The Misconception Of A Stand Your Ground Hearing
Thursday, September 6, 2012 at 12:47PM Right after Judge Lester was removed from the bench, Mark O’Mara said he would likely schedule a “stand your ground” hearing sometime next year. On August 31, Rene Stutzman of the Orlando Sentinel wrote:
Nelson will now be the judge who must decide whether Zimmerman, who is charged with second-degree murder, is entitled to immunity under Florida’s much-debated “stand your ground” law, which allows anyone with a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily injury to use deadly force against an attacker.
Defense attorney Mark O’Mara has said he would likely schedule that hearing next year.
“It will take a tremendous amount of judicial courage at this point to throw the case out following an immunity hearing,” said Winter Park criminal-defense attorney David Faulkner. “My guess is that any judge, Judge Nelson or otherwise, is going to let a jury decide this issue for the benefit of the public.”
Of late, there’s been a lot of discussion and, perhaps, some arguments, over the difference between filing a stand your ground motion and a Motion for Declaration of Immunity and Dismissal. In essence, they are nearly interchangeable; sort of like buying a GM or Chevy vehicle. You can’t have a Chevy without GM, but it doesn’t work the other way around. Without the stand your ground law, there would be no immunity and dismissal motion applicable in this case. In other words, the important thing to remember is that the immunity and dismissal motion is based on Florida’s stand your ground law, F.S. Statute 776.032: Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force, which states:
A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer… As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
Initially, the Sanford Police Department followed the tenets of the stand your ground statute by not placing George Zimmerman under arrest, but that act did not mean he was free from future prosecution. Now arrested and charged, Zimmerman has a right to file the immunity and dismissal motion based on the statute. F.S. 776.012 states:
Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
Right now, we will pay particular attention to 776.012(1) and whether or not Zimmerman was right to believe that firing his gun into Trayvon Martin’s chest was necessary to prevent imminent death. After all, he said he was being pummeled to death by the teen. We will ignore 776.013 because it addresses the unlawful and forceful entering of “a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle…” 776.031 doesn’t apply, either, because it covers the use of force in defense of others.
Before going into F.S. 776.012, it’s important to first mention F.S. 776.041 and the “Use of force by aggressor.”
Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
Here is where some of the confusion may originate over stand your ground and immunity. By most witness accounts, and certainly something the State can clearly establish, the fight did not end where Zimmerman described. Trayvon’s body was found 30-40 feet south of the “T” joining the east/west sidewalk with the north/south one. Witnesses will testify that there was a scuffle with people running and yelling. Who was chasing whom is not relevant at this point because, once able to escape, Zimmerman chose not to. After all, he was the man with the gun. The bottom line is, he cannot prove that Trayvon cold-cocked him there at the “T” intersection. Furthermore, he cannot prove that’s where the fight ended with a bang, as he showed in his reenactment the next day. His best bet is to not bring it up at a dismissal hearing and that means the State will not be able to address it. That’s why, in my opinion, the Defense made an “adjustment” in its strategy, and it’s what led to the confusion over stand your ground and the impending dismissal motion.
At some point, the Defense realized it stood a better chance if it heeded F.S. 776.041. Where the Defense would most likely falter during a Motion for Declaration of Immunity and Dismissal hearing lays in (1) and the first part of (2) in 776.041. Why? In (1), will the Defense be able to factually establish that their client was not the aggressor, who forced himself upon the victim, therefore committing a felony? The shooting at the “T” has been debunked by evidence. The gunshot took place far enough away to establish that Zimmerman’s story is false. If the Defense goes in that direction, so will the State, and Bernie de la Rionda will have every right to do so. And, boy, will he ever!
There’s a big word in (2)… unless, and here’s where it will come into play. Let’s move south. For sure, there was a fight, and since no one can really prove who was on top and who was on the bottom, it’s important for the Defense to lay claim that Zimmerman was on the bottom, being beaten to death. I don’t believe (2)(b) will apply because there’s no testimony by the defendant that he attempted to withdraw. He will most likely assert that his mouth was covered and couldn’t speak, but if he does, the State will counter with the lack of evidence; there was no blood, saliva, or any of Zimmerman’s DNA on the victim’s hands. The Defense will not be able to prove it, any more than it will be able to prove that their client was the one yelling for help. If they try, the State will mention that the screaming stopped immediately after the gunshot while Zimmerman stated that he continued yelling for help as he spread the victim’s lifeless hands away from his torso.
Let’s try (2)(a) instead. Bingo! Here’s Zimmerman’s greatest hope. By claiming, which he has all along, that his life was in danger and that he had exhausted all means to escape, he had no choice but to shoot. OK, fine, but how did he gain access to his gun? The only way to explain it is to show the judge exactly how he did it, and the only person who could do that is George. Without taking the stand, he can’t do that because the video reenactment is too sketchy. If not that, then what’s left?
The medical records.
Yes, let’s just say that Zimmerman did have a fractured nose, meaning broken to some extent. The ARNP who diagnosed him was qualified to do so, and that’s what she wrote in her report:
1. Scalp Lacerations: No sutures needed given well-approximated skin margins. Continue to clean with soap and water dally. We discussed the red flag symptoms that would warrant Imaging given the type of assault he sustained. Given the type of trauma, we discussed that it Is imperative he be seen with his Psychologist for evaluation.
2. Broken Nose~ We discussed that it is likely broken, but does not appear to have septal deviation. The swelling and black eyes are typical of this injury. I recommended that he be evaluated by ENT but he refused.
Review of Systems:
Constitutional Symptoms: Denies fevers and/or chills.
Eyes: Denies loss and blurring of vision, diplopia.
Ear, Nose, Mouth, Throat: Admits nose pain. Denies hearing loss, tinnitus.
Cardiovascular: Denies palpitations, chest pain/pressure.
