Questions for George Zimmerman supporters.

[Formaldehyde]

That should have been obvious long ago, much less now after the trial.

Zimmerman should have stayed in his car all along. And when the police dispatcher specifically told him not to continue chasing Martin when it was quite clear he was running and even continued to run afterwards for a period, he should have immediately returned to his truck. Instead, he continued to look for him for 2 more minutes, so Martin didn't "always get away" with the heinous crime of walking while black.

 

[JohnRM]

Zimmerman should have stayed in his car all along. And when the police dispatcher specifically told him not to continue chasing Martin when it was quite clear he was running and even continued to run afterwards for a period, he should have immediately returned to his truck. Instead, he continued to look for him for 2 more minutes, so Martin didn't "always get away" with the heinous crime of walking while black.

Zimmerman was never ordered not to follow Martin. He was advised that law enforcement did not need him to do so, but that is not the same thing as an order.

We don't need you to do that.

To which George Zimmerman replied, "Okay."

There is no evidence whatsoever that Zimmerman continued to follow Martin. His claim is that he went to look for a street sign and address in order to have the officer meet him in the area.


For reference, the entire Zimmerman 911 call.


Link to video.

 

[Berzerker]

Zimmerman should have stayed in his car all along. And when the police dispatcher specifically told him not to continue chasing Martin when it was quite clear he was running and even continued to run afterwards for a period, he should have immediately returned to his truck.

The dispatcher was asking him questions that led Z to start following (where's he running - Z gets out to look), and the dispatch told him to break off pursuit, not return to his truck. Z said on the tape M headed south and Z said he went east. When he came back M was still hiding at the T and he ambushed Z.

Instead, he continued to look for him for 2 more minutes, so Martin didn't "always get away" with the heinous crime of walking while black.

And thats not supported by the evidence either, Z said he went east of the T and waited a bit at the next street for the cops to call. That explains how M could be hiding at the T and lose sight of Z while the latter returned a couple minutes later. If Z had been following M he would have turned south at the T and M would not have lost sight of him nor would we have lost the 2 minutes.

 

[timtofly]

That should have been obvious long ago, much less now after the trial.

Zimmerman should have stayed in his car all along. And when the police dispatcher specifically told him not to continue chasing Martin when it was quite clear he was running and even continued to run afterwards for a period, he should have immediately returned to his truck. Instead, he continued to look for him for 2 more minutes, so Martin didn't "always get away" with the heinous crime of walking while black.

He was on the way to the grocery store. He defrauded the free market system.

The dispatcher was asking him questions that led Z to start following (where's he running - Z gets out to look), and the dispatch told him to break off pursuit, not return to his truck. Z said on the tape M headed south and Z said he went east. When he came back M was still hiding at the T and he ambushed Z .

I think that Z got out of his car because M was walking away, not because the dispatcher told Z to find out where he was running. M did not even start to run, until Z got out of the car. The dispatch was not even talking when Z got out of the car. All you can hear is Z thinking out loud, not answering any questions.

And thats not supported by the evidence either, Z said he went east of the T and waited a bit at the next street for the cops to call. That explains how M could be hiding at the T and lose sight of Z while the latter returned a couple minutes later. If Z had been following M he would have turned south at the T and M would not have lost sight of him nor would we have lost the 2 minutes.

The evidence in not Z's account either. The evidence is what was recorded in the dispatch call itself. We have no evidence after Z reached the T, except for Z's account in which he was no way near what actually happened during the phone call. The only thing that fits is Z went south not east. There was only a 90 second time frame. M was on top of Z for the last 30 seconds of that 2 minute time frame. Z did say he had a flash light and was looking south at the T, that can be believed. Perhaps he heard M talking on the phone and dropped the flashlight and headed towards M at that point?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Zimmerman was never ordered not to follow Martin. He was advised that law enforcement did not need him to do so, but that is not the same thing as an order.

"We don't need you to do that" was a polite way to tell him to stop being a vigilante and a wannabe cop when there was no reason to think a crime had even been committed. To return to his truck instead of continuing to be a "creepy-ass cracker".

There is no evidence whatsoever that Zimmerman continued to follow Martin.

You mean besides the 2-minute gap that neither he nor the defense attorneys ever explained?

