George Zimmerman on Hannity, Thread II

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 09:30:25 PM EST
Tags: George Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Thanks to Big Tent Democrat for putting up a thread on George Zimmerman's interview on Sean Hannity's show tonight. I just got back to Denver and am watching now. (I missed the beginning.)

I listened to his jail calls for all 7 hours of the drive back from Telluride -- I didn't finish. But, listening in sequence for so many hours, I got a sense of his personality (as well as that of Shellie, his sister Grace aka Susie, his mother (who talked in Spanish), Ken, and some male cousins.)

I think he was genuine on Hannity. Some highlights below: [More...]

He didn’t realize Trayvon had been hit by his bullet. He didn't find out he was dead until an hour after he arrived at the police station.

He wouldn’t do anything different with respect to what happened after the shooting -- his not asking for an attorney, his cooperation with police, his taking the voice stress test, etc. While he wouldn't have done anything different as to the events with Trayvon that night (he rejects that he should have stayed in the car), he is sorry that Trayvon was killed. He wishes there was something that would have resulted in his not having to take Trayvon's life.

He wasn't following Trayvon. He was walking from where he parked his car to Retreat View Circle so he could get a number with the street to give police.

He's not a racist.

He prays for Trayvon's parents daily (his phone calls at jail are filled with religion, so this is also in character with his personality.)

Sean Hannity did not offer to pay his attorney fees. Hannity has offered him nothing for the interview.

His father had recently had a heart attack (two weeks before something, I'm not sure if it was the shooting or something later.)

If he did something wrong, he’d apologize. He didn't do anything wrong.

The FBI cleared him of racism.

O'Mara: No evidence of second degree murder.
Stand your ground applies to this case.

On the bond money: O'Mara won't let him answer because Shellie has been charged with a crime and there have been suggestions that George could be charged with a crime for it.

O'Mara doesn't let him respond to Witness 9's allegations -- not worth the time and effort and they won't see the light of day in court. The only thing George said about it was that she never said he was racist or that he said anything racist or that he was even in the room when she claimed someone else said anything racist.)

He believes the media owes him an apology.

English is his second language. His mother and grandmother raised him to speak Spanish. His father was gone in the military during much of his very early years. (In the jail calls, he speaks in Spanish with his mother and at least one cousin, it's obviously a language he's fluent in and very comfortable with.)

At the end, he looked into the camera and apologized to his wife, parents, grandmother, and Trayvon's parents.

Hannity asked him direct factual questions about the shooting. He didn't get flustered, and his answers were consistent with his statements to police. (No one should expect the answers to be identical, so nit-picking minor inconsistencies is a waste of time as far as I'm concerned -- only those who are convinced of his guilt would even bother.)

People who are not familiar with his understated, almost monotone personality, may not find him forceful enough in his insistence he's innocent. Again, if you listen to all of his jail calls (not just one or two), he sounds the same in the calls as he does in the interview. He's a very low-key person, he speaks slowly, he doesn't get frustrated easily or fly off the handle (ever it seems), and most of all, he's very religious. He says in the jail calls it was "G-d's plan" for him to end up with O'Mara. So it's not surprising to me he says in the interview the ordeal he's going through now must be "G-d's plan."

I missed the first 15 minutes of the interview, so I will update after I've watched the re-run in a few hours.

The bottom line to me: He said nothing that helps the state's case or provides impeachment fodder. And there will be a Stand Your Ground argument as well as general self-defense.

Most lawyers would not subject a client who is facing murder charges to a national interview. That O'Mara allowed it, and was present for it, suggests that both are comfortable with his version of events. Now it's up to the state to disprove his version, beyond a reasonable doubt.

I would imagine many of the witnesses -- both police and neighbors who heard or saw some of the events-- will see this interview. I have no idea whether the interview will affect their perceptions.

As to potential jurors and the public, while the interview may not convince anyone he's innocent, it could go a long way towards leveling the playing field, and reducing the presumption of guilt created by the media and Martin family representatives. That would be a good thing.

Update: A transcript is available here.

Update: A lot of people are asking why Zimmerman did this interview. I have no idea. But I think it's interesting that Zimmerman's friends and family (as opposed to his legal team) have resurrected his website, The Real George Zimmerman.com. On the "about" page, it states the goals of his legal team's website and says that site has fallen short in some respects. It intends to take up the slack.

I can't imagine O'Mara is happy about the relaunch of this website. He needs to be in control of the message. Zimmerman should let his lawyer, not his family, speak for him while he has criminal charges pending.

Is the Zimmerman family at odds with O'Mara's defense stategy? (Remember when they used Mark NeJame to get their point of view out? O'Mara was concerned even before then that Zimmerman's family might provide "exclusives" to the media.) Was the interview with Hannity the family's (including brother-in-law's) idea? Did O'Mara counsel against it but go along? I have no idea, but if so, it seems to me that at some point, O'Mara is is going to put his foot down and insist on being the sole mouthpiece for Zimmerman, or ask to get out of the case.

Part 2 of the Hannity interview airs tomorrow night.

Update: The state has filed a notice that it will seek to introduce Zimmerman's statements made during the interview.

Update: This thread is closed as it has reached 200 comments. You can continue the discussion at our forums.

< "Soshulizm!" | Thursday Morning Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

George Zimmerman on Hannity, Thread II | 209 comments (209 topical)

GZ came off fine... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by fishcamp on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 09:49:07 PM EST

Hannity had way to many leading biased questions. IMO he stinks as an interviewer.

Of course he stinks (5.00 / 3) (#28)
by gyrfalcon on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 12:02:46 AM EST

He's not a journalist, doesn't even pretend to be one. He's a propagandist.

I would point out that when O'Reilly does a serious high-profile interview, he pulls himself together and actually does a pretty good job of it.

Hannity is just a charismatic hack.


I thought (1.00 / 2) (#158)
by kmblue on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 11:56:04 AM EST

this part of Talk Left had become a Zimmerman-free zone. I am shocked and disappointed.


: Jeralyn stated that there would only be (5.00 / 2) (#192)
by Cashmere on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 02:17:54 PM EST

Zimmerman posts on the main page when there was news about the case. So sad you are shocked and disappointed, and I suggest you elect not to read these posts if you do not appreciate them. MANY of us do appreciate them and Jeralyn's hard work informing us re: this case.
Grrrrr to you..........

Zimmerman said he never heard of SYG (5.00 / 0) (#2)
by Payaso on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 10:02:18 PM EST

before the shooting.

: Not many people did. (none / 0) (#7)
by firstfall on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 10:14:19 PM EST

I think the interview will help Zimmerman (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by Payaso on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 10:06:24 PM EST

We've heard a lot about him, but this is the first time we got to hear from him.

It humanized him.

: Did you honestly expect otherwise? (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 12:37:36 AM EST

Suffice to say that George Zimmerman is not a monster, and for that matter, neither is the late Trayvon Martin. Humanity is what makes cases like these terribly sad affairs, and why there are no winners here.
I see what happened that night as an eminently avoidable and regretable incident but not necessarily a criminal matter, and I believe that it's important that we withhold our personal judgment until all the facts are in, and avoid taking sides. It's out of our hands.

Police got there only 20-30 seconds after the shot (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by ruffian on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 10:32:22 PM EST

That's really sad, to say the least.

He still says it was near immediate that he fell right after being punched, which does not match the ear witnesses that heard a struggle progress at least one house width down the pathway, or the final location of the body compared to where he says they met. He may not remember well, but he seems to remember other parts pretty well. FWIW.

20-30 seconds? (5.00 / 0) (#15)
by unitron on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 10:58:52 PM EST

Maybe Smith drove through the front gate 20 to 30 seconds after the shot, but isn't the time stamp on the picture of the back of his head over a minute after the gunshot at 7:16:56 PM?

7:18 something?

He's holding a phone up to his ear in that photo.

Plus he's got to have time to check Martin's hands and then have the conversation about what kind of ammo he used.

First thing Smith did was handcuff him, and I doubt he would allow some guy with a cell phone anywhere near either of them during that proceedure.


: That's what he said (none / 0) (#19)
by ruffian on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 11:12:28 PM EST

Maybe it seemed like it to him.

near immediate (5.00 / 0) (#29)
by Philly on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 12:12:12 AM EST

He still says it was near immediate that he fell right after being punched

Not exactly. George's exact words were:

"I don't remember if I went immediately to the ground or if he pushed me to the ground but I ended up on the ground."

And shortly after:

"He started bashing my head into the concrete sidewalk. I was -- as soon as he broke my nose, I was -- I started yelling for help. So, I was disoriented."

My impression is that he, like many folk that experience a beating, doesn't recall what happened between the initial punch and his landing on the ground on his back, nor was he aware of the movement that surely occurred after the two were on the ground struggling. The reenactment appears to have only partially jogged his memory. Elsewhere in the interview, he notes his sense of elapsed time was badly skewed - feeling like an eternity until police arrived, even though he knows they arrived fairly quickly.


He is certainly not saying they moved several ft (5.00 / 1) (#56)
by ruffian on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 06:27:46 AM EST

before he hit the ground. Or that he moved several ft while on the ground. I don't see anything that begins to account for the distance travelled. I would have expected him to be ready to explain that by now. He surely will be asked in cross examination. He doesn't remember that, but he does remember Trayvon's last words? Just not believable to me. YMMV.


He also has a clear, consistent memory (3.00 / 2) (#65)
by ruffian on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 07:51:57 AM EST

that TM only saw the gun when GZ's shirt flapped up during the fight. That is a pretty clear observation for GZ to make in the middle of a death match. I think it is more likely that GZ reached for the gun and that is when TM saw it. Why else carry a gun if not to use it in a situation like that? Does it matter to the self defense plea if GZ went for the gun first? I doubt it.


In most accounts I seen Zimmerman said (5.00 / 1) (#77)
by lousy1 on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 08:34:41 AM EST

He thought Martin saw the gun. Its the perception that counts.

I agree that its not particularly relevant to a self defense claim.


relevance of TM seeing the gun to self defense (none / 0) (#97)
by Philly on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 09:22:24 AM EST

The relevance to self defense is that if TM indeed saw the gun, had voiced a death threat, and was reaching for the gun, than by any standard it would be reasonable for GZ to be in fear for his life.


: OK, that makes sense (1.00 / 0) (#120)
by ruffian on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 10:03:11 AM EST

So there is good reason for him to be consistent on that point.

Did defendant Zimmerman state to (1.00 / 1) (#27)
by oculus on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 11:55:03 PM EST

Mr. Hannity it was God's will he shoot Mr. Martin? That would be a good start to an NGI defense.


No (5.00 / 1) (#168)
by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 12:39:19 PM EST

I think he was saying it was G-d's plan that he was in the situation of being charged with a crime for Trayvon's shooting and having to explain himself.

HANNITY: Do you feel you wouldn't be here for this interview if you didn't have that gun?
ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.
HANNITY: You feel you would not be here?
ZIMMERMAN: I feel it was all God's plan and for me to second guess it or judge it --

I think he's saying everything that happened that night was part of G-d's plan. As I mentioned, in the jail calls, when he and someone are discussing how lucky he is to have O'Mara representing him, he tells the person it was G-d's plan he ended up with O'Mara.