Respiratory: Denies shortness of breath.
Gastrointestinal: Denies abdominal pain, nausea and/or vomiting.
Integumentary: Admits- (Scalp lacerations).
Neurological: Admits head trauma. Denies tingling, numbness, weakness, headache, dizziness, speech difficulty, gait disturbance, loss of consciousness.
Psychiatric: Admits stress. Denies suicidal thoughts or attempts.
Nothing in that document paints a portrait of a person remotely close to death the day before. Even the Sanford Fire Department EMT report from the night of the incident showed nothing life threatening. Patient Conscious. Breathing normal. No external hemorrhaging. Mucous membrane normal. Extremities normal. Abrasions to his forehead and bleeding/tenderness to his nose. Small laceration to the back of his head. All injuries have minor bleeding. If you combine both reports, it doesn’t help the defense because Zimmerman cannot, in any way, shape or form, establish that he was remotely close to death, and if he tries, he opens a can of worms the State is going to take full advantage of.
§
Back to the matter at hand — the legalities. Enough of the medical. If Zimmerman can factually establish that his use of deadly force occurred under the circumstances outlined in the above statutes, he could walk. Peterson v. State, 983 So. 2d 27, 29 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) showed that F.S. 776.032 established a true immunity and not just a justification for what he did. According to the Jacksonville law firm, Hussein & Webber’s website:
The Court stated that, when immunity under the law is properly raised by a defendant, the trial court (at a hearing) must decide the matter by confronting and weighing only factual disputes. Petersen held that a defendant may raise the question of statutory immunity pre-trial and, when such claim is raised, the trial court must determine whether the defendant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that immunity attaches. Unlike a motion to dismiss, the trial court may not deny a motion for immunity simply because factual disputes exist.
The main issue in this case will be whether or not Zimmerman will be able to show enough evidence to establish immunity. Once again, I must reiterate what I touched on in The Prince and the Pea: Subjective or Objective Fear in the Petitioner? Was Zimmerman’s fear subjective or objective? Was he correct in fearing for his life or did he just panic? That’s the difference, and there’s a huge distinction between the two and whether or not immunity applies. Of course, there’s one more thing that could only be brought up at trial; did George Zimmerman shoot Trayvon Martin in cold blood? For that reason alone, and for the lack of evidence showing “by a preponderance of the evidence,” Mr. O’Mara had better be preparing his client for trial. I see it no other way.
Cross posted on the Daily Kos
Dave Knechel | in Angela Corey, Bernie De la Rionda, DNA, Dave Knechel, David B. Knechel, David Knechel, Donald West, Eighteenth Circuit Court, Forensics, George Zimmerman, Judge Debra S. Nelson, Marinade Dave, Marinade Dave Knechel, Mark O'Mara, Motion for Declaration of Immunity and Dismissal, SYG, Sanford, Sanford Police Department, Seminole County, Seminole County Courthouse, Slimm v. Zimm, Stand Your Ground, Trayvon Martin, Zimm v. Slimm, marinadedave | Share Article | 1 Reference 
LEGAL NOTICE
©David B. Knechel. All Rights Reserved. No portion of this site can be reproduced in it's entirety or in part without expressed written permission by the owner/administrator of this site in accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Section 512(c)(3) of the U.S. Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §512(c)(3). The charges against defendants are mere accusations and the subjects are presumed innocent until found guilty in a court of law.
Reader Comments (437)
Michelle: I am so very sorry if I offended you or your mom.
Never, never did I mean that all people who have ADHD act like George, or would if presented with the same circumstances. ✿ܓ
Quite the contrary, I believe.
Please tell your mom I am sorry. I really didn't mean that at all, and I will be more considerate in the future.
Enjoy your cheeseburger. Ƹ̴Ӂ̴Ʒ
Sempre~~in all honesty, I cannot see derpraved mind describing Zimmerman. After reading the definition of it, he is really the exact opposite in many respects. I can believe him to be paranoid and this could be related to those meds he is on for the ADHD. Severe side effects of drugs are rare but in order for them to be listed at Medline Plus and other drug sites, some people had to have experienced them. The prosecution has a good reason for going after Z medical records and I don't think it was just to see if he was diagnosed with a fractured nose.
Manberk: Wowsers! What a great comment!
Thank you so much for taking the time to point that all out.
I believe you are spot on in your comment. Spot on!
I agree with the following: "Do I have to re post all your quotes now just so you don’t try to weasel out of your own words?"
LOL I was snipping the quotes because I felt it was an unnecessary usage of space to quote the whole comment, and I wanted to show the point I was responding to. Truly, I wasn't trying to be disrespectful or take anyone's words out of context.
But it did allow a bit of 'shimmy' room, didn't it?
Thanks again. Your comment is worth saving for reference!
Sempre - I was well into a response to your depraved questions when, suddenly, the comment disappeared. I should have typed it in Notepad, but I didn't. I was gone all weekend and now I'm home. I am, however, going to wait until tomorrow to write it again, but let me just say "depraved" is a proper term and I'll explain why. I've got a lot of comments to read, and there's no way I will be able to respond to many of them. I'm going to have to write a new post, too, so I've got plenty on my plate. I will answer you, though.
I am absolutely impressed by everything!
Sempre~~getting back to any trace evidence on Trayvon's hands, we must not forget that he was turned over onto his back and given chest compressions. How long his remains were exposed to the elements before being covered with the tarp is unknown by me at this time.
I have enjoyed reading Bryans's comments. He presents the perspective of the defense and how O'Mara will use existing law and evidence in an attempt to establish reasonable doubt.
The thing is, many of GZ's stories (if any at all) might never be heard by the jury. It really depends on how simple the prosecution decides to make their case, and whether or not they force the defenses hand in having George testify. In it's simplest form,
GZ spots Trayvon walking in the rain and calls the police.