Do you actually believe a known serial liar in this regard when his excuses make no actual sense at all based on the testimony of the witnesses?

 

[Cryptic_Snow]

Stephen Molyneux probably had the best analysis of the case.


Link to video.

 

[Berzerker]

I think that Z got out of his car because M was walking away, not because the dispatcher told Z to find out where he was running. M did not even start to run, until Z got out of the car.

The dispatch told him to speak up if M did anything and Z said he was running, dispatch asked where he was running and Z went to look. How do you know Z was already out of his car following him when he saw M run?

The evidence in not Z's account either. The evidence is what was recorded in the dispatch call itself.

And what M was telling his friend

We have no evidence after Z reached the T, except for Z's account in which he was no way near what actually happened during the phone call.

M said the cracker came back, that either means Z went east at the T like he said or he went back towards his truck and returned. Z could not have turned south at the T because thats where M was hiding and he would not have lost sight of him.

The only thing that fits is Z went south not east. There was only a 90 second time frame. M was on top of Z for the last 30 seconds of that 2 minute time frame.

Then how did M lose sight of him?

Z did say he had a flash light and was looking south at the T, that can be believed. Perhaps he heard M talking on the phone and dropped the flashlight and headed towards M at that point?

So he went looking for someone hidden near the T by dropping his flashlight?

You mean besides the 2-minute gap that neither he nor the defense attorneys ever explained?

Z explained it and M's statements to his friend confirm Z disappeared from sight and returned to the T. Now why would Z lie about walking east thru the T when it wouldn't matter if he went that way or headed back to his truck and then came back to the T a 2nd time? M should have been long gone, at least in Z's mind.

Do you actually believe a known serial liar in this regard when his excuses make no actual sense at all based on the testimony of the witnesses?

What witness saw Z turn south at the T rather than head east? How did M lose sight of him if thats what happened?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Stephen Molyneux probably had the best analysis of the case.

The "best analysis of the case" spreads fear and paranoia of massive rioting in the very first minute?

I'm sure the rest is just as even-handed in presenting the "truth".

 

[bhsup]

"We don't need you to do that" was a polite way to tell him to stop being a vigilante and a wannabe cop when there was no reason to think a crime had even been committed. To return to his truck instead of continuing to be a "creepy-ass cracker".

Are you suggesting that the cops are racist against whites but hide it with subtle language?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Are you suggesting you completely missed the sarcasm?

And how exactly can a white dispatcher be "racist" towards an apparently white caller?

 

[Antilogic]

Double-reverse secret rasism.

 

[Crezth]

Here's my question. If I consider a man in my neighborhood suspicious and I'm a neighborhood watchman, may I pursue and kill him if there is no evidence that he didn't start a fight?

My problem with the verdict is what it means. Without context this was basically a nighttime assault and murder, but Zimmerman has the convenient out of being a watchman. This, I believe, is why it is inadvisable for watchmen to carry weapons, and why Martin should have been considered an innocent in lack of definitive proof that he was guilty.

I keep imagining a situation where a man stands bloodied with a knife over the dead body of a foe. His testimony is all that can be relied upon but I feel like "he started it!" is not very convincing in a vacuum.

 

[Bamspeedy]

Here's my question. If I consider a man in my neighborhood suspicious and I'm a neighborhood watchman, may I pursue and kill him if there is no evidence that he didn't start a fight?

My problem with the verdict is what it means. Without context this was basically a nighttime assault and murder, but Zimmerman has the convenient out of being a watchman. This, I believe, is why it is inadvisable for watchmen to carry weapons, and why Martin should have been considered an innocent in lack of definitive proof that he was guilty.

I keep imagining a situation where a man stands bloodied with a knife over the dead body of a foe. His testimony is all that can be relied upon but I feel like "he started it!" is not very convincing in a vacuum.

If zimmerman did not have any injuries on him his self defense claim would have likely failed. One side will say these injuries were paper cuts and the other side say they were massive injuries, but the injuries were sufficient to convince the jury he was beaten by Martin.

Zimmerman found not guilty doesn't mean Martin started the fight, just that the state could not prove zimmerman started it.

The state needed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that zimmerman was guilty. Zimmerman did not need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was innocent.

