Skip to comments.Hard to find truth in Zimmermanís call to police
Posted on 04/01/2012 11:27:17 AM PDT by Java4Jay
Im having great difficulty locating the original full version of Zimmermans call to police, one that is not enhanced to make wind noise sound like a racial slur.
And these cases mean what. Try again. I give you something for effort but you are way off the mark.
I thought that was an outgoing/taking off to flight pattern airliner. Gee, the things I miss by not lurking more!
Liars should not be bringing God into the conversation. I tend not to be civil to people who make things up to harm another individual. You should be ashamed of yourself, but I fear you have no shame.
Anybody want to tackle that question?
Me! Me! Pick Me!
Maybe because he was concerned about the safety of his neighborhood. Being part of the Neighborhood Watch, about which Sanford Police say: "Training provided by law enforcement agencies to Neighborhood Watch organizations stresses non-contact surveillance of suspicious situations and notifying police of those situations so that law enforcement can respond and take control of the situation."
"Surveillance" would be "maintaining sight," in case you didn't make that connection. And he did call police, in case you missed that, too.
Frankly, I am a little tired of the idea that Zimmerman leaving his car was even unreasonable, much less illegal. One might argue it was poor judgment, as Zimmerman might (in fact, did) put himself at risk, but there is nothing illegal or threatening about walking around your own neighborhood. Or even asking a stranger what he's doing there. It certainly doesn't give that stranger a right to punch you.
Now we don't know for a fact that it happened exactly the way Zimmerman says, but his leaving the car and trying to keep an eye on Martin is certainly no reason to doubt it.
You’re the one making the baseless assertion that Zimmerman received “special treatment” by having a felony charge reduced to a misdemeanor charge and then receiving a diversion sentence. Since you’re the one making the claim, you’re the one who must provide evidence. Just to be nice, though, I have proven that there was nothing “special” done at all. Such results are commonplace in that county’s court system.
“MSNBC has also located anonymous witnesses that saw Zimmerman break his own nose, bang his own head on the cement, and roll around on the ground in order to wet his jacket.....”
Well gee,that changes everything./s
What happened to Jeff’s murderer?
Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee, along with Capt. Robert O'Connor, made the decision to release George Zimmerman after consulting with State Attorney Norman Wolfinger --- in person. After a conversation between Lee, O'Connor and Wolfinger, the decision was made to "cut Zimmerman loose".
Homicide investigator Chris Serino filed an affidavit stating that he did not believe Zimmerman's account of the shooting. He recommended charging the 28-year-old with manslaughter, but was advised by Wolfinger's office that there wasn't enough evidence to secure a conviction. Zimmerman was subsequently released.
If true, the account may explain why Wolfinger recused himself from the case, on the same day Lee announced he was stepping aside.
Just in case you missed this earlier:
"I saw George. He was banged up. His head had two big bandages, that weren't flat, had a bump on them," the neighbor, who did not want to be identified, said.Yes there are FACTS and you Zimmerman supporters are discounting what happened AFTER Zimmerman decided to pursue Martin, caught up with him and then confronted Martin
He described where the injuries were.
"I seen him have a big bandage on his nose and his nose swollen. On the side, where his eyes were at, it was swollen," he said.
There is no evidence that Zimmerman confronted Martin. The account of Martin's own girlfriend is that Martin initiated the interaction.
Remember: It was Zimmerman pursuing Martin after leaving his truck that led to the confrontation. Martin was continuing on his way home and Zimmerman made his decision to "pursue" and confront.
We know that he left his vehicle. We know that he lost sight of Martin while still on the phone with police. We know he tried to spot him again. We know that none of those actions are unreasonable, provocative or illegal. You are assuming other things which may or may not be true - but there is no known evidence that they are true.
Under the rules of being a Neighborhood WATCH all Zimmerman legally could do was WATCH.
There is no "Neighbor hood Watch law" that would prohibit Zimmerman from getting out of his car. But even if there were, there is no evidence that Zimmerman did anything but watch.
What is it about the definition of WATCH you Zimmerman supporters are confused about?