The non emergency call indicates that George believes Trayvon is on something.
Ten minutes later (give or take) an unarmed Trayvon Martin is shot and killed
It is later discovered was a guest of a resident.
Toxicology reports indicate Trayvon was not on any drugs.
Trayvon was on the phone with a friend during the minutes leading up to the shooting.
Trayvon reported being followed by a man in a car, and a few minutes the same man is physically present. Words are exchanged, phone goes dead.
Minutes later Trayvon is dead.
A calm, cool and collected George Zimmerman is taken into custody and treated for two small non life threatening abrasions on his head.
Following the investigation, George is arrested and charged with murder.
Since George is there to tell his story, if he chooses, the prosecution is not required to disclose anything he said to investigators or others...At least I think that is the way I understand it.
Very few witnesses need to be called by the prosecution to establish all of this.
The defense is then left with having to put on a self defense case, during which time the prosecution has the opportunity to paint a picture of George as a liar.
LOL Nan my Mom did not read it. I am not really offended either, I just think if Mr. Zimmerman TRIES to use this for his defense it will make people not wanted to be treated. ADD/ADHD does not make a killer (I hope). Others have used it for an excuse and I do not think that is fair. The only person that I am around any length of time with it, is not violent. Some how I think I misunderstood and thought that would be his defense. It's all good.
What is blingers?
Thanks Dave, I'm pretty confident when it comes to discussing mental health issues, but the ins and outs of criminal law not so much.
Michelle, Ask your mom about blingers. She is all too familiar with mine. LOL
I try and be polite and civil in debate, but when individuals like Manberk outright lie, especially in regards to my honesty, it gets hard. :p
Sempre, LOL! I got it, you women are silly!! The only thing blingers on the internet is jewelery. Ugly jewelery. I enjoyed reading today, you all are good teachers. I have to go now, "time is up on the computer." I can't wait to be all grown up so I can decide what I am doing and when, jeez.
I'll have to do a more thorough demolishing of Manberk's dishonesty and cherry picking tomorrow, but to start with, I did in fact cover the movement from the T intersection to the south. Multiple witnesses agree on that count, and I said that the distance would have been covered in a few seconds. It's all but undisputed the encounter started at the T intersection, and undisputed that George ended up on his back.
Which means the remaining issue (that Manberk ignored, or skipped over), is that you seem to assume that George would have enough bearings to accurately recall movement in a few seconds, in the dark, in the rain, while in a fight after being punched in the nose. I see no reason to make that assumption.
Bryan~~you will not see me attacking you. Actually I enjoy reading your comments and am open to hearing both sides. Carry on, friend.
Sempre~~I have taken some portions from the link I posted way back on the other page re the "depraved mind." This is how the author of that article views Z of having a depraved mind. It makes more sense than the definitions I read of dp. Here goes... It is easier to read when not in italics...
First, the depraved mind aspect of Murder 2.
{{It seems George Zimmerman has had a history of calling the police on African American males in the neighborhood who are guilty of ‘looking suspicious’. All his ‘evidence’ of ‘suspicion’ is pure nonsense. As it was the night GZ gunned down young Trayvon Martin. He thinks he can see into the soul of people, but in reality all we get from him are people walking and looking around. To George’s depraved mind, this is suspicious.
Not only does Zimmerman profile Martin, but then he follows him – admitting to the police dispatcher he has convicted this kid in his mind of being a criminal before he even says one word to the kid. Then the depraved mind of George Zimmerman, wannabe cop who now has numerous failed attempts to bag the bad guys, goes stalking Trayvon against the direction of the dispatcher. That is depraved. He is now hunting the person he has convicted in his head of being the culprit in all these break ins.}}
Vick, in this case, the author is describing a "depraved mind" as being an obsession and it does seem quite apparent that Zimmerman was obsessed when he went after Trayvon. Come hell or high water, in his own depraved mind, he was going to rid the world of who he profiled as being a hoodlum.
And that said, in the future, yes please quote the entirety of my posts if you have to, rather than leave out the important bits that actually address what you claim I'm cherry picking out of.
Hang in there Bryan. Try to keep in mind, the majority here have made up their minds that GZ is guilty. However, not all of us began our journey that way. Some have had the opposite of your experience. I only become angry when those who support the self defense theory go after Taryvon's family or invent wild stories about Trayvon.
I am one of the few people here who has never listened to the earlier media reports, press conferences, etc. I only began looking at this case when he was arrested and formally charged. I arrived at my conclusions based upon a strong belief that you don't take a gun to a fist fight. I am also of the opinion that although GZ had the right to carry his gun, and broke no laws by taking it with him when he went looking for Trayvon, he must also be willing to live with the natural consequences of his actions. I believe he is completely responsible for Trayvon's death. he would have had no need to "defend himself" had he behaved as a responsible adult and gun owner. He did not, and he shouldn't get a pass because the possibility exists that he bit off more than he could chew. IMO, his use of his legally owned fire arm was an abuse of power and is no different than some gang member who decides to place himself at risk, confronts a rival gang member, gets into a fist fight and decides to end it with a gunshot because he is at the losing end of an ass kicking.
Bryan: Okay. Really, your point is very valid.
I will try to do better in the future. : - )
Dave et al....
It looks like things are going to get a bit dicey. Here are a few excerpts from the article I am posting a link to...
{{A series of notices were sent last week to Miami-Dade Schools Superintendent Alberto Carvalho and the principals of the schools Trayvon attended, advising that subpoenas for copies of the slain teen’s academic and attendance records would be issued in 10 days’ time.
Similar warnings are expected to be sent this week to the popular social networking sites where Trayvon maintained accounts, defense attorney Mark O’Mara said.