Trayvon's mother says Z shooting... (none / 0) (#48)
by Gandydancer on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 05:38:15 AM EST

Trayvon was God's will. What's your point, again?


A mother trying to ... (4.50 / 8) (#66)
by Yman on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 07:55:48 AM EST

... find some sort of comfort or consolation over the killing of her son calling it "God's plan" versus Zimmerman justifying his actions by claiming it was "God's plan" for him to carry a gun and leave his truck to follow Martin.

Not remotely the same.


I think Zimmerman too is trying (5.00 / 4) (#68)
by Darby on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 08:01:40 AM EST

to find a way to cope with the enormity of what happened as well.


Wouldn't surprise me, ... (4.43 / 7) (#106)
by Yman on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 09:32:00 AM EST

... but his statement that "I fell it was all God's plan" was an attempt to rationalize his actions. He was being asked if he would he have done anything differently, did he regret leaving the truck, did he regret taking a gun with him, etc.

IMO, God had nothing to do with the choices Zimmerman made and the actions he was discussing with his answer.


I disagree (4.00 / 3) (#116)
by Darby on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 09:55:13 AM EST

At the end of his interview, he clarified his answer
"ZIMMERMAN: First, I would like to readdress your question when you asked if I would have done anything differently. When you asked that I thought you were referring to if I would not have talked to the police, if I would have maybe have gotten an attorney, if I wouldn't have taken the CVSA and that I stand by, I would not have done anything differently.

But I do wish that there was something, anything I could have done that wouldn't have put me in the position where I had to take his life. And I do want to tell everyone, my wife, my family, my parents, my grandmother, the Martins, the city of Stanford, and America that I am sorry that this happened."

I also took his comments about Gods plan being more along the lines of the reason he had the gun was to protect himself. Not that is was god plans that he kill Martin.


Is the guy that dim? (4.11 / 9) (#124)
by kdog on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 10:17:55 AM EST

But I do wish that there was something, anything I could have done that wouldn't have put me in the position where I had to take his life.

Umm, ya coulda minded your own business and went to Target like you said was your original plan, instead of playing super sleuth crime fighter...that's something, anything.

If nothing else I wish he'd learn that lesson from this tragedy...being overly suspicous without grounds with a piece and a hero complex is a recipe for tragedy.


Um, but he did have grounds (5.00 / 1) (#127)
by Darby on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 10:22:36 AM EST

to be suspicious.

I don't see how he was overly suspicious at all. And I don't even see anything wrong with being overly suspicious, provided you handle yourself appropriately.


The FBI reports validate the grounds for (5.00 / 1) (#206)
by Tamta on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 03:11:20 PM EST

suspicions: community was concerned about burglaries and young people using the cut-through(s) instead of the gated access points of the development.


In your opinion... (4.00 / 4) (#130)
by kdog on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 10:35:08 AM EST

imo, he had no grounds for suspicion.

Can't speak for anybody else, but I don't assume somebody is out doing break-ins until I see them...umm, ya know, try to break in.

When did we all get so suspicous and fearful of one another? Bugs me out.


Darby (none / 0) (#201)
by LeaNder on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 02:55:46 PM EST

I don't see how he was overly suspicious at all.

this ultimately would mean that Trayvon was who he thought he was. No?

I know anecdotal wisdom is not asked in this enlightened comment section. But I happened to be a a fan of European detective stories as a kid, Enid Blyton and Astrid Lindgren. Now obviously you want to be a detective yourself after a while. And this is an experience that would have helped George, since after a while you realize that much that looks suspicious is simply ordinary life.


: sorry (none / 0) (#205)
by LeaNder on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 03:06:57 PM EST

I used German Wikipedia link, but I somehow don't like it when Kalle Blomkvist is called Bill Bergson.
and anecdotal wisdom is not asked "for", thus I expect this little chatter to disappear.
Unfortunately this is often on my mind in our context.

Sure (3.67 / 3) (#126)
by bmaz on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 10:22:27 AM EST

and Trayvon Martin could have gone on home instead of confronting Zimmerman too. What's you point?


His point is MYOB (5.00 / 3) (#129)
by cboldt on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 10:32:54 AM EST

I think he's made his point quite clearly. If you take an interest in what somebody else is doing, you deserve a beat down.

Double beat down if you call the police.

Declare war on Neighborhood Watch!


Not simply taking an interest... (5.00 / 2) (#131)
by kdog on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 10:43:08 AM EST

if GZ felt in his heart of hearts that he had to do something, the humane thing to do would be to say "Hows it going buddy? I'm George I live right over there. Are you new in the neighborhood?".

Ya don't drop a dime right out the gate and start tracking...that's not a neighborly thing to do. I'd go so far as to call it a violent act, worse than a punch in the nose.

It saddens me so many see no problem with that bullsh*t.


Acts (5.00 / 1) (#143)
by lousy1 on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 11:15:39 AM EST

IMO
Keeping an eye on someone is not a violent act. Hitting someone is a violent act
Volunteering time to address a safety problem is a civic act.

Pretending not to understand this is a big act.


Safety problem? (5.00 / 2) (#159)
by kdog on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 11:56:16 AM EST

Jesus H...I think it is you who does not understand what is wrong with keeping an eye aka spying on somebody, dropping a dime somebody. Orwell's Big Brother would love your arse, wow.

Safety problem...you slay me. There was a safety problem allright, George Zimmerman.


Read the FBI reports (5.00 / 1) (#186)
by lousy1 on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 01:52:05 PM EST

Well I should say is that I invite anybody that thinks the evidence is more important than kdog's opinion - Please read the report about the crime problems in the complex.

For those who think otherwise ( and we know that their is at least one) save your time. In fact you don't even need to think anymore.


: Actually... (3.50 / 2) (#204)
by kdog on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 03:06:34 PM EST

I am aware of Sanford's crime rate, all snarking aside. I expected it to be lower than my 'hoods, but it was a little higher.
Don't see how Zimmerman improved the situation that fateful nite though, the cops sent out to investigate his fantasy burglar coulda been out doing real police work.

Would you say (5.00 / 1) (#170)
by Tamta on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 12:45:01 PM EST

""Hows it going buddy? I'm George I live right over there. Are you new in the neighborhood?" if:

-someone approached you without you being aware of their proximity and said: "Why are you following me?"

or would you:

-get out of your vehicle to say that if you saw someone from your vehicle that may appear suspicious or threatening to you, in light of the context of previous local break ins and that burglaries are the prime concern of the community in Sanford?

Was GZ specifically responding out of line with NW guidelines? I do not know myself.
I do not find your suggestion unreasonable in a slightly different context perhaps, like if GZ was on foot and passing Trayvon on the street at the time he initially notices him, but also I do not see GZs decision to not do just that as unreasonable either, with what is known at this point.


Yeah... (3.25 / 4) (#132)
by kdog on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 10:46:42 AM EST

Martin could have went the flight route instead of fight route...he paid for that mistake with his life.

My point is Zimmerman was the initial aggressor, imo.


Martin did not need to take the flight (3.67 / 3) (#189)
by lousy1 on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 02:02:59 PM EST

...though he was free to do so if he choose.

If we look at the evidence...

He could simply have keep walking.

He could have attempted to strike up a conversation with GZ after verbally confronting him.

He could have just stood there.

Hell, Martin had tons of options

The one thing that he couldn't do, either legally or morally, is what he choose to do; launch an aggravated assault on George Zimmerman without any legal provocation.


What he "chose" to do? You keep (4.20 / 5) (#200)
by Anne on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 02:55:29 PM EST

forgetting that no one saw the beginning of the physical incident, and yet, you and others here keep stating what Martin did as if that is an incontrovertible, established fact.

It's not. You can't make it one, no matter how hard you try and no matter how many times you write it. A judge and/or a jury will decide what they believe happened, as best they can.

You know what I kept hoping George Zimmerman would tell Hannity? That he wished he had left for the store 10 minutes later, that he wished he had just gone on to Target after he called the non-emergency number, that he wished he had never gotten out of his car. That's what someone would say even if he or she believed that ultimately they did what they had to do to save their own lives. I wanted to hear him take some responsibility for the decisions he made leading up to this tragedy, but instead, he hid behind God.

And yes, I'm sure Trayvon Martin's parents and friends wish he had never left the condo, that he had left the 7-11 ten minutes earlier, that he had just kept walking.

This was a cascade of poor decisions, one after the other, and so, one person is dead and the other's life will never be the same.


Again Anne (4.00 / 3) (#202)
by Darby on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 03:01:25 PM EST

According to the testimony and corroborating evidence, Martin attacked Zimmerman. There doesn't appear to be any evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin, does there?


No one saw the "attack" begin. (3.67 / 3) (#208)
by Anne on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 03:18:25 PM EST

No one knows who started it. Well, George knows, but Zimmerman stating that it was Martin cannot be challenged by Martin and the stakes for Zimmerman understandably put his version of the events in the category of self-serving. The state will have the burden of proving that things did not happen as Zimmerman has said they did if it gets to trial; in a SYG hearing, I believe it is Zimmerman who will have the burden of proof.

There has been no testimony in this case, only sworn statements; no one's statement has been subject to cross-examination.

Just as there is no evidence Zimmerman attacked Martin, there also is no evidence that he didn't, leaving what we know to whatever it was people saw, or think they saw, after it was already underway.

I simply do not understand why you and others here keep insisting there are facts and evidence that incontrovertibly establish that Martin attacked Zimmerman.

There aren't.


Yes, there has been testimony (5.00 / 3) (#215)
by bmaz on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 03:37:12 PM EST

This is categorically false. At the original bond hearing on April 20, lead investigator Gilbreath testified under oath and with examination by both parties. While so under oath, Gilbreath testified that the he and the state had no information to contradict Zimmerman's claim that he was on his way back to his truck and that Martin, as the aggressor, accosted and assaulted him.

So, yes, there is very definitely key evidence in the form of testimony under oath and cross examination on this critical issue.


You are correct about the bond hearing, (3.00 / 2) (#218)
by Anne on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 03:50:28 PM EST

but it wasn't the witnesses who testified and were subject to cross-examination, only the state's investigator. And while it is reasonable to believe that Gilbreath was testifying based on what he read in the witness statements, or as a result of his own questioning of those witnesses, what he testified to is not a substitute for putting those witnesses on the stand and subjecting them to questioning by both sides.

Or is it?


: Nope (none / 0) (#223)
by bmaz on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 04:28:01 PM EST

Not the same. But awfully useful and important testimony.
I knew you probably would remember, was also for our new troll like friend FredQuick...

all my post about that (none / 0) (#213)
by fredquick21 on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 03:33:31 PM EST

"ALL THE EVIDENCE POINTS TO " statements made by others get deleted as i've said the same thing that ZIMs word is the only evidence of who started the confrontation.


Not a fact (3.67 / 3) (#197)
by Yman on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 02:39:48 PM EST

You have a regular habit of stating things as though they're a fact, rather than merely your opinion.