What is it about the definition of "evidence" that you are so confused about? Most of the people responding to you are not "supporters of Zimmerman," they are just trying to stick to known facts.
The police video tape shows no dressings on the back of Zimmerman’s head nor any evidence of a “broken nose”.
The raw footage (before ABC news got through with it) shows a gash in the back of Zimmerman’s head. How can you tell Zimmerman’s nose wasn’t broken? He had received medical attention.
“Yes there are FACTS and you Zimmerman supporters are discounting what happened AFTER Zimmerman decided to pursue Martin, caught up with him and then confronted Martin.”
Zimmerman lost Martin. How did he catch up with him and confront him?
“Under the rules of being a Neighborhood WATCH all Zimmerman legally could do was WATCH.”
Wrong. It is not illeggal for Zimmerman to leave his truck, and has already been pointed out to you he was well within the “rules” to maintain visual contact.
Again Rooivalk you fail on EVERY point. Your inability to distinguish between the law and your personal preference, and to use any kind of logic or reason make it perfectly clear that you are either a) too stupid to even discuss this or b) willfully misrepresenting in order to advance an agenda. In either case, I am done with you (except I will get in touch with you again to gloat and to remind you how incredibly stupid you are).
There's a good reconstruction of what probably happened here.
From another thread discussing this theory:
Like the rest of us, that blogger's start/end places are just guesses. Zimmerman told the dispatcher at one point during the call that he was parked at a cut through but we don't know how close or on which side of the road.
There is also this bit:
19:10:55 Zimmerman: Ayup, he's coming to check me out.
...GZ never mentions how close TM is to his vehicle but he was close enough for GZ to mention this:
19:10:58 Zimmerman: He's got something in his hands, I don't know what his deal is.
...more chat with dispatcher - who told GZ to let him know if TM did anything else - GZ doesn't mention TM turning, walking away, or increasing/decreasing his distance. How close did TM get to GZ's truck? How much of a lead would he have when he ran?....
Based on the call, there it was about 3-4 seconds between GZ's "ah, shit - he's running!" and the time the door opened. It was another 18 seconds or so before he acknowledged the dispatcher's "we don't need you to do that." How much of a head start did TM have? If TM only had a few yards and a few seconds on GZ, would TM's instinct been to have run down a straightaway that was completely exposed if he thought GZ might not have been too far behind? Could GZ have been able to reach the north end of the walkway in time to see TM if TM was running down the straightaway for home? Were there lamps or security lights between the building, any porch lights on, any ambient light from any of the homes? Could GZ hear running footsteps?
That GZ didn't mention any of the above is something that makes me think that TM ran and ducked.
And a followup on my part from the same thread:
I just realized that the blogger may have mislabeled one point.
"2:20 Hes heading towards the back entrance. [referring to E]"
19:11:42 Dispatcher: He's running? Which way is he running?
19:11:44 [sound of vehicle door opening]
19:11:45 Zimmerman: Down towards the, uh, other entrance to the neighborhood.
19:11:48 Dispatcher: Okay, which entrance is that that he's heading towards?
19:11:50 Zimmerman: The back entrance
See post 107. The back entrance to the neighborhood is south and west of the fiancee's home. It seems unlikely that GZ would claim that TM was heading down toward the other entrance if GZ only observed him running due west i.e., from C to E.
GZ would have had to have seen TM make the southward turn from his vehicle. Barely five seconds had lapsed from "he's running" to giving the dispatcher the direction TM ran. The distance from one road to the other looks to be about 60 yards. (World record for the 100 yard dash is over 9 seconds and that's under controlled conditions. We know that TM was wearing jeans and a hoodie and likely running on a damp sidewalk at best, over wet grass at worst, hardly ideal running conditions.)
But again, the points hinge on how close TM was to GZ when he took off. If he came close enough to check GZ out, that implies that he was closer to the junction of the road where GZ was parked and the beginning of the cut through. If he took off from that point, it seems that turning between the building would better fit the time and GZ's observation of his direction. Taking the first available turn (the sidewalk between the buildings) and breaking line of sight would also make more sense than running in a direction that would give GZ a sustained line of sight. The E point on the blogger's map/timeline just doesn't make sense to me.