Defense lawyers argue that if the defendant’s social media sites and school records were reviewed by prosecutors, it’s only fair game for Trayvon to undergo the same scrutiny. The move underscores a shift in the defense strategy, in what the slain teen’s family lawyer calls a “witch hunt” and “character assassination.” If successful, negative rumors about Trayvon’s social media comments that have circulated the Internet for months would be posted on the defense website and offered legitimacy.
O’Mara said he expects Trayvon’s parents to object to the subpoenas on behalf of the high school junior’s estate.
Attorney Benjamin Crump, who represents the parents, said his clients will defer to State Attorney Angela Corey on whether to file an objection on release of the records, which are private under federal law.}}
Read it all here....
Zimmerman defense strategy: attack Trayvon’s character
Wow. I go offline for a couple hours and come back to an entire page of new posts!
A page later, I want to say Nan11 I read that "I was George Zimmerman" and I have to say what that man did is EXACTLY what a neighborhood watch person does. He saw a kid who was walking around acting fishy according to his wife, and he watched and noted what the kid was doing. Then he called the cops and sat there on his porch watching until the police came. He didn't leave the porch, he didn't grab a gun, and he didn't approach or confront the person acting fishy. He did everything the way Zimmerman was supposed to do. He was supposed to stay in the truck and watch!!
Some feel differently, but there has been thought that one of a depraved mind is representative of desire and pleasure to inflict harm on another, not necessarily killing, most often torture of some kind and degree. Having thought about and carrying out acts of deliberate intention to consciously cause unwarranted harm and exhibit in celebration of the harm they do. Having heard of man being referred to as mad dogs, described as depraved. A slight indication in GZ, in his perception that he had a moral right to do what he did, possibly in his use of the remark "God's Plan", knowing right from wrong but consciously choosing wrong, as it gives a mild or high degree of satisfaction and calm. Example: Raping a woman after her being killed. What about the man in SF who ate a street man's face off. It was satisfying. Until another opportunity presents itself. The leading of someone into a prepared situation where it is known they will be destroyed or receive some other harm. The desire to inflict, without regret or apology. Not the need to do harm, the desire.
You are right, Bryan, there is no law against following a person, which is an occasional happenstance when one is innocently heading in the same direction as another rather than as an intentional act to monitor or pursue. Such a law, of course, would only result in chaos, as it is likely that we have all unwittingly followed someone or had been followed. Obviously, there is a difference, although, as a female, that difference is not always apparent; the sound of footsteps behind me may not send me running, but they will usually induce me to cautiously stop and step aside until the potential danger has passed.
So, perhaps you can understand that I, as a woman, do not appreciate the argument that Zimmerman did nothing unlawful when he drove slowly past Trayvon, parked his truck further along and stared at the youth until Trayvon passed him and turned onto another street; that he did nothing unlawful when he proceeded to drive behind Trayvon, park his car so that his headlights would illuminate both the boy and the path he was on, and then exit his truck to follow on foot. I’m sure you would also understand that I, as a mother, do not appreciate the argument that a man is simply "misguided" when he follows my son on his way from a nearby convenience store by first driving slowly past him, parking and staring at him until my son had turned a corner, then driving behind him before parking in another location, my son caught in the glare of the headlights, and leaving his truck in order to follow the path taken by my son running away from this person who, by that time, could only be perceived as having the worst intentions.
The Use of Force by Aggressor statute (Section 776.041) states: The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who: […] (2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself. “Provocation” is not defined; it does not specify how the provocation is determined or a time limit before the subject being provoked can use force against the aggressor. In short, the prosecution could argue that the whole of Zimmerman’s provocative behavior is greater than the lawful sum of its parts.
What I find truly galling is the calm and detached manner in which Zimmerman supporters cannot perceive, or otherwise dismiss, the situation Trayvon Martin found himself in that night. Everything he did was in response to Zimmerman’s actions; it was Zimmerman who initiated and pursued the events that led to Trayvon’s death. It was Zimmerman who followed Trayvon, not the other way around; it was Zimmerman who was armed, not Trayvon. Trayvon ran away, and, IMO, only a fool or a racist would genuinely believe that a 17-year-old who had just gone to the store to buy candy and a beverage, who was subsequently returning home along a quiet residential street minding his own business, who had the self-control to continue on his route despite Zimmerman’s alarming behavior, and who ran away as soon as he safely could, with Zimmerman no longer able to follow him by vehicle – that this “kid,” as Zimmerman referred to him, would suddenly change course and, with nothing but his bare hands, viciously attack and mindlessly attempt to murder Zimmerman.
Great post nemerinys ! 100% agreement from this mom
Dave, my humble apology, for my last comment. Did not notice your intent to reply to your commenter and plan to write a post on that subject until hours after I had submitted. Please delete it. Thank you.
[No need to take it down, New Puppy. I want to read everyone's opinion and, certainly, not my own.]
@ SnoopySleuth
“If no blood or foreign DNA showed on Trayvon's hands, I can see that happening. The grass was saturated with rain. We do not know how long the grass was. Trayvon was found with his hands underneath him and was lying there for approx 3 hours before the ME removed the body and in the process bagged the hands. There was plenty of time for any foreign DNA to have washed off if it had been present. Trayvon did not land on dry ground and the grass may have acted like a wet sponge.”
Indeed, Snoopy. That wet sponge shoved itself back and forth selectively washing away just GZ’s DNA off Trayvon’s hands while leaving intact Trayvon’s DNA, other chemical substances, dirt, etc. untouched on the same hand.
@Bryan
LOL! What a clown. Why are you talking to the masses instead of me George jr? Wow. Weak. You have been demolished, which is why youre tripping over yourself painting me as a bad guy INSTEAD of answering simple questions. Strawman. I've done nothing but quote George where you have made up bullshit stories in his defense. Please point out any lies and I'll address them? Actually, I insist you tell everyone what I lied about? Where as we all know you lie when calling NENs questions ‘assistance”.