The one thing that he couldn't do, either legally or morally, is what he choose to do; launch an aggravated assault on George Zimmerman without any legal provocation.

They're not.


Just saying what the evidence poins out. (5.00 / 1) (#211)
by lousy1 on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 03:29:45 PM EST

Which conclusion do you contend is not supported by the evidence?

Perhaps you would like to provide some evidence to the contrary.

However an "The evidence supports," or "Let's look at the evidence" predicate, implies opinion.


It implies an opinion ... (3.00 / 2) (#216)
by Yman on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 03:43:26 PM EST

... about the statements immediately following it - alternative actions you state Martin could have taken. It does not imply an opinion about what you then go on to state as a fact without qualification.

But if you're now clarifying that you were merely stating your opinion of what happened ...

... then I'm happy to be of assistance.


: Shoot away (5.00 / 0) (#219)
by lousy1 on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 03:53:07 PM EST

I'm listening -

What would you need (3.67 / 3) (#199)
by Darby on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 02:50:25 PM EST

to accept something as fact?
It seems the evidence supports this and no evidence disputes it.


: "It seems" - heh (3.00 / 2) (#209)
by Yman on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 03:20:14 PM EST

See,... that's more like it.
Qualifiers like that at least suggest an opinion of the evidence.

I hope it was just a poor choice of words (3.00 / 2) (#156)
by ruffian on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 11:53:49 AM EST

If he meant he wishes he had done something different instead of could have done, I sympathize. It seems quite clear to me, as it does you, that he could have done any number of things differently to avoid being in a situation where he 'had to take his life'. I have a big problem with that formulation.


She isn't the one charged with killing (4.20 / 5) (#51)
by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 06:07:30 AM EST

someone, she must learn to live after someone killed someone she gave birth to.


He doesn't (none / 0) (#12)
by lousy1 on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 10:55:40 PM EST

remember well.

Stars can do that.

By now they must realize that inserting a brief push and stumble after the first punch ( as in the walk through tape) is more consistent with the crime scene.

It's curious that the went with the condensed version.


the entire video interview is (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by Tov on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 11:30:29 PM EST

available on the FoxNews website. Listen closely to the first question and answer re: his reflection on what has happened. He seemingly contradicts himself right off the bat IMO. Those more familiar with the case will no doubt claim to find other curiousities and inconsistencies from previous statements. IMO he has not helped himself with this interview. If I were his attorney I would be very uncomfortable in allowing him to take the stand. I am not making a judgement as to his guilt or innocence but only as to his ability to defend himself on any cross examination. To be very honest with myself I must say IMO that I found him to be deceptive...for whatever reason...

Deceptive or just one.... (none / 0) (#74)
by heidelja on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 08:24:23 AM EST

...to let Hannity drive the interview? (Maybe per O'Mara's recommendation.) GZ never correcting or contradicting any perception he might have constructed by the tone of his questioning. For example, GZ did not correct Hannity for saying his "911" call to have been his call to the NEN of the SPD. Furthermore, if he had corrected Hannity on this, he would have also corrected that this call did not reflect his "first" immpressions, because we now know that GZ's first impression was when he first saw TM as he made the turn on Retreat View Circle as he was leaving to go to Target still moments before his NEN call audio. Also, had GZ corrected Hannity, further he could have stated that his NEN call audio started moments after he had seen TM and still moments after he first "dialed" the call because the first call was disconnected (or just slow to be answered), was it not?

So my point is, does GZ come across as inconsistent more so because he lets others drive the "inconsistent" understanding of facts rather than for reason he is being truly deceptive?


: In all seriousness (1.00 / 1) (#94)
by Tov on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 09:11:53 AM EST

I think your last question is best directed to Mr. Zimmerman. But I will give it a try. Your observation that he may let others drive the "inconsistent" understanding of facts leads me to believe that he is somewhat vulnerable to the pressure of the moment and it could reasonably be deduced that he could fabricate just as readily if he thought that the situation demanded it. He comes across as inconsistent because he has been inconsistent (the importance of those inconsistencies are- right now- debatable)and that along with his overall demeanor IMO makes him appear to be deceptive as opposed to delivering a more accurate answer. Deception is not always a lie but rather a device to throw the focus elsewhere...to avoid flat out lying. . To be deceptive is to mislead- not necessarily to lie.

Zimmerman corroborates DeeDee (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by expy on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 04:56:32 AM EST

DeeDee said that when on the phone to Trayvon, she told him to run, and he said he wasn't going to run, but he was "walking fast".

The tape of the dispatch call has Zimmerman saying that Martin is "running." But he tells Hannity:

HANNITY: -- we also have learned that Trayvon was speaking with his girlfriend supposedly at the time -- that maybe he was afraid of you, didn't know who you were?
ZIMMERMAN: No.
HANNITY: You don't think -- why do you think that he was running then?
ZIMMERMAN: Maybe I said running, but he was more --
HANNITY: You said he's running.
ZIMMERMAN: Yes. He was like skipping, going away quickly. But he wasn't running out of fear.
HANNITY: You could tell the difference?
ZIMMERMAN: He wasn't running.
HANNITY: So he wasn't actually running?
ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.

DeeDee could not have been "coached" to anticipate a fact that was not revealed until months later.

(You can file this away as one more example of why it is a very, very bad idea for criminal defendants and their lawyers to do the cable news & talk show circuit. Seemingly innocuous tidbits of information can have potentially significant impact on the case.)

I noticed this too... (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by Tov on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 05:20:10 AM EST

but when in the phone conversation does she say this? Are there not other instance(s) when she does describe him running? I was also struck by what seemed to me to be- the only time GZ cracks an almost smile is when he says he is the only witness to the shooting. Bizarre.


I didn't watch the interview (5.00 / 1) (#53)
by expy on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 06:07:47 AM EST

just read the transcript. So I don't have the input of tone of voice & mannerisms.

From the transcript it looks like Zimmerman is pretty much being led by Hannity, and at the same time seems slow to take a hint from someone trying to help him. Not sure he would do well on cross-examination.

My reading the transcript rather than watching the videos is simply a choice, influenced in part by the fact that I detest Hannity. But when it gets close to trial, a prosecutor might watch videos like that several times over, studying mannerisms and little changes of facial expression like you apparently noted. That's another sort of clue to a cross-examiner as to what might be sensitive points, or simply personality traits that can be manipulated to leave a negative impression the jury.

This isn't meant to be a pro or con post about Zimmerman - I'm just commenting on the way that these things can be used by opposing counsel in any and every case. A good attorney will look for weak points in any opposing witness, and exploit them at trial.


thanks for your reply and thoughts. (5.00 / 2) (#58)
by Tov on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 06:48:24 AM EST

I agree about Hannity... I forced myself to watch. IANAL but I am an actor- so I watch a person's demeanor etc. perhaps a tad more closely than most... only out of years of habit. As I stated above,I am not making a judgement as to guilt or innocence but am placing myself in the shoes of the prosecution and/or defense and looking for warning signs for either side. I think it might have been a mistake for this interview to have been booked. It also struck me as odd that he would change his language regarding the "running" aspect of the encounter. He was asked to describe it/characterize it to Serino and he couldn't or wouldn't then- but did last night. Perhaps his memory is sharper now that he is more relaxed and not in an adversarial environment. Either way, I think it may potentially present a problem for him later on.


body language (none / 0) (#60)
by Philly on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 07:16:23 AM EST

It's had a similar impression. This wasn't the 100% softball interview I was expecting, but Hannity several times appeared seemed to want to steer Zimmerman into saying something that would make him more sympathetic, only to have GZ say something that took me completely aback. I might be reading too much into it, but O'Mara's body language was odd - each time GZ gave a surprising/awkward answer, O'Mara would jerk his head towards GZ as if he was doing an horrified double-take.

Overall, I think GZ came off as generally unscripted, relaxed, and credible. I think we already have a good sense how he'd hold up under a hypothetical cross examination from the police interviews.

The only parts that to me felt scripted were GZ's comments on witness 9, his statement that "it occurred to me that it wasn't my gun, it was just 'the gun'" and his final statement.

The parts that made my jaw drop were:

GZ's stating that he had no regrets for what happened or his choices that night. Thought he'd been possessed by George W Bush there. He could easily have gone with a more diplomatic answer.
GZ's refusing to acknowledge that this might have been a tragedy with no one truly at fault. He went so far as to say that Martin wasn't really running despite GZ saying "he's running" and "he ran..." during the NEN call.

From the transcript it looks like Zimmerman is pretty much being led by Hannity, and at the same time seems slow to take a hint from someone trying to help him. Not sure he would do well on cross-examination

I was surprised too at his no regret answer (5.00 / 1) (#64)
by Darby on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 07:41:53 AM EST

but at the very end, he clarified and cleaned that answer up a bit.


And interestingly enough (none / 0) (#164)
by Tamta on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 12:27:09 PM EST

the end of the interview was cut off from quite a few links posting this interview.


: I know that (none / 0) (#166)
by DebFrmHell on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 12:39:09 PM EST

you are shocked beyond comprehension over that!

Trust me (5.00 / 1) (#220)
by NYShooter on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 03:57:40 PM EST

"I think we already have a good sense how he'd hold up under a hypothetical cross examination....."

To date, Zimmerman hasn't faced anything like a skilled attorney's cross examination. It doesn't matter how cool & collected the defendant is. It doesn't even matter if the Defendant is 100% innocent. I have been at the receiving end of an expert attorney's cross exam, so believe me, being 100% right, or 100% innocent, has nothing to do with it. By the time a lawyer who specializes in cross-exams is done with the witness, Mother Theresa would be perceived as worse than Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Defense lawyers know that, and that's why they're against having their clients testify. Guilt or innocense have nothing to do with it.


Yes-MOM's (none / 0) (#63)
by Tov on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 07:32:41 AM EST

seemingly unconsious, reflexive reactions were strangely out of place for a seasoned lawyer...imo
He did present a poker face for most of the interview...to his credit.


People smile at strange times... (5.00 / 1) (#196)
by Cashmere on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 02:24:52 PM EST

He was not smiling in happiness... Remember when Obama joked about rescuing GM as being the most unpopular decision and the interviewer asked if he was punch drunk? I doubt Obama was really laughing about the issue.

I think it was more reflexive of Zimmerman. Recall also, that he was quoted in one of his statements to Serino (I believe), that he hoped the incident was on video. He could not have known that it was not recorded.


I don't put any real stock in... (1.00 / 1) (#73)
by pyrrho on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 08:21:50 AM EST

... facial/body language analysis except that it can help early investigators obviously... if it leads to evidence. But personally I think GZ had a lot of tells of innappropriate enjoyment of the type I associate with lying... a particularly habitual type of lying.

However, if that's true, it doesn't have to be devined, because having many lying techniques has the disadvantage of making your stories inconsistent. I believe this to be due to the fact that the way habitual lying techniques work is you respond to the pressure of the moment. Police and lawyers tend to know this and apply different types of pressure in each interview and reveal different uses of the facts. That's going on a lot with GZ.