Long story, short - While I think it likely that TM ran and hid and at some point he was either discovered or chose to reveal himself, the times seem a bit off for E to be the point at which GZ lost sight of him.
Zimmerman had no authority, and needed no authority (or “cause,”) to leave his vehicle. He was well within his legal rights to walk through his own neighborhood, even to follow Martin (if that’s what he did.) As to who “confronted” whom, we don’t know that. But I would suggest to you that even if it began with Zimmerman asking Martin who he was and what he was doing, that is not illegal, or provocative, or assault.
And it is quite possible to behave in a suspicious manner without actually being engaged in the commission of a crime.
“Zestimated to be worth $160,500, “
Good Lord,that would be a dump in my area.
Wish I could relocate.
Go to the Sanford link in post #16 and read the burglary reports and see if you can find a common denominator, including the home invasion with the frightened woman hiding in her locked bedroom with the intruders trying to enter only to run when police arrive.
Pursue: 1 : to follow in order to overtake, capture, kill, or defeat. (Merriam Webster)
There is no evidence that Zimmerman was pursuing Martin. The evidence shows that he was following him in order to maintain visual contact. Completely legal.
I think he got the point "E" from an interview given by Zimmerman's father, in which he recounted that Zimmerman had continued in the same direction on the path through to the other street before turning around. Not that "E" was the point where he lost sight of Martin.
I agree with you about Martin's likely route. It is tough to square that route and running home with the rest of the timeline. The fight began no more than 2 1/2 minutes after Zimmerman hung up the phone in nearly the exact spot where Martin would last have been seen.
My own map and timeline is here. I welcome corrections.
You're the only one speculating. I've backed up my facts with evidence. Nice job trying to walk back your earlier baseless claims, though.
However we do know that Zimmerman overstepped his authority as a Neighborhood Watch
He needs no "authority" derived from his Neighborhood Watch position. He has every right as an ordinary citizen to speak to, approach, challenge, call out, yell at or insult anyone he wants, anywhere he wants.
Zimmerman had NO cause to leave his truck.
He needs none. You're literally making up things.
I have asked others who support Zimmerman to explain his actions. Can you do it?
We don't have to. That isn't how our system of laws and Constitution works. You propose a fascist system wherein otherwise lawful conduct must be accounted for to some authority. No thanks. It's a different Amerika you seek. I want no part of it.
The mortician said TM's only injury was the gunshot wound. He has no reason to lie.
b) do your own damned research
Do you have a link?
“Does race play a big part in this killing somehow?”
Race is the ONLY part of this killing that matters to most of the media.
Where have you been for the last couple of weeks?
The entire thing has become pure theater,with race being the theme.
Suppose alot of things. The FACTS remain that all these supposed eye witnesses only saw a part of the confrontation. And without seeing the condition of Martin's body and face after this confrontation why are you Zimmerman supporters so quick to accept one side of the story. And that side is Zimmerman's
If you really believe everything you say above, then I am not sure who you are arguing with here. My difficulty with most of your posts here is that you have made numerous assertions that it was in fact Zimmerman who struck first. I have no problem with you holding that opinion - but it is only an opinion.
And I am not sure what it is that makes me a "Zimmerman supporter." I have said repeatedly that we do not know exactly what happened. But the known facts do not contradict Zimmerman's claim of self-defense. Many of the people responding to you here feel the same way - try reading their posts a little more calmly.
And I very much disagree with your repeated attempts to cast reasonable, normal behavior by Zimmerman as somehow sinister, provocative or somehow illegal.
I stand corrected.
The "let's blame the victim" crowd isn't going to like that statement.
There is no evidence to confirm that premise.
You seem to be saying that keeping a suspicious person in sight equals initiating a confrontation.
That's a pretty far-fetched conclusion.
There is evidence that Z's NW training advices not to approach the suspicious person.