I am STILL waiting for you to defend you OWN claims. Not my "lies". Is this the 3rd or 4th request? We are now at 2 simple questions you have avoided.
Just so you cant accuse me of anything again, I’ll include yours and Georges own words;
YOUR words:
W11/20 heard the encounter and exchange of words happen at the T intersection like George described, and grunting and shuffling move past their house to the south.
Georges words:
DS: Are you still standing at this point?
GZ: No, ma’am, I fell to the ground when he punched me the first time.
Where is the scuffle down the path YOU said George described in his initial interviews? Defend YOUR words, or I’m afraid I may have to return your liar claim. I dont need to know what the witnesses said, I want you to tell me what George said before he heard his own NEN call and before he returned to the scene of the crime. I copied an example above. "I fell to the ground when he punched me the first time." I have provided proof his words that say the opposite. And no, your claims of "George said" isnt evidence.George is trying to save his own life.George did NOT put himself down the T until his reenactment and after realizing his story didnt match the evidence. And this is undisputed.
I have also asked you to explain Georges whereabouts between the time he hung up with NEN and the time of the altercation 3 minutes later. This cant be too difficult for you. You know everything. Maybe John saw? LOL! But anyway, you conveniently failed to respond to this as well. I’m seeing a LOT of similarities between you and George now.
I’m sure the jury will want to know where George was for 2:40 secs after HE said he went back to his truck.
I’ll throw a 3rd at you;
The NEN call lasted approx 4 minutes. Its started shortly after 7:09:30.
At 7:11 TM is still at the clubhouse.
“He’s near the clubhouse now?
Zimmerman:
Yeah, now he’s coming toward me. He’s got his hands in his waist band.
And he’s a black male.[1:03]
Zimmerman:
Uh, huh.
Something’s wrong with him. Yep, he’s coming to check me out.
He’s got something in his hands. I don’t know what his deal is. [01:20 into the call]”
So the 400 foot walk from Taaffes to the CH took TM approx 1:30 secs.
By the time TM makes the turn on to TT its 7:11. 3 mins left in the call.
Next stop, the T. The walk to where George next saw TM cut to the back of the houses, and come back to check him out again is also approx 400 ft from the Clubhouse. Add: 1:30 to 7:11 and we have 7:12:30.
“Zimmerman...And I saw him walking back that way (he's pointing towards the sidewalk the has the "T") and then cut through the back of the houses. He looked back and he noticed me and he cut back through the houses. I was still on the phone with Non (tape cuts out for some reason) (IMO important to note that he appears to be thinking about what he's going to say before he says the following)”
Next Stop, TM comes back from the T, walking up on the grass where he clearly pointed to during the reenactment, and then circles Georges car before walking back to the T. This is also approx 400 feet from the starting point. Another 1:30. 7:12:30 plus 1:30 = 7:14.
“DS: Okay. All of a sudden you just notice he’s circling your car.
GZ: Yes, ma’am.
DS: Okay. So he’s circling your car...
DS: And you’re watching him walk away?
GZ: Yes, ma’am”
So we have 3 legs of the trip taken. Each approx 400 ft.for arguments sake. I am going from the top of my head so if its not perfect, not intentional. At a normal pace of 4.4 feet per sec it takes apprx 1:35 for each 400 feet for an adult male. George himself says TM never ran. The TOTAL footage George described is fairly close.
1:30 x 3 so far.
4 minute call.
BUT wait, George still hasn’t gotten out of his truck! Hes on the phone for 2:00 more minutes AFTER getting out of his truck, and thats time stamped too.
1:30 mins x3 + 2 mins. 7:14 plus 2 mins. 7;16. Hmm, what? LOL!
4 min call.
Now lets back up. One more thing, we know TM is at the clubhouse at 7:11. The NEN call is time stamped.
But George tells Serino while listening to the NEN call together that he is at the RVC at 7:12.
“GZ: Where I was at and I was trying to hit my flashlight. I didn’t want to walk back through without light.”
The time stamp when George starting hitting the flashlight is a little after 7:12.
So even if we start here; that allows one minute for the walk to the T from the clubhouse, the circling of the truck and then Georges walk from his truck to RVC.
OK, please demolish me! But lets try to actually answer the questions this time. Explain how they covered these distances and all other movement in 4 minutes? And where was George after the NEN call ended at 7:13 and the time of the first 911 call at 7:16?
Stay on point. I’d be happy to give your theories plausibility if you can do this.
.
@BryanZimmerman
"Which means the remaining issue (that Manberk ignored, or skipped over), is that you seem to assume that George would have enough bearings to accurately recall movement in a few seconds, in the dark, in the rain, while in a fight after being punched in the nose. I see no reason to make that assumption."
In other words, you are going to make up another fairy tale in the absence of evidence to excuse the poor victim, George, and to make your self feel better. Looking forward to it! Ha!
Okay, and now that it's the morning, and I've had my coffee (and cold medicine, something nasty is going around), I'm sorry for the outburst. I did try and keep it tightly reigned but only marginally hehe. Nan11 I really didn't have an issue with you, I think what you quoted was a genuine misunderstanding so I just requoted myself to explain what I actually meant. It was just Manberk's accusatory tone that got under my skin hehe.
There's just a lot of witness statements, many of that don't compliment each other very well. It's too many to try and cover every time one tries to describe a scenario, so it's silly to accuse someone of cherry picking for not including the witness who first saw a chase every time one tries to put forth a theory.
And Manberk apparently thinks I should have made a bigger deal out of George not explaining the 40 foot movement south. I touched on that some, but didn't go into detail because already I feel like the topic has gone far afield of the blog post this is under. (It also probably doesn't help, that despite the number of posts I've made here, I really only can check in occasionally, and see the number of posts responding and don't have time to answer every point and counter point).