DeeDee refers to this right before she says that (none / 0) (#80)
by Tamta on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 08:35:36 AM EST

She told Trayvon to run and he says that he's not going to run because he's right by his fathers house.


Indeed (none / 0) (#52)
by Lacy on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 06:07:39 AM EST

GZ and the person talking to the victim confirm he was running from GZ, but when it doesn't comport with the exculpatory yarn GZ later spins, GZ changes on a dime to say he was "skipping" away.

Yet none of those holding the killer's words as unquestionable reality seem to wonder how GZ, supposedly just looking around for a street sign (in his own backyard virtually), caught up with a guy who was running (or even "skipping") to get away from him.

Where are your brains people? Don't you realize why he was on Hannity?

There is no evidence (5.00 / 1) (#55)
by cboldt on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 06:22:56 AM EST

You say that Zimmerman caught up with Martin. There is no evidence to support that contention. By Zimmerman's statement, he was following the same path, then lost sight of Martin. When Zimmerman passes the T intersection, their paths diverge. When Zimmerman doubles back to go in a direction toward his truck, he isn't following anymore, he is going in a direction of retreat.

The inference from the evidence is that Martin could have prevented coming in contact with Zimmerman, but chose not to.


OK (5.00 / 1) (#57)
by Lacy on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 06:46:30 AM EST

"Caught up" with would be more perfectly stated as "encountered", but that changes nothing.

And it is a contradiction that you choose to ignore that GZ ever came into contact with the person he shot when 2 sources say his targeted individual was "running" away from him.

And note that when GZ was presented with the contradiction, he altered his story to Hannity to say the victim was only "skipping" away. He seems to have recognized the point better than you do.


Just say what you mean (5.00 / 1) (#70)
by cboldt on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 08:06:30 AM EST

"Caught up with" implies an affirmative action to close distance. "Encountered" is ambiguous. IOW, changing from "caught up" to "encountered" produces two substantially different expressions in the English language.

I did not ignore that Zimmerman came into contact with Martin. That's an absurd accusation on your part. The issue is which of the two took the initiative to get within arms reach.

I don't think Zimmerman was presented with a contradiction (or nuance, for those who like to use that word) on the manner of Martin's movement, he created a new one. This is the first time he's ever said "skipping" or something other than a word that is typically inferred to be a sprint on the part of Martin. Hannity asked him to describe what "running" meant, and Zimmerman said Martin was "skipping." I don't know what that is, either - maybe something between a "jog" and a "sprint."

Whatever it was, it was fast enough to propel him out of Zimmerman's sight, by everybody's account.


I've spent a fair amount of time with young (5.00 / 1) (#91)
by Tamta on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 09:08:40 AM EST

People in Trayvon's age group in an urban context. My initial image of trayvon's movement as having been described by DeeDee to BDLR was similar to what GZ described: it's something between a long stride and a jog where he's propelling himself off the balls of his feet. Ive observed that Picking up the pace in this way, allows them to get a little speed and still present composure. Complete fear for an urban young person like Trayvon would have extended into an all out sprint or very fast run most likely, and I would speculate that if Trayvon was in a lot of fear at that moment in time and he was in an all out sprint or a fast run, than the call with DeeDee may have ended sooner than it did, on a hand held device or with earbuds holding that device.


Maybe (none / 0) (#121)
by Samnod on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 10:06:46 AM EST

like a bouncy jog. I think I know what you mean.


maybe he should have said (5.00 / 1) (#191)
by MikeB on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 02:11:52 PM EST

"Not walking". With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, its easy for us to infer what we think he meant. No matter how you choose to parse Z's words, it seems clear Martin was not simply walking.


: I don't think he was walking, i think Trayvon was (none / 0) (#226)
by Tamta on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 04:41:54 PM EST

maintaining his distance in front of Zimmerman, and I do not think he was in a dead sprint based on what is provided from the details of the calls of Zimmerman and DeeDee. I do not see Hannity's interview having much bearing on that, other than Zimmerman introduces 'skipping' as new terminology to speak on a past event.
IMO from a behavioral standpoint , Trayvon would have been in a dead sprint if Zimmerman was thought to be LE by Trayvon or if from a distance Trayvon observed Zimmerman to be intimidating in such a way that would warrant fleeing in a dead sprint, while simultaneously providing opportunity for doing so, but then looking to how close Brandi Green lived, it would not have been necessary for Trayvon to then skip back to the T area.
My speculation (with my hindsight maybe too) of Trayvon's response through Zimmerman's and DeeDee's observations was that Trayvon wanted to escape Zimmerman's presence at that particular moment, but not necessarily because of great fear of Zimmerman. From my personal experience with young people like Trayvon, Trayvon knew already that Zimmerman was not LE and was probably annoyed and put off by Zimmerman, in a 'WTF Man' kind of way-at that 'skipping' point anyway.
Also we know Brandi's house is close by. From both calls, we learn that Trayvon disappears and reappears after having shoved a bunch of his things in his pocket (it seems he may not have been caught surprised by Zimmerman) while Zimmerman does not seem to have moved much. In the NEN Zimmerman sounds like he is standing still or pacing back and forth tapping a flashlight, not running trying to see where Trayvon headed off to, another reason to question Trayvon's running fast; he apparently was not being chased at that time.
Parsing words isn't necessary I think.

Precisely. (none / 0) (#128)
by Tamta on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 10:23:56 AM EST

Your bias (none / 0) (#119)
by Lacy on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 10:02:47 AM EST

is so profound that you won't even let someone agree with you that "caught up" might suggest a pursuit which is not known to have OR to have not occurred. It isn't that hard: GZ's own words that the still living TM was running away might lead us to wonder if GZ did pursue him. And you seem to be "skipping" (if "ignoring" hurts your ears) that when GZ backs off those words he may be recognizing what an objective observer could question..."Oops, how did I bump into somebody who was running from me?"

GZ's claims of how they came into contact or immediate events leading to the shooting are no more sacrosanct than an OJ's claims, unless you believe that people who kill others always tell the truth about just how it happened.

And it is now obvious that IF GZ did pursue and catch up to TM, and TM was actually the one who fought for his life against an assailant, then GZ would be telling exactly the story he is now telling...and squirming when people bring up (like Hannity) that he suggested TM was running away.

My bias? (5.00 / 1) (#125)
by cboldt on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 10:19:10 AM EST

This'll be my last remark to you. I don't think we're wired in a way that permits civil conversation with each other.

I understand that there is an argument that Zimmerman chased and caught Martin, on Zimmerman's initiative. My point was just a usage of language point, that saying "Zimmerman caught Martin" conveys a different sequence of action than "Zimmerman and and Martin had an encounter."

I don't find your drawing an equivalence of this case with the OJ Simpson case to be persuasive. There are significant differences in the respective bodies of evidence. No witnesses, no contemporaneous 911 calls, no advance calling of the cops by the killer-to-be, no admission of killing, and so forth.

I wish this board had a twit list like the forum does. We'd be free of each other's ramblings!


: It seems like like (none / 0) (#137)
by Samnod on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 10:58:26 AM EST

The GZ forums have attracted many biased twits that are now migrating here. Cboldt, I always look forward to reading your insightful, non biased posts.

Yes (none / 0) (#122)
by Samnod on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 10:13:04 AM EST

If he did this and if he did that. This would be a conversation worth happening if there was any evidence supporting it. Just because something could have happened isn't proof that it did. Lack of evidence contradicting it doesn't suffice. Even if Zimmerman is the biggest liar in the world that is not evidence that he started the fight.


Improbable behavior (none / 0) (#167)
by Dilbert By Day on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 12:39:15 PM EST

"By Zimmerman's statement, he was following the same path, then lost sight of Martin. When Zimmerman passes the T intersection, their paths diverge. When Zimmerman doubles back to go in a direction toward his truck, he isn't following anymore, he is going in a direction of retreat."

Zimmerman places himself at the end of the cut through on RVC (ostensibly acquiring an address) while he's still on the phone with NEN dispatch.

He continues talking with dispatch while walking back towards his vehicle (with the address), only pausing to tinker with his unreliable flashlight [audible].

If he had acquired an address, why didn't he give it to dispatch who could immediately relay "his location" to the patrolmen in route? Why walk back to his vehicle and wait for a phone call?

To this day Zimmerman hasn't produced that address; he was never asked to.


GZ provided his answer (none / 0) (#133)
by lily on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 10:49:18 AM EST

as to why he agreed to the Hannity interview first. He said yes because from the outset Hannity was fair to GZ self defense claim.

nice try with the guilt by association tactic.


Expy, I noticed the same thing about the (none / 0) (#61)
by Angel on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 07:18:13 AM EST

"skipping" comment when I read the transcript last night and it struck me as odd because that's the first time I recall GZ using that term to describe what Martin was doing.


Reference to FBI Investigation (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by cboldt on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 06:14:44 AM EST

I noticed Zimmerman's remark that involving the FBI is a net positive to his case. The witness statements present a non-confrontational person, even when a co-worker cut his lock and removed his chair from his workstation. They also contradict W9's February 28 remark that George hates black people, would start something and is confrontational.

I do believe he is non-confrontational (5.00 / 1) (#59)
by ruffian on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 07:07:18 AM EST

at least on the night in question. A confrontational person may have said to TM immediately, from the safety of his truck, with a gun in his pocket and the police on the phone, 'Excuse me, I'm from the neighborhood watch, could you tell the police and I what you are doing walking around in the rain?'.


And if TM attacked GZ at that point (none / 0) (#83)
by lousy1 on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 08:49:45 AM EST

would you be claiming that

'if GZ had just waited observed and waited without confronted a potentially unstable man then TM woulld still me alive today?'


Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#86)
by cboldt on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 08:56:34 AM EST

Using Serino's legal standard, adopted by many, there is -NO- fact pattern that works to Zimmerman's advantage. No matter what scenario is set up, he could have broken the chain of events.

Even if there had been cameras and microphones set up showing the action from every angle that could be relevant, and assuming the scenario most favorable to Zimmerman is true, he would still be guilty because he got out of his truck. Or, in your hypothetical, because he confronted an innocent stranger.


Maybe. In fact I am claiming today that if (5.00 / 1) (#92)
by ruffian on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 09:10:12 AM EST

GZ had waited in his car TM would be alive today. That is far less of a stretch of the imagination than your scenario of TM attacking a man in a car who is on the phone with the police.

In any event there is ample proof that GZ is non-confrontational. I don't believe any claims that GZ somehow caught up with TM and confronted him. He had his chance to confront him at the car, and he did not take it.


: Not about probabilities, about judgment (5.00 / 2) (#98)
by cboldt on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 09:23:02 AM EST

I was mocking the quasi-legal argument that appears here; and just used a fictional alternative sequence of events. No argument from me, the probabilities are different. But the point was to illuminate the argument.
My point was that assuming Zimmerman shot Martin, regardless of how that came about, Zimmerman can found guilty by the standard of "could have broken the chain of events."
Stretch the imagination to a situation that nobody is postulating in this case - where Zimmerman rolls down his window, and shouts out to Martin, and Martin reaches in the car, maybe tries to get into it, etc. Martin is still unarmed, legally in the neighborhood, profiled by Zimmerman, confronted by Zimmerman.
If Zimmerman had minded his own business, that would not have happened. Whatever he did was "too much" because it resulted in a reaction, and then Zimmerman is further in the wrong because he was armed when he shouted out. If he hadn't been armed, he wouldn't have been so brave.