There is evidence from a previous call of Z's(9:27) to the police reporting a suspicious person
where Zimmerman says...I dont want to approach him personally
...it shows in that instance Z wasnt acting like some wild vigilante. He was doing what NW is suppose to do, watch and report. It is a data point at odds with the claims of some that he was a predatory hunter stalking M with the intent of confronting/executing/assassinating him.
He was walking home armed with a bag of Skittles and a bottle of Arizona tea,
Other than the Martin family's scumbag
liar lawyer statement: Skittles and Ice Cream. Kindly provide a link supporting evidence of Skittles and Iced Tea.
He wasn’t walking home. He didn’t live there. And since when is walking in and out between houses in a rain storm “walking home”.
And there’s no telling what he would have done had Zimmerman not caught him. See how that works? I get to assume things just like you do. However, there is more evidence that Martin was a thug than there is that Zimmerman is a “Dirty Harry Wanna Be”.
The Orlando Sentinel contacted the voice identification experts. Both determined it was not George Zimmerman who called for help. Using different methods they took all the screams, put those together, and cut out everything else. You can listen to the extracted screams at the Sentinels site.
That's an interesting find. I have been saying for a while that it is difficult for me to square the image of the "nervous Nelly" who calls the cops about open garage doors with the "vigilante" who wants to take the law into his own hands. I recognize that there is room for middle ground, but it seems to me he really can't be both. This recording certainly suggests that a confrontation with Martin is not something Zimmerman was likely to have desired.
Surely that would be on the 911 tape where Zimmerman says Martin is "checking me out"? But I don't hear it. Why would Zimmerman make that up - he had to know his call was being recorded? Or, why would the cops make that up - to get dad to back down? How's that working?
This is likely the best thread...
but there are quite a few more...
Well, the father’s recounting of the police recounting of Zimmerman’s recounting is not exactly evidence of anything one way or the other, because it likely something was incorrectly stated or understood somewhere in the repeating.
FWIW, Zimmerman did say during his call that Martin was approaching his vehicle and “checking (him) out,” but you are right, there is no conversation between the two on the recording.
Fantasy, what fantasy, he was out on his Neighborhood Watch Patrol when he was brutally attacked.
*48% to be exact
Wow, either her story has changed or you have things out of sequence.
Martin asked Zimmerman why he was following him,
then Zimmerman asked Martin what he was doing here.
This was followed by sounds indicating a scuffle had begun.
The girl said Trayvon must have been pushed because his headset fell off and the phone call ended.
Combined with a few more pesky details:
1. Witness reports have TM on top, beating Zimmerman.
2. Zimmerman has head wounds and broken nose, TM's only injury (per the mortician) is the gunshot wound which abruptly ended the beating he was administering to Zimmerman.
There's no logical reason the guy on top is the one screaming for help. TM's own father originally said it wasn't him, and then changed his story later on. On the other hand, the "experts" who claim differently are getting paid to contradict the obvious.
I see stories that claim that it was an aircraft contrail and other experts claiming that it was a missile. I haven’t followed it as meticulously as I could have but hadn’t heard a definitive determination had been made.
Tracy Martin is Trayvon’s father. He was recounting the sequence of events as told to him by the police.
Dee-Dee is the girl on the phone. I don't believe the police have ever interviewed her.
Domestic violence? Do you know how many men have been falsely charged with that by their ex-wives? In fact, my wife recently told a woman that if she went ahead and accused her ex, my wife would testify - for the ex-husband. Why? Because the ex-wife told her she was going to make the accusation to “teach him a lesson”...
“resisting an officer without violence”
That is, by definition, not violent.
“resisting an officer with violence”
You mean, putting your hand on an officer’s arm. If he had punched the officer, or wrestled with the officer, Zimmerman WOULD have been charged.
And THAT is your history of violence.
Now, who was committing the violence that night? We know the cops reported on Zimmerman’s injuries, consistent with Zimmerman’s story. And we know the witnesses support Zimmerman’s story. And Zimmerman’s story is self-defense.