But anyways, as for the 40 foot movement. Yes, George doesn't explain it in his words how he got from point a to b; I've never claimed that he did. That's why I used the witnesses that described the most about that movement to try and fill in the blanks.
W11 describes it in the most detail. She heard an exchange of words by the T intersection (she doesn't say those words on the interview but it's easy to put together in context). Then shuffling in the grass and grunting that went past her house until it turned into screams for help. W6 heard the screams for help come from a distance (he describes a distant sound as if it's coming from a block away), then coming closer until he looks out the back patio and sees the two with Trayvon on top with the screams for help, coming from who he presumed was the one on bottom.
Serino asked W11 if she heard anything that could sound like it was a chase, and she said "No". W6 couldn't tell which direction the screams came from, but because W11 heard it right from behind her house, we know it had to have come from the north (The direction of the T).
So why doesn't George mention any of this movement? I can think of two basic reasons that would cover everything.
1) George didn't have his bearings immediately after being punched in the face, and didn't keep track of how far he staggered/stumbled in the few seconds before hitting the ground, or
2) George somehow thought he could magically trick the Police into thinking the body was 40 feet away from where it was.
I just don't see number 2 being plausible. George says he's not sure if he just stumbled and fell down, or was pushed. I was in a fight once (I was in Jr. High, so yeah, was a couple decades ago lol), where I was getting picked on and really didn't want to fight, so I just shoved him. He stumbled a good 15 feet before hitting the ground and getting back up.
And of course, I'm going into pure speculation here, but it's very plausible that George was punched, fell to a knee, tried to get back up, was shoved, and ended up on the ground 10-15 feet south of the T, trying to scurry to get back up before he was mounted. We know Trayvon ended up on top of George at some point, but can only guess at what point, and it's very feasible that George would only be able to remember this as "Getting punched, then ending up on the ground with Trayvon getting on top of him."
So, I guess the point is, we don't know that's how it happened, I'm just pointing out that there are other, and IMO more plausible possibilities, than George just lying about it all happening at the T. That's just something George has no reason to lie about. If the encounter had actually occurred 40 feet south of the T, then yes, that's something that George would have good motivation to try and hide, as it would prove his story of being on the way back to the truck false.
But an encounter starting at the T, then wrestling/grappling/pushing/pulling until Trayvon gets on top of him? That would actually strongly support his self defense claim, so if George was just making that scenario up, why wouldn't he throw that in?
@nemerinys
One of the best posts I've ever read on this topic. Thanx for adding the human element. And there are certainly conditions when following someone (harassment), with a gun (gun laws), would be illegal. Just throwing that out there.
But Bryan is going to give us the human element of poor Georges struggle to get his bearings while with his 40 lb weight advantage, being armed and incorrectly criminally profiling the teenager, he may have had a rough time remembering things. Poor guy. Why did TM have to walk home that day?
I think we know why ppl like Bryan dont value TM as a human. Based on his clothes (and other "features"), he may have been a bad guy. That he can relate too. Not TM being a scared 17 year old in a strange place being followed by an armed, skin head creep muttering hostilities and chasing him for close to a mile, and several minutes. George got scared, panicked and shot. He's "entitled". ;)
Manberk, I never once have made any claims that Trayvon didn't have value as a human being. That's entirely your invention, and I don't see why you feel you have to resort to such character attacks.
@nem...I'm clipping this for length and clarity but leaving enough so it's clear what I"m responding to I hope. =)
"Trayvon ran away, and, IMO, only a fool or a racist would genuinely believe that... that this “kid,” as Zimmerman referred to him, would suddenly change course and, with nothing but his bare hands, viciously attack and mindlessly attempt to murder Zimmerman."
This is a valid point, it really is. It's also a primary factor as to why I was convinced that George was guilty of murder prior to the evidence coming out.
It's so hard to show this online in text though (I can demonstrate it easily with a map and markers, using the NEN call and reenactment to give a visual of distances and times).
But if you watch the reenactment, time how long it takes to get out of the vehicle, walk to the T intersection, etc (and keeping in mind they were taking a pretty slow pace in the reenactment), you can get a feel for how far George would have made it in a similar timeframe on the NEN call.
That night, it's clear that George had reached the T, and had lost Trayvon. He had no idea where he was at, and was afraid to give his address because he didn't know where that kid was. Then a minute after hanging up, they're yelling at each other right at the T intersection, and George ends up with a broken nose, 2 black eyes, 2 lacerations on the back of his head, multiple bruises on his face, swelling on the sides of his head so badly that Singleton actually asked him if that's the normal shape of his head, and a witness sees George on the ground with Trayvon on top. All of this BEFORE George fires a single shot at contact range into Trayvon.
See how it's hard to conclude anything else but that Trayvon turned around and came back? One moment he's nowhere visible from the T, then later, that's where the fight starts. Within eyesight of George's truck, you can see on the reenactment how close to George's truck they were.
Somehow, for some reason Trayvon had to come back to the T intersection for the encounter to occur. I don't know why, and can only speculate. But the math doesn't add up any other way.
@Manderk
Okay, I see the issue. You're either a liar or poor at reading comprehension.
"Where is the scuffle down the path YOU said George described in his initial interviews? Defend YOUR words, or I’m afraid I may have to return your liar claim."
I never said George described a scuffle down the path. Look again at the sentence you quoted.
"W11/20 heard the encounter and exchange of words happen at the T intersection like George described, and grunting and shuffling move past their house to the south."
The "Exchange of words happen at the T intersection" is what I said is just like George described. Not the shuffling and grunting moving past their house.
