GZ says he got tout to look for a street sign but couldn’t find one so he then decided to cross the block [instead of going to the corner where street signs are usually kept] to get an address from a street that he did know the name of.
Since you’re accusing me of lying, I humbly request that you provide evidence to support your accusation against me.
In the meantime here’s this to watch
Check out @ about 4:36 and again @ about 5:10.
Please get back to me with the evidence that I fabricate GZ saying that he thought to get out and look for a street sign.
Did I also fabricate GZ saying that since he didn’t see a street sign where there was no intersection that he should walk to a street whose name he didn’t need a sign to know?
If so, please provide some evidence for that as well.
Imho, one of the best things about “get out and look for a street sign” is that as a matter of design, street signs are easily detected and read by drivers who are in their vehicles.
Imhe, getting out of your vehicle usually doesn’t offer any advantage when trying to see a street sign. If I were looking for a street sign, I’d just drive to the end of the block, the next intersection.
But that’s just me.
I’m not one for getting out of my car in the drizzle to look for a street sign I can see just as easily from inside my car warm and dry.
Maybe GZ’s different. Maybe when he wants to know the name of a street he is on, his first instinct is to stop his car in the middle of the block and get out to find a street sign.
Idk.
But to me, the idea that someone with a driver’s license would think that he was likely to find a street sign somewhere other than an intersection is implausible.
Choosing to get out in the wet when street signs are commonly known to be plainly visible from the inside of a vehicle by design also sounds contrived.
btw
@ about 28:43
“I got out of my car to look for a street sign so I could at least tell them what street I was on.”
Because he couldn’t see any street sign there in the middle of the block, but he thought that if he got out of his truck, a street sign would suddenly be visible? Or what?
No, it’s not at odds with what he said. There is no doubt regarding the phone call why he got out of his car. There is nothing in court that can be made from this.
Yes, you are quoting a video which is a recount of the events that happened that night. It wasn’t specifically a moment to moment recount nor is there any expectation of this. If he did indeed look for a street sign upon exiting his vehicle it would not be the primary reason nor would it contradict his statement on the phone. He clearly talks about his reason he walked to the end of the sidewalk which is to get an address number and he’s clearly trying to give directions to the police on the phone.
You have no basis to say he lied about looking around for a street sign as he chased after Martin. A great deal of the phone call involved directing the police to his location. You are fabricating a grassy knoll with nothing to back it up.
And just to add the normal disclaimer, I (and other posters have stated the same) would LOVE some evidence that changes the dynamic of the events. But as it stands now, Martin was beating the tar out of Zimmerman and that had to occur because Martin went out of his way to confront him. That’s what the evidence indicates.
In his recounting he says that he got out to do something and tells what that something is.
Seems as straightforward as it gets.
“I got out of my car to look for a street sign…”
:shrug:
AFAICT, that means that GZ said that he got out of his car to look for a street sign.
If you think he didn’t say that…idk.
You’re free to speculate as to the “real reason” GZ got out of his vehicle.
I don’t buy GZ’s explanation about the street sign any more than you do.
Because he didn’t need a street sign to know the name of that street IIRC.
Maybe he looked around, maybe he didn’t.
The point, which you seem to agree with me about, is that GZ didn’t get out of his car to look for a street sign where there was no intersection. GZ left his vehicle for some other reason.
Nothing other than multiple instances of GZ’s explicitly saying so. Other than GZ’s accounts, I have nothing to back up the idea that GZ’s accounts involve GZ saying that he got out of his vehicle to look for a street sign.
If we rule out GZ’s narratives, then I got nothing.
Imho, GZ account is reasonably strong evidence of what GZ’s account is.
ymmv
What possible court scenario do you see your position playing out? You can’t say he lied about looking at a street sign. You can’t say he didn’t chase Martin. The best you can do is imply he lied about it as being the primary reason for exiting the car and the defense will say “nuh uh”.
No, and neither does GZ. The defense will never make such a contention. I ask you again, how do you see this playing out in court? It’s a simple question.
I don’t have anything new to say about it. but I will repeat what I have already said.
The story that he got out of his car in the rain to find a street sign in the middle of the block undercuts GZ’s credibility and exposes his testimony to being discounted or entirely discarded by jurors who find his accounts implausible.
Probably many of us have looked for a street sign while driving.
I’m not sure that any of us thought that getting out of our car in the rain in the middle of the block was a better choice than driving to the end of the block where street sign usually are.
I can’t say that getting out of the vehicle in the middle of the block, in the rain was ever something which crossed my mind when looking for a street sign.
ymmv.