Further, within hours, the autopsy would show if the gun was fired at point-blank range. Maybe THAT is why Zimmerman wasn’t charged...
I'm not overly concerned with what his father says, to be honest. I lost a son myself three years ago, and I would give the parents a lot of leeway considering the emotional strain they are under. I don't grant the same leeway to the people trying to exploit their grief.
As for the voice recognition part, I'm inclined to think the father's first reaction is the more credible, for the simple reason that I believe it was given in a less politically charged context.
Having said all that, I also think that the parents' statements, in general, could not possibly be less relevant, since neither was a witness to anything, and I don't think there is any point in debating them one way or the other. They are speculating, just like the rest of us.
The folks at Contrail Science did a Yeoman’s job of putting things into perspective.
In fact I’ll go further and bet there are already lawyers out there building a case to present to Zimmerman. I know if I was a young lawyer looking for clients I would be.
All interesting conjecture/observations.
Perhaps when Z made the statement (in his truck), TM was still seen running down the walkway heading towards the rear entrance. And then Z either “lost him” when TM turned, or perhaps faded away into the dark.
And Z may have assumed that TM did not live in the neighborhood (not seeing him around as TM was new), and figured he would just try to leave the complex as quick as possible - through that rear entrance.
From some of the witnesses it sounds like there was a verbal argument ahead of time. One person said something like “I heard voices, and could tell it wasn’t the normal conversation of people walking their dogs.”
So I’m not sure TM “Jumped” Zimmerman from behind - but probably started off with words that got out of control. (Although perhaps caught him off guard hiding behind a bush or something).
“Hey - what are you doing here?”
“Nothing man, I’m walking home”?
“Then how come you ran?”
“What are you - Mr. Cop or something?”
“Hey, listen punk - I’m the neighborhood watch Captain...”
“Oh - big shot watch captain, well how about you watch me kick your ass...”
Obviously all conjecture, but I could see each of their testosterone levels rising. Although from the phone call, Z doesn’t seem all that confident or cocky. Based on TM’s photos and posts, I can see where he might think it cool to go “gansta” on some guy.
Serino indicates a theory including two face to face confrontations, minutes apart. One at Zimmerman's car (I wonder if that's the one with no words, where Martin gets close, stares, puts his hands in his waistband, then turns and runs), the other at the location where the fight started.
Well, that’s as reasonable a theory as any, and it fits the known facts and timeline. It is similar to things I’ve suggested among the many posts I’ve made here during my (somewhat unhealthy) obsession with this case for the last couple of weeks. As I’ve said before, it is perfectly reasonable to believe that both Martin and Zimmerman started out acting reasonably, but things got out of control. In your scenario, I can easily put myself in either one’s shoes (up to a point.) And none of that necessarily means Zimmerman committed a crime.
Zimmerman’s account (via his father) is that the conversation went like this:
M: You got a problem?
Z: No, I don’t have a problem.
M: Well, now you do! *punch*
That may fit the witness account of raised voices, too, and again, the known evidence does not contradict Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense.
Remember, we haven’t actually heard Zimmerman’s account - just versions of various parts of it recounted by others. All we know for sure is that he claimed self-defense and the police concluded that none of the evidence contradicted his claim.
Appreciate your skepticism, for FreeRepublic often suffers from chronic group think. Feel sad Trayvon's parents had to bury their child, and equally sad Mr. Zimmerman had to make a deadly force decision.
I'm mostly angered by media attention whores whipping up angry mobs reminiscent of a Klan lynch mob atmosphere. Worse are the race baiting politicians pimping the tragedy for fun and profit.
You've made a good point here: The police video tape shows no dressings on the back of Zimmerman's head
Wound appears as surface abrasion (road rash) but the lack of dressing atop the wound surprised me a bit. No sutures without a transport is logical. Head wound without a dressing an ice pack, later swelling is likely.
Freeper JoeProBono contributed this photo image. Known as a joker, I wouldn't rule a photoshop image. Asked for a confirmation of authenticity, but I haven't heard back.
If you want to call Zimmerman's brother a liar, I will not dispute it.