Murder 2 charge (5.00 / 1) (#71)
by Darby on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 08:13:58 AM EST

GZ's description of restraining Martin and sitting on his chest because he wasn't aware that he had actually shot Martin seems to wholly contradict that he shot Martin with a depraved mind.
I think the witness testimony backs up his version of events in the regard (that he ended up on top of Martin after the gunshot, with Martin I think on his stomach and arms outstretched).
I would think this shows his intent was to stop the attack, not a shoot to kill attitude.

More telling was that he only pulled the trigger (5.00 / 2) (#84)
by lousy1 on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 08:52:21 AM EST

once.

I doubt that most people in that situation would be that restrained.


Where does he think the bullet went, then? (3.00 / 2) (#87)
by Anne on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 08:58:04 AM EST

How close to Martin was he? Like an arm's length? I guess Hannity didn't think that was a point worth asking about.

And I still have no idea how he shoots Martin in the chest - from the front - and Martin ends up on his stomach. Again, another point not worth asking about, I guess.

For me, this is the problem with guns: people who carry them have no idea how they will react in an uncontrolled situation, and other people are injured and killed because, in an adrenaline-fueled situation, those carrying weapons don't make good decisions; shooting at a target on a gun range is not the same as what ended up happening between Zimmerman and Martin.


My impression (5.00 / 1) (#89)
by Darby on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 09:06:18 AM EST

Is that he shot his gun and then Martin said something like 'you got me' or 'you got it'. Z took it to mean that he possibly was referring to Z being the one in control of the weapon and that now Martin was surrendering. So I think, Z then pushed Martin off and restrained him - which is how he ended up on his back.

Again, my impression, is that Martin's response to Z, in that second or so, led Z to believe that Martin either wasn't hit or not seriously wounded.

If Z claims Martin was straddling his chest when shot, I think it is obvious his answer will be he shot him at very close range.


Contact shot (5.00 / 1) (#90)
by Cylinder on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 09:07:05 AM EST

It was a near contact or contact shot.

That's why people shouldn't violently assault other people - your intended victim may well have some venom of their own...

Zimmerman was supine - laying on his back. Martin was on top of Zimmerman in the prone position - face down - just like W6 saw them mere seconds earlier. There has been no reasonable dispute over this fact. Every witness to the altercation before the shot was fired that could describe Martin described him on top. Every witness who could describe Zimmerman describes him on bottom.


If I shoot you at close range in the chest, (2.33 / 3) (#96)
by Anne on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 09:21:34 AM EST

how do you end up on your stomach? Doesn't the force of the bullet impel you backward?

And, once again: there are no witnesses to how the fight between these two started, only Zimmerman's contention that Martin started it.

I would also offer that Zimmerman is a prime example of guns not making people smarter, just emboldened to take more risks.


And GZ said Martin sat back after the shot (5.00 / 1) (#100)
by ruffian on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 09:29:21 AM EST

and he was able to restrain him - but I can't remember if he got Martin on his back or on his stomach with his arms outstretched. He talks about it in the police interviews, but not in the Hannity interviews as I recall. Not sure if he ever explains how Martin ended up on his stomach. If he, GZ, still thought TM was alive I would think he'd pay more attention to his movements.


If you shoot me in the stomach (5.00 / 1) (#101)
by jbindc on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 09:29:52 AM EST

I could collapse on top of you, you then push me off to the side and I end up on my stomach.


Well that is not what GZ said happened (none / 0) (#105)
by ruffian on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 09:30:44 AM EST

: It was one theory (5.00 / 1) (#109)
by jbindc on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 09:40:00 AM EST

Anne asked how that could happen.

Unlike Hollywood (5.00 / 1) (#115)
by lousy1 on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 09:53:26 AM EST

in real life a being shot by a pistol does not impart noticeable momentum to a human, unless it is a very powerful pistol.

George was not armed with a powerful weapon.

On of the reasons that the Army adopted a more powerful side arm ( the 1911 Colt) was that their current sidearms would not stop charging Filipino tribesmen even with multiple hits.

If you examine the recent viral video of a grandfather shooting two, would be, armed robbers it seems impossible to detect the impact of rounds on the bad guys.


No. That is only on TV (5.00 / 2) (#174)
by J Upchurch on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 12:59:27 PM EST

The force is about the same as the recoil experienced by the person shooting the gun, minus the recoil from the gases expelled.


Yes, but... (3.67 / 3) (#175)
by unitron on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 01:01:57 PM EST

..."...Zimmerman's contention that Martin started it." has achieved the status of "evidence", and around here that means the accuracy of it cannot be questioned if the prosecution is not going to do so.


The evidence all point to Trayvon being the (none / 0) (#103)
by Darby on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 09:30:40 AM EST

agressor. Injuries and wounds to Z, none to Trayvon.

I too would think the impact of the bullet might propel Martin backward.

Although I am not sure what difference it could make, since we know Trayvon was shot in the chest that is. Is there a theory to Trayvon being on his chest that somehow tosses out the self defense claim?


Reality (5.00 / 4) (#146)
by Cylinder on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 11:18:02 AM EST

Bullets don't propel people backwards like in movies. The force of a 9mm handgun may propel the outstretched hand an inch or so and the vast majority of that force is wasted gases, though I suppose at that range, most of these gases imparted force on Martin's body as well.


once again I say in answer to this theme: (5.00 / 1) (#181)
by DFLer on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 01:21:23 PM EST

Injuries and wounds to Z, none to Trayvon.

How so? A fatal gunshot does not qualify as a wound or injury?


I think you are confused (5.00 / 1) (#182)
by Darby on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 01:28:09 PM EST

The issue is evidence of who was the aggressor in the altercation that led to the shooting. The injuries sustained by Z and none by Martin support Z's claim that Martin was the aggressor.

That Martin was shot is a fact, but it neither proves or disproves who the aggressor was in the confrontation.


I am not confused. (3.67 / 3) (#185)
by DFLer on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 01:47:44 PM EST

I am merely correcting the statement that the only "wounds" were on GZ. See also this comment made on another thread here:

by Cashmere on Thu Jul 19 Yet Zimmerman is the only one showing physical signs that he was assaulted,....
My reply Gz the "only one showing physical signs that he was assaulted..." ?? How about a gunshot wound? Physical enough for you?

Agressor/schmessor. Perhaps the knocks to GZ by TM were in self defense. We are not privy to TM's version of events because he is dead.


Self defense how so? (none / 0) (#188)
by Darby on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 02:02:58 PM EST

There is no evidence, i.e. injuries to Martin to indicate that he was defending an attack from Z.

Or there are no witness claims that Z attacked Martin or was on top of him pummeling him MMA style etc.

You can have all the guesses you want, but you need to have some evidence to back them up.


: MMA style? (none / 0) (#190)
by DFLer on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 02:06:19 PM EST

what do you mean?

No, it is not (5.00 / 1) (#183)
by bmaz on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 01:28:20 PM EST

if the pertinent discussion point is who started the physical altercation and how it progressed. And that is indeed the pertinent discussion.


Shouldn't there have been more (1.00 / 1) (#112)
by Anne on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 09:43:14 AM EST

evidence of injury to the person doing the attacking? I don't think one tiny knick on Trayvon's pinkie finger is consistent with the level of violence Zimmerman is alleging.

The difficulty in reconciling how Trayvon ended up on his stomach has to do with whether Zimmerman has been truthful in recounting what happened; it isn't that it would be impossible for Martin to have ended up on his stomach, but I don't think he ends up in that position based on Zimmerman's own description of what happened.


A nick is not an abrasion... (5.00 / 2) (#176)
by unitron on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 01:05:53 PM EST

...and an abrasion is how the ME's office categorized it in the autopsy.


Suppose Zimmerman (none / 0) (#113)
by Darby on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 09:46:47 AM EST

got that detail wrong is lying about it,I don't see how it changes the details since we know Martin was shot in the chest.


: Should say (none / 0) (#114)
by Darby on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 09:49:06 AM EST

it doesn't impact the important details or the self defense claim..
I did just see in the transcript where Zimmerman claims after he shot Martin, he got out from under him, so Martin must have collapsed on top of Z

The multiple bruises are visible on GZ face (none / 0) (#117)
by lousy1 on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 09:58:38 AM EST

how do you think he got them?

If he struck GZ with an object, clothed elbows or forearms TM would not incur abrasions.


Also... (none / 0) (#177)
by unitron on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 01:06:48 PM EST

...it was the ring finger, not the pinkie.


It is Darby that said Martin ended up (none / 0) (#95)
by ruffian on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 09:14:34 AM EST

on his stomach, which I think is how he was found. Anne is asking how that happened.


Anne, your bias against guns (5.00 / 1) (#144)
by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 11:16:50 AM EST

is off-topic. Have you listened to the interview yet? If not, perhaps you should refrain from criticizing the contents of it.


Oh, sorry - I was under the impression I (1.00 / 1) (#152)
by Anne on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 11:35:33 AM EST

was discussing, and I was responding to, someone else's comments about the gunshot, the shooting, and George's claim that he didn't know he had shot Trayvon. Asking where he thought the bullet went, and reminding people that target/gun-range shooting is not the same as real-life situations was on-topic in the context of the whole sub-thread.

I have stated many times that I respect the 2nd Amendment, as well as people's right to own guns; that doesn't mean I have to love guns, or pretend that everyone who has one legally can, will and does use them intelligently.

I read the transcript of the show, Jeralyn; I mentioned that in one of my comments. I don't appreciate the assumption that my criticism means I didn't inform myself.


: you also said (5.00 / 1) (#172)
by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 12:52:42 PM EST

you see the problems as being one of guns.
And in this comment you said if you watch at all it will be for two minutes (yes, I know you were being sarcastic and referring to a comment I made about W-9.) I missed your later comment saying you had read the interview, sorry.

I think the witness testimony backs up (none / 0) (#81)
by LeaNder on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 08:38:17 AM EST

he was aware he was watched at that point in time.


I'm not sure about that (5.00 / 1) (#88)
by Darby on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 08:59:46 AM EST

or even that in the 60 seconds, more or less, with frantic screams for help and life and death struggle that Z was thinking about a cover story and potential witnesses.


No, but afterwards as he tells the story (1.00 / 1) (#99)
by ruffian on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 09:24:11 AM EST

he is matching it up with what the witnesses reported when possible. Is he using them as a memory aid? I can't tell.


: How could he (5.00 / 2) (#142)
by firstfall on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 11:12:22 AM EST

...match up his recorded statements with witnesses when he wasn't even aware of who witnessed what and what they witnessed?

with frantic screams for help (1.00 / 1) (#162)
by LeaNder on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 12:14:58 PM EST

Darby, can you explain to me, why, if he went through the experience of having frantically cried for help in what felt like an deadly danger to him without anybody helping him, he was so completely unable to "reenact" these life danger cries? That's body language, that surely is something you remember. These are seconds that are burned into you mind.

