Martin/Zimmerman: humble opinions and speculation thread

In My Humble Opinion
4522

Stop me when we get to something that’s controversial, because some of the following represent my personal assumptions.
Here’s your actual chance to attack my assumptions.

If the length of the seconds used in the event report log are some reasonable approximation of a regularly sized seconds then for any arbitrary start time, the length of time between two entries in the event report will reflect a reasonably accurate account of the time between the two entries being logged.
[INDENT]
It’s reasonable to assume length of the seconds used in the event report log are some reasonable approximation of standard issue seconds.

It’s reasonable to assume that the call center’s time stamp uses some reasonable approximation of the sixty second minute and the sixty minute hours, etc., etc. that we all know and love.

It’s a reasonable assumption that these sixty second minutes and sixty minute hours, etc. used by the source of the event report’s time stamps are still sixty second minutes and sixty minute hours regardless of whether or not the time of day expressed by the time stamps is correct.
IOW, if it says 10:01 pm when it’s actually 6:02 pm, then in sixty minutes it will read 11:01 pm but the actual time will be 7:02 pm.

Given the above, for any two entries logged, the time between the entries’ time stamps is a reasonably accurate account of the actual amount of time between when the entries were logged.

.
.
We can tell if the length of time between when notes are logged to the event report are non-conradictory with other evidence which indicate the length of time between when the two sets of information were available to the person logging the note into the system,(where we have such evidence).
eg
An example of evidence outside of the event report which limits the length of time between two entries being logged is the recording of GZ’s NEN call.
If we compare the length of time between two entries about GZ’s call being logged into the event report against the length of time between when the information contained in each of those notes is made available to the call taker and we find that the length of time between the entry of two notes to be shorter than the length of time between when the two sets of information were available to the call taker, we would know that we have a problem somewhere.
How would the call taker know info before it was available?[/INDENT]
.
.

.
.
To recap the assumptions thus far…
[INDENT]1) The call center time stamps use a reasonably normal clock that uses reasonably normal seconds, minutes, hours, etc.
2) This reasonably normal-ness is retained w/o regard to whether or not the clock is set to the correct time of day.
3) The length of time indicated between two time stamps actually is the time between when those entries were logged to the event report.
4) The call taker isn’t psychic.
[/INDENT]
If we can’t agree to these parts above, the upcoming parts aren’t going to be very persuasive. So I hope everyone is willing to find this reasonable so far.
.
.
Stop me when we get to something that’s controversial.
.
.
[ul]
[li]At the bottom of a section which is toward the middle of the page of the event report, there is the following[/li][INDENT]Assigned Units/Status: Smith, Timothy-S2711-PEU; Ayala, Ricardo-S1312-PEU

[li]There’re 17 notes w/ time stamps entered in the History section of the event report.[/li]
[li]The entry which is fifth from the top of the list of notes entered in the History section has the following entries in a row under a column with the following headers:[/li]


Crtd_DateTime			TermID	EmpID 	RadioId		CmdId	Remarks 
02/26/2012 19:17:11		4027	S25894	S2711		ARV

[li]It is not unlikely that S2711 is the radio ID of Officer Timothy Smith.[/li]
[li]Officer Timothy Smith’s describes his arrival time as “approximately 19:17 hours” in his report found here[/li]Documents in the Trayvon Martin Case - Document - NYTimes.com
starting on the bottom half of page 14

[li]Serino states in his report that Singleton established Officer T. Smith’s arrival time as 19:17[/li]Documents in the Trayvon Martin Case - Document - NYTimes.com
toward the top of page 40

[li]It is not unikely that T. Smith is Timothy Smith.[/INDENT][/li]
Given Officer Timothy Smith’s description of his arrival time and Investigator Singleton’s assessment of T. Smith’s arrival time, it does not seem unlikely that the entry which is fifth from the top of the list of notes entered in the History section of the vent report which reads as the following entries under the following column headers:


Crtd_DateTime			TermID	EmpID 	RadioId		CmdId	Remarks 
02/26/2012 19:17:11		4027	S25894	S2711		ARV

refers to the arrival of Officer Timothy Smith at the scene.
[/ul]
How are we doing?
Have we hit any bumps yet?

4523

I am in love with this post and want to marry it.

4524

What’s easier to say?

Martin went to the store to buy iced tea and Skittles.

Martin went to the store to buy a watermelon-flavored beverage and Skittles.

This is an insane point. I mean, we’re supposed to go WTF?! over this, but not over the billion incredible points and discrepancies in Zimmerman’s story? The Defenders should really work on hiding their desperation better.

4525

It’s about as serious a discrepancy as the ones in Zimmerman’s story.