@bryan
"But anyways, as for the 40 foot movement. Yes, George doesn't explain it in his words how he got from point a to b; I've never claimed that he did. That's why I used the witnesses that described the most about that movement to try and fill in the blanks."
Ah hah! Now you admit it. Thanks for playing. No apology necessary.
YOU: "I've never claimed that he did."
YOU: "W11/20 heard the encounter and exchange of words happen at the T intersection like George described, and grunting and shuffling move past their house to the south"
And you did claim that he did. LIKE GEORGE described. You implied the witnesses supported his claim. So are you lying now? Yeah, I caught you lying. He has himself being struck once and falling right away. Filling in the blanks is what I said you were doing. Filling in blanks with out proof? Lying.
And you are completely wrong about its importance. Its paramount to the prosecution's case. They said so at the bond hearing and I provided it. MOM asked for evidence of the chase, and Gailbreath said part of the evidence was that the George's story does not match the location of the body or the shell case. I would say that make this a pretty important detail.
Regarding the witnesses, you continue to cherry pick and add your own commentary and explanations, mostly on behalf of George, and as I proved and you admitted above, often void of facts and evidence.
The problem I have with it you are doing it w/o know the prosecution's case, or the cross examination that will following.You are making comments that arent there based on your own bias and your beliefs. I refuse to do that. Ex: You say poor George just needed his bearings and was providing directions. But that simply not HIS excuse for getting out of his car. HE said they asked for an address. They never did. I dont need you to fill in the blanks, since its not admissible.
Ex. Witness #2 who you have dismissed.
In interview 1 she says she saw 2 people and the fight! March 1.
In intvw 2 she again says he saw a chase,and helped detectives calculate the distances between the TWO people she saw. March 1.
In interview 3 she still has a chase taking place. March 9. She referred to "them" as both running.
So in all interviews closely following the time of the shooting shes very clear. 2 ppl, chase.
By the last interview her story changes. I know it makes sense for you to toss out the most important interviews but I will not do the same. I would think she'll be pushed to remember how it actually happened and why she changed her story. After, she never said she was blind. She gave lots of other detail w/o her contacts.
Have a good day!
@Manderk
As I pointed out, what you're claiming I said, is not actually what I said. Stop doing it.
Again,
I never said George described a scuffle down the path. Look again at the sentence you quoted.
"W11/20 heard the encounter and exchange of words happen at the T intersection like George described, and grunting and shuffling move past their house to the south."
The "Exchange of words happen at the T intersection" is what I said is like George described. Not the shuffling and grunting moving past their house. That is what W11/20 described AFTER the part that the encounter at the T (which is the part like George described).
(And while at it, feel free to discontinue your fallacious claims of "catching me lying", since that is entirely your invention as well.)
Dave, I find it extremely disturbing that a few people are not capable of engaging in civil dialogs with an individual who has offered an alternate viewpoint of how the events played out in this case.
We all need to remember that incorrect assumptions about a complete stranger led to the death of Trayvon Martin. Any time one jumps to conclusions about another person without the benefit of knowing who they are on a personal level, there is a risk of an error in judgement and unintended consequences. And assuming to read someone else's mind and/or making allegations against their character is completely uncalled for. Just because Bryan believes that GZ may have been justified in the use of lethal force when he shot and killed Trayvon, it does not mean he arrived at that conclusion based upon Trayvon's race or the clothing he wore that evening. and I am offended that he had to defend himself over something he never implied.
I have enjoyed reading and from time to time commenting on your Blog for 4 years now. One of the things I have always enjoyed is the fact that you have always asked each of us to respect the opposing opinions of others, and in some instances, the completely off the wall opinions of others (JM). I hope we can return to the level of civil discourse you have requested in the past. VK
Excellent points and counter points.
I would suggest refraining from name calling of each other and just present your views and evidence.
I would like to know how someone can "shimmy" 40 ft or what ever the distance is while om their back getting a flurry of punches rained down on their head, having their head repeatedly slammed against the ground and having their mouths covered while supposedly trying to free your own hands and trying to gain control of Trayvon's hands, all the while screaming for help.
If GZ was screaming for help and supposedly Trayvon is trying to cover his mouth and whispering sweet nothing's of death in GZ ears, how come the screams don' t appear muffled?
Also when drawing gun and being situationally aware taking care not to shoot your own hand, why not justknock up side the head with gun?
I understand Bryan's following of the evidence e and questions and points as to what that evidence points to in regards of the law and wether the state has enough to convince a judge and jury of such.
The one thing we are in search here is the truth and the only place we are not going to get it from is GZ.
And for what it's worth, if I'm stepping out of line or overreacting, please feel free to call me out on it too and I'll try and watch it. Because believe me, even though it didn't take me long to see that I'm in the minority here on my opinion, I think it's awesome that most here are so civil, and I'm quite happy to engage in conversation with people I disagree with. I even like it when I'm proven wrong, because that means I've learned something. =)
Dentis appt. this AM. Be back soon.
Bryan I should add I do not have a problem with you stating your opinions. What bothers me is you seem to think Trayvon had no reason to defend himself. Or that is how I take your comments. I am the same age as Trayvon and I think it is fair to say I do no think like most of the adults on here. It is pretty obvious to me comparing my comments to your comments and others.
Maybe you could do me a favor? Try and give Trayvon the same benefit you do Mr. Zimmerman. Snoopy and Newbie both have told me I should not worry about stuff like this, be a kid. I agree I should not have to worry but if so many adults think this is okay I should worry. I do not want to be gunned down and no matter what it is obvious from most of your comments that you believe a broken nose = the death penalty. That scares me.
I have to admit though I am in favor of the "Deny, Deny, and Deny some more " defense tactic.
I have strongly advised all my kids in this matter, should they ever be in a situation no matter what even if caught red handed to say nothing and call me and we will get a lawyer.