His cries are not even closely similar, if you ask me. And strictly I was never sure if Trayvon cried for help, maybe even skeptical, but his vocal reenactment completely changed my mind.


I have no idea (none / 0) (#179)
by Darby on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 01:11:22 PM EST

However if the FBI says it is inconclusive, George's father from the beginning identified it as him, Martin's father did not identify it as being Trayvon when asked there isn't really anything to disprove his theory.

I think a witness also claimed the cries were from GZ.

I realize later that Trayvon's mom, in the heightof the propaganda blitz I think, claimed it was Trayvon. Crump called the police liars regarding Tracy Martins initial claims about the screams for help

I think that the only non bias evidence on this, is the FBI.


: Darby, sweetheart the English say (1.00 / 1) (#187)
by LeaNder on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 01:54:26 PM EST

Martin's father did not identify it as being Trayvon

Careful, Serino says so, Serino also says he felt Tracy Martin accepted his tale that there was no evidence against George, which means from Tracy's perspective his son did something he couldn't imagine he did, and why he should have done it.
Did either Tracy or Robert ever experience their child's cry in mortal danger? So strictly I would expect someone that is honest to at least hesitate. Robert obviously didn't hesitate.

Exactly, as in the witness who comes out, (none / 0) (#212)
by Tamta on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 03:30:12 PM EST

who GZ asks for help, and who then says he is going to call for help.
Plus GZ has already placed a call to LE and knows they are arriving any minute.


I hope that exchanges like this will be stopped. (5.00 / 1) (#136)
by Samnod on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 10:54:28 AM EST

Not only is it a character attack but it adds nothing to the conversation.

Fear for my life.. (5.00 / 1) (#153)
by fredquick21 on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 11:44:13 AM EST

HANNITY: At what moment did you--because you said you feared for your life. At what moment do you remember when you litterally--do you remember when you thought "I MAY DIE"?. is that-- because you said that you felt-- you feared for your life. Do you remember the exact moment when you felt that?.

ZIM: In hindsight, I would say when he was slamming my head into the concrete and i thought i would lose consciousness. I don't know what would happen at that point.

HANNITY: And were you able to get to the grass
ZIM: Yes sir
HANNITY:And how did you do that?.
ZIM: I guess you could say shimmey

Is he still in fear for his life once he completely in the grass?
In one statement he says AFTER DRAWING HIS GUN TM tried to slam his head against the concrete again then he fired though he was according to his statement he had moved his head into the grass...

I was hoping he would demonstrate how he pinned tm's arm on his side to retrieve his gun "WITHOUT BENDING HIS ELBOW"

: I actually tried this (5.00 / 1) (#163)
by firstfall on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 12:18:43 PM EST

...with a book held against my side by my right upper arm and a banana tucked in my right/back waistband (no jokes ;)). Try it yourself. You can even reach all the way to the middle of your back. It's completely doable. It's a red herring that it's not.

Observed's comments have been deleted (5.00 / 1) (#160)
by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 12:12:46 PM EST

and Observed is banned from the Zimmerman threads.

To Bob Somerby (5.00 / 1) (#225)
by bmaz on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 04:32:20 PM EST

Good lord was that a load of uninformed bull by Amanda Marcotte. Not only did she promote false memes as you note, but she was was wildly and ridiculously off base with her legal conclusions about evidentiary relevance, a subject she clearly knows absolutely nothing about.

Daryl Parks on Hannity 7/19/12 (3.50 / 2) (#228)
by deanno on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 09:19:36 AM EST

SH: "But the eyewitness said Trayvon was on top of him."

DP: "If this guy was stalking him and if this guy was armed, he should have been on top of him, he should have been beating him."

Oh, so I guess a major player on Team Martin is now admitting that TM was on top of GZ beating him up (as witness 6 originally said), and it was justifiable in Parks' eyes.

How interesting.

Do you think this bombshell remark will make it on the mainstream media, ever?

Considering, (3.25 / 4) (#207)
by Georgie Girl on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 03:17:59 PM EST

GZ had graduated in December 2011 from Seminole State w/ an associate's degree in criminal justice; I find it hard to believe he had not heard of SYG.

It amazes me that no one has addressed that part of GZ's history. Check out Seminole State College Criminal Justice program & see the types of courses required. GZ must know a lot more about his defense then he is admitting. It reminds me of a variation of "the lady doth protests too much" - his defense has always seemed very scripted.
From the moment GZ said "the gun is on the ground, I shot this guy in self-defense" he seemed to know what he was saying to save himself. And, saving himself does not involve the whole truth.

After reading the transcript, it seems to (3.00 / 2) (#62)
by Anne on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 07:18:47 AM EST

me that this wasn't an interview as much as it was taking George by the hand and feeding him things he's already said so he can repeat them to a larger audience.

Which is no doubt why they chose Hannity for the appearance.

As for O'Mara, the resurrected website that appears to be somewhat critical of the defense, and all the other issues with control of his client and his client's family, I have the sense that nothing O'Mara has done or is doing is working to the extent he would like it to. I have found myself wondering whether, if Lester does take himself off the case, O'Mara will feel like he can follow suit.

What intrigues me is the disconnect between this seemingly mild-mannered, polite and harmless-looking man - the Zimmerman that we see in public appearances - and the controlling, goes-his-own-way-against-advice, I'm-gonna-do-what-I-want-to-do person he is behind the scenes.

Which one is the real George Zimmerman?

Maybe the disconnect is yours alone (5.00 / 1) (#67)
by Darby on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 07:59:13 AM EST

Where have you seen any evidence of this

"and the controlling, goes-his-own-way-against-advice, I'm-gonna-do-what-I-want-to-do person he is behind the scenes"

Unless you are referring to his first set of lawyers saying they were worried about his mental state because he went AWOL. I wouldn't characterize their description in one high pressure incident as his persona.


Are you kidding? (1.00 / 1) (#76)
by Anne on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 08:31:51 AM EST

Do you think it was the lawyers' decision to have Zimmerman's family and friends out talking to the media? Do you think it was the lawyers who advised Zimmerman not to worry about his jailhouse calls being recorded?

Who decided it was a good idea to talk to police without any representation? To participate in re-enactments and submit to all kinds of testing?

Do you really not see that the pattern here is that Zimmerman does what he wants, and then his lawyers first have to play catch-up and then have to clean up behind him?


: You make a lot of leaps (5.00 / 2) (#93)
by Darby on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 09:10:50 AM EST

Maybe Zimmerman cleared with his lawyers having family and friends talk with media. Do you know otherwise?
I don't think that is was a good idea to talk to police without any representation or submit to testing.
But I think that fits his persona of cooperative, mild mannered, non confrontational. Stupid yes, but where do you get that he was going against any advice or this shows some other side of his personality?

: Maybe (none / 0) (#123)
by Samnod on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 10:15:07 AM EST

his family just wanted to support him. He was getting death threats and I'm sure they were concerned.

resurrected website (none / 0) (#78)
by LeaNder on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 08:34:58 AM EST

As for O'Mara, the resurrected website that appears to be somewhat critical of the defense

Anne, my pet theory--to suggest I consider this deeply subjective--is that the funds stopped flowing as lavishly as they did before when people could donate to George directly. I only scanned the site, the argument seems to be that it is difficult to find gzlegalcase with the usual tools, webwise. This is obviously a much more carefully planned endeavor, and maybe an attempt to find out if this makes a difference. I would even imagine O'Mara did not object.

The image with dog is well chosen.

I never had much trouble finding O'Mara's site. But I haven't checked if he has a link on his own site, which could help some people.

Basically it seems to tell people, trust O'Mara, I do trust him and his decisions concerning the fund too, and please continue to support me, I need your help against the media.

Concerning the rest, yes, it feels George Zimmerman is observing media very carefully, and he should. In jail he asked Shellie if there was anything new, remember? Just as he obviously was aware his prison calls were taped.

I wondered about his statement he wasn't aware of SYG, but I have to postpone to listen to the whole interview till the end of the week. But I am confident it wasn't a subject in his associate degree or a subject in the necessary education and paperwork accompanying the concealed carry permit.

Yesterday I pondered, why some of our words, or more precisely their usage, are completely untranslatable into English, in much the same way homeland security and neighborhood "block captains" (especially) are deeply linked with 180° different historical and literary associations, private memories and experiences for me.


for anyone who misunderstands (5.00 / 3) (#193)
by SuzieTampa on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 02:19:21 PM EST

as I did. If you go to the Real George site and click on legal defense fund, it will take you to the same fund as the one under GZlegal. So, this isn't a different defense fund.

Re: God's plan. This is not my belief, but many people believe that everything that happens in the world is part of God's master plan, even horrible things. Others may make fun of this, but we knew GZ was religious before, and this doesn't seem out of character.

Re: Sean Hannity's softballs. Other media have given Trayvon's parents, their attorneys, etc., free rein to make whatever accusations they want. I can't recall them asking any hard questions.

It's horrible to lose a child -- two of my sisters have each lost a young child -- but that's not an excuse to do anything you can, including misleading the public, in order to punish the person you think is responsible.


: Re: God's plan (3.00 / 2) (#217)
by Dadler on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 03:50:22 PM EST

If everything is the God's plan, then logically guilt and innocence should be irrelevant to you. How can one be guilty of willfully doing anything when that behavior was predetermined from the instant God made the decision to bring the world into being. If you cannot accept and admit the self-evident absurdity of this "belief," then, I'm sorry, derision cannot HELP but come your way.

I just love how folks like to hide behind (3.00 / 2) (#134)
by Chuck0 on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 10:53:17 AM EST

their mystery man in the sky. "god's plan." Puleeze. Take responsibility for your actions. What a load of crap. Doctor saves your life, you thank god for a miracle, not so much the doctor who through med school. Your house blows away in tornado. You thank god you're alive. If your god was so great, why the hell did he smash your house to bits? Please. Join reality.

IMHO, he may not be guilty of murder. (2.33 / 3) (#30)
by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 12:13:14 AM EST

But against the explicit advice of the 9-1-1 professional on the other end of the line, George Zimmerman still aggressively pursued -- and subsequently shot and killed, accidentally or otherwise -- what proved to be an unarmed teenager who was merely returning to where he was staying in the Twin Lakes condominium complex, and for no other apparent reason than assuaging his own ego that he was some sort of guardian pillar of his community.

The defendant displayed remarkably poor personal judgment that night, then again at several points thereafter once it became apparent that he was probably going to be charged, and then again in the days leading up to and including his first bond hearing. He now at least shows some remorse for what happened that evening -- and that's a good thing, if only for the sake of his own soul.

But remorse, however heartfelt it may be, cannot turn back the clock and resurrect the deceased, nor can it undo the emotional trauma Zimmerman inflicted upon the deceased's parents, family and friends with his actions.

