had meant that he’d have been completely within his rights and the analysis would not change in any way. But there’s no reason to suppose that’s what happened, and his word that it didn’t. Omitting his acknowledgment dishonestly invites the listener to suppose that he ignored the information completely.
There is a difference between righteous anger and malice.
You sure are pedantic. He obviously knew the general direction – certainly well enough for a cop to find TM.
Otherwise, what was one guy going to do? How was he going to search in multiple directions? He wanted to follow TM and he knew the general direction. It is very hard to deny that considering what followed.
“There is a difference between righteous anger and malice.” You have a point. The line is thin. He was clearly an a-hole. He only reported blacks. But maybe he didn’t have malice. I doubt he set out to kill. But he wanted to be a hero in the worst way. That is not a figure of speech. He wanted to be a hero in the worst way.
I have given this a bit more thought. What exactly made GZ’s anger ‘righteous’? TM had committed no crime that Zimmerman observed. He was simply black, young, out in the rain and wearing a hoodie. It sounds more like profiling and prejudice.
Hey, it is summertime and I like being out in the rain. I feel the majesty of nature. I am warm and don’t care about being wet. I have been known to throw my hands in the air and dance. I have done that in Florida. Should I worry?
The dispatcher asked which way the suspect had gone. There were many possibilities. Not only two separate exits from the development, but also many places to go within it. What possible objection could there be to his trying to get the best information possible.
But none of this is relevant, since if we suppose, as you insist, that he did follow Martin, it changes nothing. He would have had every right to follow Martin, even after the dispatcher said he didn’t have to, let alone before that, and Martin would have had no right to do anything about it.
There is no reason to suppose Zimmerman an a-hole. He did nothing wrong. His righteous anger was directed at burglars, which he had reason to suspect Martin of being, though not as much reason as we do. Is that not appropriate? Normal people do not wander around aimlessly in the rain, let alone go off the path and up to someone else’s house, peering in the windows, for all the world like a burglar casing a joint. They just don’t. Anyone who does so should be reported, even if it turns out that they’re just enjoying a cold shower in their clothes.
If all the suspicious people he reported were black it was because all the suspicious people he saw were black. There’s nothing surprising in that; probably most burglars in the area, and most people who behave like burglars, are black. In this case it was dark enough he wasn’t even sure whether Martin was black.
Oh, and February is not summertime in Florida. It was chilly enough to justify wearing a hooded sweatshirt. It was chilly enough that Zimmerman may plausibly have said it was “f*cking cold”. It was certainly too cold for anyone to be voluntarily out getting soaked for the sheer joy of it.
Only in your mind, we have a timeline, a nice picture of what and when from a combination of source, especially forensic evidence.
rather than worrying about any specific case, you should be thinking about the big picture, what is wrong with black parenting and culture? What role does an average IQ of 85 play in the predisposition to commit crime?
Mighty_WHrIGHTY wrote;
“1st, the gun must have been visible. GZ said that TM tried to grab it. That is not proof, but it makes as much sense as GZ’s self-serving statement…”
I saw this and I realized it’s a complete waste of time to take this leftist seriously.
TM tried to grab the gun after taking GZ to the ground and was straddling him. No, it’s not true that “the gun must have been visible.” That a ridiculous thing to say because at that point TM was in a position to feel the gun on GZ’s hip.
I’m not going to fisk this guy’s comment as it’s just devoid of logic and demonstrates that he has no interest in the basic facts or the law.
When TM confronted GZ, TM had become the aggressor. So he lost all right to make any self-defense claim whatsoever because the first element of a valid self-defense claim is innocence. GZ was not pursuing TM but simply wanted to walk through a common area to read a street sign on the opposite side from where he parked. He was returning to his vehicle when TM confronted him, then launched his assault.
You can try to make “sense” of the facts all you want considering first you have to know the facts. But you are making up your own. On what planet that is rational behavior but it’s not rational on planet Earth.
I guess another lie could be that GZ called 911 at all, implying that he wanted TM arrested for… something. I know the call goes to the same place, but the level of urgency is less. It’s correct in the story above, but incorrect in the headline.
He called the non-emergency number, appropriate when there’s a concern, but not a known emergency. I’ve done it myself.