 

[Crezth]

Yet Zimmerman decided for himself that Martin was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This is my issue. I am aware of how the justice system works, I am just disappointed with the implications. If Zimmerman had not been a night watchman I find it hard to believe he'd have been found innocent.

 

[Formaldehyde]

He wasn't even a night watchman. Many whites in the US are so paranoid of young black males that they form "neighborhood watches" to profile and track their every movement if they dare to come into their neighborhood. This is an entirely voluntary endeavor. It is extremely rare for them to typically be armed for obvious reasons. They are supposed to stay in their vehicles with the windows rolled up and the doors locked so the boogeymen can't get them.

Security companies are far too smart to arm night watchmen in most cases. They couldn't afford the resultant lawsuits.

 

[timtofly]

The dispatch told him to speak up if M did anything and Z said he was running, dispatch asked where he was running and Z went to look. How do you know Z was already out of his car following him when he saw M run?

From listening to the 911 call: Dispatch said to let him know if he did any thing else. (So far the only thing M was doing was walking.) Z says ok. There is silence from the dispatcher, and you can hear Z getting out of the car while saying, "They always get away". He then starts to explain to the dispatcher how to get where his truck was parked. (Presumably he was standing next to it.) There was a little back and forth about where the truck was parked, and Z interrupted by saying, "He's starting to run." You can hear the door shut and Z starts to run. The dispatcher asked, "Which way did he go?" You can hear the wind pick up while Z says, "He's heading for the back entrance." (Z on the move would be able to tell if M headed south). Then the dispatcher asked, "Are you running?"

And what M was telling his friend.

M presumably stopped running and told his friend that he lost Z about the same time the dispatcher told Z to stop running. They continued their conversation for about another 4 minutes. This call goes from 7:12 and drops at 7:16 soon after the phone drops. Z's phone call ends at 7:13:38. That means that M was about 1 minute and 38 seconds ahead of Z in the dark not necessarily waiting but talking on the phone, just as he had done for 18 minutes before he started to run.

M said the cracker came back, that either means Z went east at the T like he said or he went back towards his truck and returned. Z could not have turned south at the T because thats where M was hiding and he would not have lost sight of him.

M said that Z suddenly appeared again. That is slightly different than saying that Z was going back and forth at the top of the T. It sounds more like Z again caught up with where M was. Now we have 90 seconds where Z was deciding what to do. He claims that he had a flashlight at the T looking around. Now it could have been knocked out of his hand and M could have tried to run away again. However we have the two questions that were asked. Perhaps Z upon hearing voices kept going south. When he heard M say the cracker just appeared, what do you think happened? From witness accounts, M asked Z why he was following him, and Z returned with what are you doing here.

Then how did M lose sight of him?

He was running away and was about 90 seconds further down the south part of the T.

So he went looking for someone hidden near the T by dropping his flashlight?

There was something in a report about finding Z's flashlight at the T.

Z explained it and M's statements to his friend confirm Z disappeared from sight and returned to the T. Now why would Z lie about walking east thru the T when it wouldn't matter if he went that way or headed back to his truck and then came back to the T a 2nd time? M should have been long gone, at least in Z's mind.

There was 90 seconds. There was no conversation about Z walking back and forth, and if Z could not see M, then M could not see Z, and he was not hiding. None of the witnesses backed this claim up.

What witness saw Z turn south at the T rather than head east? How did M lose sight of him if thats what happened?

No one saw Z turn nor walk back and forth. There was no reason for Z to go any further. Neither did M see Z at the T. If they had it would be, "look at that cracker trying to find me". Not "the cracker suddenly appeared again".

These are the testimony's alleged statements: She said that Martin told her that a man was watching him from his vehicle while talking on the phone before the man started following Martin. Martin told his friend at one point that he had lost the man but the man suddenly appeared again.

Martin's friend recounted her last phone call with Martin and added that Martin had described the man as "crazy and creepy", watching him from a vehicle while the man was talking on the phone.

Now these may not be what was said on the stand, but they have not been refuted by any one yet.

 

[MobBoss]

Yet Zimmerman decided for himself that Martin was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This is my issue.

No he didn't. What are you? A mind reader? Please.

He viewed him as engaging is suspicious behavior in how he was moving in and around the houses in the area as opposed to just walking on the sidewalk.