And while I do believe that Zimmerman's now in the grips of a particularly zealous prosecutor with a propensity for overcharging defendants in high-profile cases who wind up in her crosshairs for whatever reason, I just can't summon up any real sympathy for him regarding the legal mess in which he currently finds himself enmeshed. As I said in other, earlier threads, Mark O'Mara has his work cut out for him.

I will only trust that the legal system will eventually work its course in the way that it was intended, and that justice will be served as we look to the bigger picture. Personally, given what I now know about the case, I would think it perfectly fair to see Zimmerman acquitted of the second degree murder charge, and held civilly liable for the death of Trayvon Martin.

Aloha.

Where is any evidence (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by Juan on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 12:47:40 AM EST

that indicates that after he says OK to the NEN dispatcher saying "We don't need you to do that" that he "still aggressively pursued"? The state has produced nothing that suggests that. Unless you take the recanted story of the witness that saw shadows run by her window (without her contact lenses in) as solid proof.


Propaganda can be sneaky (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by spectator on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 12:50:37 AM EST

aggressively pursued? odd speculation to put it mild, imo


Sorry you made three misstatements (5.00 / 4) (#36)
by lousy1 on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 12:51:02 AM EST

George Zimmerman still aggressively pursued -- and subsequently shot and killed, accidentally or otherwise -- what proved to be an unarmed teenager who was merely returning to where he was staying in the Twin Lakes condominium complex, and for no other apparent reason than assuaging his own ego that he was some sort of guardian pillar of his community.</blockquote>

In one paragraph.
Please provide proof that George Zimmerman aggressively pursued anyone. If it is an opinion then I suggest you clarify it as such.

what proved to be an unarmed teenager who was merely returning to where he was staying in the Twin Lakes condominium

How do you know that? TM's motives and activities are as yet to be developed.

and for no other apparent reason than assuaging his own ego that he was some sort of guardian pillar of his community

That's the real whopper. I think that you need to read a bit about the case. The bulk of the evidence indicates that:
TM confronted GZ
TM Punched GZ in the face
TM Assumed and was able to maintain a superior positiom and pummeled GZ
GZ was reduced to a totally defensive posture.
TM despite at least 40 seconds of GZ pleading for help continued to assault GZ

Bottom line? GZ shot TM because TM refused to relent in his vicious attack that GZ had no other way to escape.

I didn't get past the first paragraph :)


Do you have any evidence he continued prosuing... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by redwolf on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 12:51:46 AM EST

after being asked to stop?


Sometimes the law cannot be "blind"..... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by AnnDaily on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 12:55:59 AM EST

Donald from Hawaii wrote:

"But against the explicit advice of the 9-1-1 professional on the other end of the line, George Zimmerman still aggressively pursued -- and subsequently shot and killed, accidentally or otherwise...."

I do not intend by this writing to diminish the scope and horror of Trayvon Martin losing his life.

Having listened and read the facts thus far presented, I did NOT hear/read that Zimmerman acted against the advice of the 911 operator. What I heard was that Zimmerman was going to the main street or "circle" in the complex, so that he could find a street address to report to the police.

Given the Florida legal statute...
Given the questionable pleading that the Florida Attorney General proferred to the Court (made exceptionally public by Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz)....
Given the media persona we are witnessing from Zimmerman...

I believe there is a greater percentage of chance that Zimmerman will prevail.
....unless new facts which substantially counter existing facts, come to the surface - and/or the court or a jury is prejudicially swayed by the "PC" of the matter (sometimes the law cannot be "blind").

Sad, regardless of how things conclude.


Today Is July 19th (5.00 / 1) (#69)
by Darby on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 08:04:31 AM EST

Not March 20th. Haven't you been reading any of the news reports and full 911 transcripts made available? The narrative you are putting out there has been proven false by the actual facts and evidence months ago.


: I don't mean this as a criticism of Donald, (5.00 / 1) (#221)
by bob somerby on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 04:00:24 PM EST

but disinformation can last a long time. This was Armanda Marcotte at Salon just two days ago:
"Sexually violent men tend to be more violent generally, particularly against people they believe are lesser or weaker. If you're trying to establish that Zimmerman had it in him to hunt down and murder a teenager who is much smaller than himself, than a history of sexual assault does help demonstrate this."
For weeks, MSNBC kept telling viewers that Zimmerman outweighed Martin, 250 pounds-140 pounds. They never corrected the record when the more accurate information became available, about this and a wide range of other points.
Marcotte was still promoting this general line at a major news org just two days ago. I assume she still believes it. Disinformation lasts a long time.

God's Plan Didn'ty Make the Highlights ? (1.00 / 1) (#107)
by ScottW714 on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 09:35:18 AM EST

I don't buy into the god hype, but damn, that certainly seemed like something he's been thinking about... and to say it, even if that's what he really believes, is straight up cold.

Someone died, and regardless of the reason, to say a kid getting shot was all some per-ordained plot by the master of the universe is pretty god damn pathetic coming from the person being tried for the murder.

He is shirking any responsibility, even if justified. He was a pawn in a higher beings plan, he had no control of the outcome. It would be interested to know when GZ thought this plan was laid, at birth, 10 mins before the shooting. When exactly did GZ stop controlling his own destiny ?

Couldn't anyone say that, for any crime, and more importantly, is this jam and possible conviction also part of god's plan, is his life ruined because the master decided it should be, like it decided TM should be murdered ? Then why is anyone here, none of it matters according to Zimmerman, it's all been planned out by god. It knows whether GZ will rot in jail or be a free man.

GZ did murder Trevon, no ? The question right now is was that murder justified under Florida law. I think that should have made the highlight reel as well.

I thought he was believable, like the walk through, I don't get the impression it went down differently. And sure, as mentioned above, the minor details are going to change, but that's not because of anything other than brain biology and trying to smooth a couple of the sharp edges.

And Fox said no money, is that Fox being Fox, or was this a completely free interview. IOW, did they donate to GZ defense fund ? Doesn't matter, just curious as to why Fox and free, pretty sure he's got that crowd locked in, and if it was really free, seems like he could have only damaged himself last night.

And lastly, what the F was up with him looking into he camera at the end, that was was just weird.

no, it has not been established (5.00 / 1) (#147)
by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 11:18:58 AM EST

he murdered Trayvon. It's been established that he shot and killed him. Not every killing is a crime.


Mr. Zimmerman, are you ready for your closeup? (5.00 / 1) (#149)
by Cylinder on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 11:23:26 AM EST

He was asked to look into the camera. He even looked prompted, because after the camera change, he's still looking at Hannity.


I didn't want to get into the god thing (none / 0) (#108)
by ruffian on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 09:38:01 AM EST

because that really sends me over the edge. Mysterious ways, indeed.


Hannnity told him to look into the (none / 0) (#148)
by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 11:22:27 AM EST

camera for his last statement. Did you even watch?

HANNITY: I asked you if you wanted to -- if you could speak to Trayvon Martin's family. I asked you if you could speak to even the American public, there's so many people that have so many opinions that vary so much. You know, if you wanted to look into that camera and tell the American public something about George Zimmerman and about -- this case with Trayvon Martin that has gotten such media attention, what would you want to tell them?

: Well... (1.00 / 1) (#154)
by ScottW714 on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 11:46:25 AM EST

...so long as Hannity told him to do something weird, then it's not weird ?
I watched it, but it didn't have 100% of my attention, so sorry.

Oh God... (none / 0) (#3)
by Redbrow on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 10:05:33 PM EST

Natalie Jackson ‏@NatJackEsq
@attorneycrump "We must worship a different GOD because there is no way that my GOD wanted GZ to murder my teenage son." Tracy Martin

The Martin/Fulton's cornered the market on Christianity?

"It's so easy for me to cry right now, but I can't because I have work to do," she told the congregation. "I was forced into this position, but I believe God is using me." Sybrina Fulton

"But now I know that God has called Trayvon. He was chosen." Sybrina Fulton

"God is in control." Sybrina Fulton

Please leave them alone and ignore them. (4.56 / 9) (#31)
by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 12:29:18 AM EST

While their comments undoubtedly add to the drama and provide compelling theatre from the media's standpoint, you should keep in mind that Trayvon Martin's parents are, for all practical purposes, almost completely irrelevant to the legal case against George Zimmerman. They are simply grieving for their son right now, and trying to come to perms personally with what happened to him.

Because they are hurting badly, grieving parents who've lost a child suddenly can sometimes say some pretty intemperate and nasty things, and they'll even sometimes lash out at people they love.

Therefore, you just make yourself look petty and mean when you train your focus on Trayvon's parents and post stuff like that. This is not a competition, and there already are no winners in this terribly sad affair. Look to the case itself, and ignore the chatter.

Aloha.


Maybe you should tell that to media (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by Redbrow on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 02:57:05 AM EST

outlets who are using sensationalist headlines like this from think progress.

George Zimmerman Says He Wouldn't Do Anything Differently: `It Was God's Plan' For Me To Kill Trayvon Martin

and Miami Herald

Zimmerman: Trayvon's death was "God's plan"

and NY Post

Zimmerman tells Sean Hannity Trayvon shooting part of 'God's plan'

Somebody has to counter the propaganda.


God's Plan? (5.00 / 0) (#75)
by IgnatiusJDonnely on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 08:30:55 AM EST

WTH?
Look, I was raised Catholic too.
We don't say things like that.
Joe-G is playin' to the TV.
Though that remark comes off a bit differently
than he intended.


: Yet Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#82)
by lousy1 on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 08:42:45 AM EST

who evidently had the patience to listen to some of his recorded jail house conversations finds that comment consistent with his personal conversations.
I see no reason for him to lie. Not all Catholics, or members of any other denomination, march in lock step.

: I think that... (5.00 / 2) (#104)
by DebFrmHell on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 09:30:40 AM EST

religious people assign "God's Plan" to whatever adversity they have to deal with. Much like the "God never gives me more than I can handle" kind of thing.
It is just how religious people cope, IMO. Two sides to the same coin in this instance.
I don't think that GZ is playing that for TV anymore than I think that Sybrina Fulton, who says something similar, is playing that for TV. I think both are sincere considering their religious beliefs.

Putting grieving parents on television (none / 0) (#5)
by Payaso on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 10:10:09 PM EST

is tabloid journalism. Their reaction sheds no light on what happened that night.


Anyone know (none / 0) (#6)
by friendofinnocence on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 10:12:55 PM EST

why Zimmerman did this interview?

: And now you know the rest of the story (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Cylinder on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 10:26:07 PM EST

Obviously to counter the new narrative that the media is trying to reconstruct from the ashes of the old one.

I listened in the background, looked up (none / 0) (#10)
by lousy1 on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 10:50:59 PM EST

occasionally.
I've got to give Jeralyn some credit because I don't think I could write even three cogent paragraphs about this interview.

George is a boring person. The interview introduce little new news ( AFAIR O'Mara had indicated he would probably ask for a SYG hearing in the motion to dismiss Lester)

It was probably a good way for GZ to present himself.

I initially thought this would have been a good venue to introduce some of the defense's reciprocal discovery. After watching I need to admit a political tin ear.

For the average, incidentally, involved viewer this was well framed.