4526

Riiiight. ‘Iced tea’ vs ‘watermelon-flavored beverage from a company known for its iced tea product’ is EXACTLY the same as ‘physically impossible accounts of Martins’ actions’ and ‘got punched in the face on the right side of my nose which should have caused me to fall backwards to the north-west but instead I stumbled forwards and to the south’.

Riiiight.

4527

Perhaps you can learn from the drink confusion that most people will not get all the details right, even when shown certain proof of what the true facts are. It’s human nature. I have my doubts, though.

Nothing significant in Zimmerman’s story is either impossible, or contradicted by the evidence.

4528

What no one seems to have noticed is that Zimmerman tackled Martin after the shooting, which could easily have added distance from the T. Martin didn’t perish immediately, just almost immediately.But then, people tend not to notice details contrary to their opinion.

4529

Because it’s an indisputable fact. Are the facts important? Who decides which facts are not important? If the LSM and bloggesphere can’t get the simple facts correct, how can I expect them to present the technical issues correctly?

What about the “hoodie”? It’s just an article of clothing. Who created the furor around the hoodie? It became a rally point for the various lynch mobs. It also happens to be the discription given to the police to identify the suspiciously acting person.

911 dispatcher: Did you see what he was wearing?
Zimmerman: Yeah, a dark hoodie like a gray hoodie. He wore jeans or sweat pants and white tennis shoes. He’s here now

Perhaps you could supplied me with a list of your personal non-issues that can’t be discussed here.

4530

Yes, the original report misidentified items but when the facts became known, why did people continue to use incorrect information? Were they too lazy to read the updates or view the crime scene photos or didn’t the facts matter to them. Repeating false information doesn’t solve anything. Facts are facts, evidence is evidence. This isn’t as complicated as trying to decipher eyewitness testimony which seems to change slightly with every telling.

4531

You can respond any way you wish. Martin bought AriZona watermelon and Skittles. That’s a fact. Martin was wearing a hoodie. That’s a fact. Martin was acting suspiciously and Zimmerman called the police to report him. That’s a fact. The police operator asked for a description of the suspicious person. That’s a fact. Zimmerman provided one. That’s a fact.

What you personally consider “an insane point”, I consider “details” and all of the details are important. To me. You can pick and chose what’s important to you.

4532

Zimmerman REPORTED that Martin was acting suspiciously. That’s a fact. Whether or not Martin was acting suspiciously is a matter of opinion.

4533

What’s a fact is that you don’t know how to distiguish fact from opinion.

Martin was acting suspiciously, only according to Zimmerman.

4534

Thanks. Let me rephrase it - Zimmerman called the police to report that Martin was acting suspiciously. That’s a fact.

4535

Close, my little cupcake.

Zimmerman called the police to report that he thought Martin was acting suspiciously. That’s a fact.

4536

The behaviour that he considered “suspicuous” is explained by Martin being on a hands-free call. That’s a fact.

The real insanity is that the reason this trivial discrepancy is touted as significant across the right-wing loon-o-sphere is a meme suggesting that Martin’s purchases were intended as ingredients for “purple drank.”

The evidence offered to link them to DXM abuse are a) a 2003 message board posting wherein a stoner enthuses about a watermelon soda, accidentally mispelling “drink” as “drank” and subsequent posters’ kidding about him talking about “purple drank,” and b) “Skittles” being listed as a common component of “purple drank,” without regard for the minor detail that “Skittles” in this context is slang for DXM-bearing Coriciden tablets.

It is asserted that of course Martin was acting suspiciously - he was off his ass on DXM, that’s why he flew into a violent rage for no reason at all, too. Because… Skittles and Watermelon beverage, man - that stuff messes you up!

4537

Okay forget the money. Forget the essay. Give your money to charity right now. The loser leaves the SDMB. If you think the odds are 1.7896 million to one in your favor, then you can’t be scared to take my bet. Could it be that you don’t actually believe what you are saying and suspect that I’m right? Could it be that you abuse people that disagree with you even when you know they are right?

4538

Or could it be that I want the loser to have to make good on the bet instead of just wondering what new handle you’ve decided to use?

4539

That is a pretty pathetic response. I post with my real name and you are the one hiding behind a handle and don’t have any personal information in your profile.
If it is so easy for you to create a new handle, then why not accept my bet? Of course, I’ll pick up your stench if you come back. Your abusive posting style will give you away.

4540

You two are weird, imho.

4541

No, it’s an opinion, as in “it is your opinion that Martin wandering around the neighborhood looking into houses is what someone on a hands-free call would do” just like “it was Zimmerman’s opinion that a stranger wandering around the neighborhood looking into houses is suspicious activity”.

Regards,
Shodan