I am aware of how the justice system works, I am just disappointed with the implications. If Zimmerman had not been a night watchman I find it hard to believe he'd have been found innocent.

Might have been a slightly stronger case for the manslaughter charge, but only slightly - remember, all things being equal he still had physical wounds (broken nose, cuts on scalp, etc.). The mere existence of those is enough to create quite a bit reasonable doubt on a case to convict Zimmerman.

Here's my question. If I consider a man in my neighborhood suspicious and I'm a neighborhood watchman, may I pursue and kill him if there is no evidence that he didn't start a fight?

Do you honestly think Zimmerman went into the situation pre-meditating murder?

The guy isn't smart enough for that.

 

[Berzerker]

From listening to the 911 call: Dispatch said to let him know if he did any thing else. (So far the only thing M was doing was walking.) Z says ok. There is silence from the dispatcher, and you can hear Z getting out of the car while saying, "They always get away". He then starts to explain to the dispatcher how to get where his truck was parked. (Presumably he was standing next to it.) There was a little back and forth about where the truck was parked, and Z interrupted by saying, "He's starting to run." You can hear the door shut and Z starts to run.

so he wasn't following, he was standing by his truck (or sitting inside it).

M presumably stopped running and told his friend that he lost Z about the same time the dispatcher told Z to stop running. They continued their conversation for about another 4 minutes. This call goes from 7:12 and drops at 7:16 soon after the phone drops. Z's phone call ends at 7:13:38. That means that M was about 1 minute and 38 seconds ahead of Z in the dark not necessarily waiting but talking on the phone, just as he had done for 18 minutes before he started to run.

How did Z make up over a minute and how did they end up fighting at the T?

M said that Z suddenly appeared again. That is slightly different than saying that Z was going back and forth at the top of the T.

But it is consistent with Z walking back and forth on the east-west branches of the T just like he said.

It sounds more like Z again caught up with where M was. Now we have 90 seconds where Z was deciding what to do. He claims that he had a flashlight at the T looking around. Now it could have been knocked out of his hand and M could have tried to run away again.

You just said M was way ahead of him, but all this stuff happens at the T. And we have M's phone conversation where he doesn't run in spite of the girl's request, so what evidence do you have M ran south and kept going only to be caught by Z?

 

[timtofly]

so he wasn't following, he was standing by his truck (or sitting inside it).

He parked his truck and was watching M for about 2 minutes, before getting out and standing by the truck. He claims that he was driving while watching M walk all the way from near the entrance.

How did Z make up over a minute and how did they end up fighting at the T?

Z did not want to loose him and could not drive the truck into the cut through. There is no street there. Z did not make it to the T in time to see where M was further down, it was supposedly getting dark. They both were running at the same time. If M had stopped at the T, Z would have run him over.

They did not fight at the T. His body was found about 50 feet from the T. Z does not know how he got from the T to where the body was found.

But it is consistent with Z walking back and forth on the east-west branches of the T just like he said.

He may have, he had about 55 seconds to decide if he should go back to the truck or walk another 20 seconds south. How long does it take to walk 50 feet? From where the truck was parked to the T is about 100 feet. From there to the next street is another 100 feet. It took about ten seconds to run the 100 ft. If you take away the last 30 seconds of which M was on top of him. that only leaves 90 seconds. He was told to wait, but he really wanted the police to call him, since he did ask. I am not saying that he did not walk to the next street, but it was dark and I assume he would not run down a dark sidewalk. He probably took his time until he heard someone talking.

You just said M was way ahead of him, but all this stuff happens at the T. And we have M's phone conversation where he doesn't run in spite of the girl's request, so what evidence do you have M ran south and kept going only to be caught by Z?

We do not know when M stopped running. If he could not see Z and we know Z was at the T, and Z did not allegedly see him, that only leaves that M was a lot further away from the T, at least the 50 feet away where they did find the body.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Did anybody else notice that the dispatcher apparently made Zimmerman's complaint such an extremely low priority that some officer might show up sometime that night if he felt like it? That apparently nobody ever called his cell phone?

No wonder poor George hyped the seriousness of it so much. After making so many complaints that turned out to be nothing, he apparently had no more credibility. He was the boy who cried black wolf.