I can agree that the powers that be do not always vet it right and will use your words against you for better or worse no matter how cooperative and honest you are.
It is the State's burden to provide such proof in regards to the law.
Common sense should prevail yet we all know common sense does not apply to the law as it is just the balcony and white words and the interpretation of those words that does sometimes for better sometimes for the worse.
Sit in any municipal court and watch the fodder unfold.
Sempre Invictus~~I concur with everything you said!! I didn't even bother to read what I consider to be long rants. What happened to a civil conversation? It seems that a few are not allowed to disrespect each other on another blog and they have brought their fight here. It seems like a copy and paste war going on.
The following is respectfully snipped only to help identify the comment, and is not intended to misinterpret the context of the comment:
Connie: You said: "I have to say what that man did is EXACTLY what a neighborhood watch person does."
Yep, I so agree. A reasonable person acting reasonably. Imagine that.
I thought the article also made a good point of showing that it was not "The Gun' that was the problem: Rather--the person.
Another thing I think it pointed out well--and maybe this is the lesson in all of this, (sadly, if there is one)--is how quickly our thoughts can become unreasonable.
Maybe we all need to do a 'thought check' examination on ourselves once in a while.
The author of that article describes his own justifiable, 'mad as hell', attitude over the break-ins in his neighborhood. However, due to his reasonableness, he was able to distinguish the proper course of action when required. Even, touchingly, expressing regret.
Clearly, we see from the Zimmerman shooting of Trayvon Martin--this is not always the case.
The boundaries of a civilized society can all to easily be over-stepped. imo
J4T
You know, Nan, it was also the guy's thoughts that were reasonable. His first thought was a black kid walking around a mainly white neighborhood was suspicious because of the way the kid approached his wife. That in and of itself brought him outside to watch. It was the definitely suspicious behavior of looking in windows, taking notes, then transferring that note to the driver of a car that was prompted his call to the police. It did not prompt him to approach the kid in any way. This is an excellent description of "suspicious behavior". Just walking is NOT suspicious. TM's behavior by George's own statements arose because he was being watched by a suspicious dude in a truck talking on a cell phone and following him around. If he had been an adult he might have ended the call to DeeDee to call 911 himself and report Zimmerman. But he was a kid and from Miami. Not the safest city in Florida.That probably contributed to a fear and a natural watchfulness that made him appear to GZ as "suspicious". This is all on GZ. If he had not instigated it, it would not have happened. In my mind that nullifies SYG and self defense and will probably be a problem for any jury.
@ SnoopySleuth
“Sempre Invictus~~I concur with everything you said!! I didn't even bother to read what I consider to be long rants. what happened to civil conversations? It seems that a few are not allowed to disrespect each other on another blog and they have brought their fight here. It seems like a copy and paste war going on.”
How can you concur and yet do the very opposite at the same time. Pls. guys, like ‘SempreInvictus’ said, concentrate on the facts and the law and stop discussing each other. There is no need telling us whether or not you concur. Just do it. I think Manberk make solid points and employs huge analytical power to debunk Bryan. I also think Bryan has every right to alternative interpretations of the facts – no matter how deplorable such might appear. The arguments Bryan make can be debunked without demeaning him (@Manberk). Keep the “fight” clean.
Intel~~your response to me upthread was...
Indeed, Snoopy. That wet sponge shoved itself back and forth selectively washing away just GZ’s DNA off Trayvon’s hands while leaving intact Trayvon’s DNA, other chemical substances, dirt, etc. untouched on the same hand.
Since I cannot find anything in the autopsy report of any of Trayvon's DNA, chemical substances, dirt etc that was untouched on the 'same hand', could you explain to me what exactly you meant? Did you find this in the autopsy report and if so, can you direct me to it?
I felt that I was giving a logical explanation that no trace elements may not be found on his hands.
If your response was intended to be sarcastic , just disregard my request.
Sorry if we cluttered the board folks! I didnt say anything negative to bryan. I guess he is suggesting I dont have the right to ask him for facts, and doing so insulted him. His response was to call me a liar, and then take passive aggressive shots at me in subsequent posts. I was insulted, and felt a response was necessary to clear my good name! ;)
My apologies!
Intel~~ sorry I will not be the recipient of your pent up frustrations. Now try and have a good day, okay?
Well I looked at my email this A.M. and had nothing but comments from this site like 25 of them.
@Snoopy Sleuth thanks for the info about the prosecution's claim,I had a feeling there was no such remark made. Noticed you asked Bryan to provide a link ,I haven't seen one. In one of the interviews of Zimmerman the detective keeps asking what he thinks is the reason for Trayvon to attack him. No reason given by Zimmerman.
About meds anyone on any kind of medication may or may not have side effects, as stated by others.I'm sufferings with hives,most probably a side effect of meds I had to stop taking. Could take up to six months to get them out of my system. Sorry I digress. If George was on certain meds for an extended length of time surely his doctor would have been aware of any problems was happening and acted accordingly.
@ Manberk: I certainly don't feel you need to apologize.
Your comments are intelligent and well stated. If you snipe--it appears to me, it is only because you are being snipped at.
You know the facts of this case well, and you are a Trayvon supporter. As I am.
Bryan also knows the facts of this case, (I will add), extremely well--however, Bryan is a Zimmerman supporter.
I do hope we don't tip our hand too much, regarding the witnesses.
Jmo--but remember how Baez used the 'boards' when defending the murderess.
I truly appreciate your comments, and hope you don't allow others to chase you off.
(Sorry, I'm in a hurry--I hope I have made my point without offending.) :-)
Michelle dear young lady. This is especally for you, I really enjoy your posts. You have a good mind and it appears you're not wasting it. Keep on keepin' on.
Inside every older person is a younger person wondering what the hell happened. ~Cora Harvey Armstrong~