Oh there a part 2 tomorrow ???

Clearly (none / 0) (#13)
by Cylinder on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 10:56:05 PM EST

Clearly Zimmerman's behavior deviates from that of his other nationally televised interviews.

ROFLMAO (none / 0) (#16)
by firstfall on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 11:06:58 PM EST

I am... (none / 0) (#17)
by DebFrmHell on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 11:07:03 PM EST

confused. What other nationally televised interviews? I don't remember ever hearing of anything other than this one though family and friends have been featured on various news programs...


: Me, either... (none / 0) (#21)
by unitron on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 11:21:12 PM EST

...unless you count that first bond hearing.

There were no other inteviews (none / 0) (#24)
by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 11:26:40 PM EST

I assume the comment was a facetious response to a comment I have now deleted for being a character attack.


It seems (none / 0) (#14)
by lousy1 on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 10:58:43 PM EST

consistent with the descriptions from his family and associates by the compiled by the FBI

What friends are you referring to?

Less than 30 seconds? (none / 0) (#18)
by unitron on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 11:10:01 PM EST

"HANNITY: Because they said, you know, can we meet you here at a certain location, and you said have them call me.

ZIMMERMAN: Yes.

HANNITY: Why did you want them at that point to call you?

ZIMMERMAN: I hadn't given them a correct address. I gave them a -- the clubhouse vicinity. However, I was walking through to my street, Retreat View Circle, and I was going to give them the actual street number and name.

HANNITY: How long was it, George, after that, that you saw Trayvon again? Because you said you stopped, that you did not continue pursuing him. When did you next see Trayvon Martin?

ZIMMERMAN: Less than 30 seconds."

He hangs up at 7:13:39 PM.

General consensus is the struggle, or at least the first exchange of words leading to it, begins around 7:15:30 PM.

He's just backed that up to about a minute and 20 seconds earlier.

That gives him over 2 minutes and 10 seconds being in visual and then physical contact with Martin before the first 911 call is answered.

I'm thinking accurately estimating the passage of time is not neccessarily a part of his skill set.

Time is off (2.00 / 1) (#20)
by lousy1 on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 11:20:34 PM EST

But so is your comment - you don't know that.

It is pure speculation.


If there are any witnesses... (none / 0) (#23)
by unitron on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 11:24:55 PM EST

...that say things started up between them much before 7:15:30 PM, 46 seconds before the first 911 call, I'd like very much to see what they had to say.


I misread your post (none / 0) (#32)
by lousy1 on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 12:31:41 AM EST

I agree GZ does not appear yo have the skill set required become a clock - even a sand dial.

But we should know that from all this statements. He is fairly accurate when remembering incidents, not so hot in recollecting the intervals between those incidents.

Occasionally he seems to get confused on sequence.


I hope this won't be taken the wrong way.... (none / 0) (#39)
by Jello333 on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 01:33:59 AM EST

... but are those aspects of George's memory/judgement a symptom of someone who has ADD? I'm thinking that could be a part of why he gets kinda mixed up on some things. Of course I'm also sure that even without ADD, the average person would still have lots of trouble keeping all the times and distances organized in their head. Considering how stressful, painful, confusing those few minutes must have been, it's a wonder he can remember anything.


: you may not mean it that way (5.00 / 1) (#45)
by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 03:18:30 AM EST

but it invites a character attack on Zimmerman and people with ADD nonetheless -- and I just deleted one comment in response to this. So please move on.

Timeline (none / 0) (#26)
by MJW on Wed Jul 18, 2012 at 11:54:10 PM EST

As far as I know, there's still no reliable timeline. The time of 19:16:43 for the 911 "scream" call is from the same timeline on page 40 of the 1st discovery PDF that incorrectly says Zimmerman called at 19:11:12. I don't understand why the redacted 911 call logs haven't been released, or why the media hasn't pursued the matter.


I believe a combined (911 & NE) log... (none / 0) (#49)
by Gandydancer on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 05:47:52 AM EST

...-was- released, since I recall comments on how the two types of calls could be distinguished on the log.


If so, I hope someone can provide a link (none / 0) (#165)
by MJW on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 12:35:25 PM EST

I'd certainly like to see it. All I've seen is a call log for Zimmerman's call.


The best way to tell the difference... (none / 0) (#169)
by unitron on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 12:44:49 PM EST

...is to listen to the recordings.

All of the 911 calls are answered "Nine One One, Do you need police, fire, or medical?".

Zimmerman's call was answered "Sanford Police Department, this line is being recorded, this is Sean."

Previous non-911 calls by Zimmerman were answered in similar fashion.


: I know that (none / 0) (#194)
by MJW on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 02:22:18 PM EST

I wanted a link, if there is one (which I doubt), to the call logs so I can see the times of the calls. I think Gandydancer was just mentioning the distinction as a detail he remembered about the call log discussion.

Might the family (none / 0) (#40)
by firstfall on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 01:42:58 AM EST

...have hired a PR guy or someone volunteered? I would if I was in their position. O'Mara might have approved if he felt the website and twitter account were in experienced hands.

: O'Mara? (none / 0) (#210)
by Tamta on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 03:21:47 PM EST

PR.
I am currently looking in my now out-of-control reading list for the original article that states this group is handling the SM for the Defense. It has made me wonder if MOM considers additional advisement.
Anyway, I am not clear on the facts supporting speculation of GZ no longer trusting O'Mara. Did I miss something? Is it certain that the resurrection of the old website is something not condoned by O'Mara?

GZ dad's heart attack was two weeks (none / 0) (#41)
by lily on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 01:49:50 AM EST

prior to shooting, I posted this information here in response to the usual smearing of GZ. I also posted the information that GZ crossed the cut-through looking for a house number, I learned this early on from a GZ surrogate, I think his brother. Jeralyn corrected me saying it was the street name, that was an error. He was always focused on figuring out the house number for direction to police.

He had access... (none / 0) (#171)
by unitron on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 12:50:30 PM EST

... to house numbers on Twin Trees, but he didn't know it was Twin Trees.

He knew Retreat View Circle was Retreat View Circle, so supposedly if he went all the way across the "cut-through" he could get a number and know that it would be XXXX Retreat View Circle.


: agree (none / 0) (#178)
by lily on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 01:09:33 PM EST

good clarification.

Let me say this about that... (none / 0) (#42)
by bmaz on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 01:54:11 AM EST

Well:

Most lawyers would not subject a client who is facing murder charges to a national interview.

No kidding. Count me among those. Most other comments are entirely superfluous.

A lot of people are asking why Zimmerman did this interview. I have no idea.

Uh, yeah, me neither. This was a fool's errand that I either would have dissuaded the client from, or fired him for. If Zimmerman is not more controllable than that, cut him loose. If O'Mara was good to go with that, that confirms how lame he has looked for a while.

Nothing has changed my mind about the factual analysis, but it is really getting hard to understand the intelligent and coherent theory of defense. Jeebus.

: You fire clients? (none / 0) (#43)
by firstfall on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 01:57:02 AM EST

Isn't it supposed to work the other way?

: It's a political prosecution. (none / 0) (#50)
by Gandydancer on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 05:57:58 AM EST

Going on Hannity looks like the right call to me. GZ has the law and the facts. Now he needs Lester or whatever judge replaces him to feel that the heat isn't just from one side.
MOM isn't going to fire the goose that lays the golden eggs. He's got a whole new wing for his law offices to support. GZ has that figured out. It's why he paid everything he could before handing over his defense fund, which he was not going to see much from thereafter, IMHO.

Fortunately for many (none / 0) (#85)
by lousy1 on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 08:54:03 AM EST

society does not classify the shockingly stupid as a menace.

: Observed's comment was deleted (none / 0) (#145)
by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 11:17:49 AM EST

as a character attack, and because s/he repeats it, Observed is banned from commenting on Zimmerman.

Conflating two witnesses (none / 0) (#180)
by Cylinder on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 01:14:19 PM EST

He supposedly called out to John/Witness #6, don't call police, help me to restrain this guy, they are already on the way.

Not even close. He called out to W6 for help while he was being beaten by Martin. There is no evidence that Zimmerman restrained Martin before the fatal shot and a boatload of evidence (e.g. every witness who saw Zimmerman that night) that he didn't.

Seconds after shooting Martin, Zimmerman wanted Flashlight Man to help him restrain the mortally wounded Martin. This part of the altercation was witnessed by Cutcher.

that comment was deleted (none / 0) (#184)
by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 01:43:49 PM EST

the commenter confused Witness 6 with Witness 13. It was Witness 13, who came out after the shooting, who Zimmerman says he wanted to help him restrain Martin.


: Jeralyn (none / 0) (#195)
by LeaNder on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 02:24:47 PM EST

Jeralyn, my use was innocently non juridical

restrain
transitive verb
1
a : to prevent from doing, exhibiting, or expressing something <restrained the child from jumping> b : to limit, restrict, or keep under control <try to restrain your anger>
2
: to moderate or limit the force, effect, development, or full exercise of <restrain trade>
3
: to deprive of liberty; especially : to place under arrest or restraint
Like preventing him from killing me?
Do we get the jail calls too? I would contribute a little again and I am sure others would.

Black panther leader was arrested days after (none / 0) (#198)
by fredquick21 on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 02:48:43 PM EST

the bounty on charges unrelated to ZIM as reported by fox but i guess HANNITY: meant no one was arrested as far as for the bounty.

30 sec and approximately 100ft (none / 0) (#203)
by fredquick21 on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 03:03:59 PM EST

did ZIM mean that 30 sec after his NEN call ended is when confrontation between zim/tm or tm/zim started?. Also the second he said walking fast DEE DEE's statement poped into my head and if 30 sec after his NEN call ended is what he meant (i'm not sure so i'm asking) would DEE DEE's call per phone records extend more than 30 sec after his?. * ALSO (sorry for all the questions) what exactly is approximately 100 ft from his truck and how far can one reasonably go past 100 ft (125,150 or 175) and stay approximately within 100 ft ?

thanks in advance

I have looked for, (none / 0) (#222)
by NYShooter on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 04:07:43 PM EST

and still can't find, what the actual weight difference was at the time of the shooting.

anyone?

Thread closed (none / 0) (#224)
by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 04:28:02 PM EST

All our threads close at 200 comments. That's why you do not see a "reply" button to comments. There is a comment box that remains at the bottom, but it's built into the software, it's not an invitation to comment further.

You can continue the discussion at our forums.

More Zimmerman on Hannity Friday (none / 0) (#227)
by friendofinnocence on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 05:15:05 PM EST

Tonight is Parks.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-07-19/entertainment/os-hannity-has-more-george-zimmerman-20 120719_1_george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-daryl-parks

@NYShooter (none / 0) (#229)
by Georgie Girl on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 12:31:12 PM EST

GZ 5'7.5" 204 lbs according to his medical records the day after the shooting

TM 5'11" 158 lbs reported on his autopsy

George Zimmerman on Hannity, Thread II

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

Menu

Search

Login

Creator and Principal Author

TL Alumni

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections

Site Credits

Legal