Same two issues as previously:[ul][li]Under Florida law, the prosecution has to prove that it wasn’t self-defense. Disproving Zimmerman’s testimony (assuming this does disprove it) is not enough.[*]If Zimmerman said “street sign” when he meant “house number”, that does not (IMO) constitute much of a reason to discount all of Zimmerman’s testimony - it seems rather a nitpick. At any rate, what about the parts of his testimony that are backed up by other evidence? Do you think those should be disbelieved?[/ul][/li]Regards,
Shodan
Same two issues as previously:[ul][li]Under Florida law, the prosecution has to prove that it wasn’t self-defense. Disproving Zimmerman’s testimony (assuming this does disprove it) is not enough.[/ul][/li][/quote]
I am still aware of that. Hadn’t forgotten.
[quote=“Shodan, post:9316, topic:619125”]
[li]If Zimmerman said “street sign” when he meant “house number”, that does not (IMO) constitute much of a reason to discount all of Zimmerman’s testimony - it seems rather a nitpick. [/li][/quote]
@ about 28:43
“I got out of my car to look for a street sign so I could at least tell them what street I was on.”
becomes
“I got out of my car to look for a [house number] so I could at least tell them what street I was on.”
I’m not finding that explanation very viable.
Imho, it seems quite clear that GZ is saying that he was looking for a street sign and meaning a street sign. Hence the ostensible impetus for him to travel to a street which he does know the name of.
“house number” just doesn’t fit the context of any of the places where GZ says it. Imho anyway.
If there’s other evidence, then in those matters, belief in his testimony is irrelevant as the other evidence should be sufficient. Imho anyway. The jurors are free to decide how much or how little of GZ’s accounts are credible on their own as I understand it.
They can. What they can’t do is, if they disbelieve something he says, assume that something else is true. For example, if they don’t accept that he got out to look for a street sign, they can’t use that disbelief as evidence that he got out to chase Martin. They will need additional evidence for that.
Prior to the part you mention, the 911 dispatcher asks Zimmerman for the address where he was. Zimmerman says he did not know the street name, and that, since he was at the back of the townhouses, no address numbers were visible. So he gets out of the truck (allegedly) to find a street sign or something so he can give an exact location. So the police can meet him.
It sounds like the kind of trivial detail that it is natural to be unclear about. To seize on it and use it to decide that therefore Zimmerman shot Martin in cold blood seems a bit on the further side of exaggerated.
It is very rare that an innocent person’s account of an incident is 100% accurate in every detail.
And, to repeat, this is more or less irrelevant. Even if you decide that you don’t trust a word that Zimmerman says, the prosecution needs to prove the elements of second-degree murder. Even if this nitpick did disprove Zimmerman’s testimony, the prosecution needs to show evidence that proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman shot Martin with intent to kill. Saying you were looking for a street sign when you were looking for a house number is not, IMO, enough to overcome the presumption of innocence.
I think he’s being quite clear.
The back of those houses are houses whose address are on Retreat View Circle.
If I run into someone who has done that, I’ll try to remember to let him know.
I don’t see it as a minor detail. Why he exited his vehicle could be a very telling matter. The fact that he provides an implausible story about it speaks directly to his credibility in the matter as a whole. It also lets us know that there’s something which GZ feels he cannot say for w/e reason.
You’re free to find it a likely story if you wish, though I take it that you don’t. I suspect that’s why you suggested that maybe GZ mis-spoke. I don’t know anyone who finds the idea that someone would get out of their car, in the rain, in the middle of the block to find a street sign instead of driving to the next intersection.
Street signs are designed to be seen from inside of vehicles. Street signs are placed at intersections.
Providing reason to doubt the account of the accused is hard to avoid when you’re seeking to show that the accused has done something which the accused denies. Imho anyway. Seems to be a well integrated part of the process.
But again, I still realize that just because GZ lied that doesn’t mean that GZ is guilty of murder.
This is true. But I feel obliged to point out that GZ was not making the mistake you’re attributing to him–saying street sign instead of house number.
Neither the text nor the context support that theory. imho.
Well, as I have mentioned a couple of times, the prosecution needs to describe exactly what that is, and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was that.
And I don’t think we know that there is something Zimmerman cannot say.
The reason that Zimmerman wanted to find a street sign was because he wanted to give an exact location so the police could meet him and go looking for Martin. Zimmerman wanted to meet the police at the spot where he lost contact with Martin. The further he goes from there, the harder it would be to backtrack. Unfortunately, Martin spared him the trouble.
