I read it a bit differently. I’m hearing some suspicion in the leading questions from Serino. Remember that Z is insisting that he was not following Martin, as per the suggestion of the dispatcher. That he could not see Martin. He intended to substantiate that he wasn’t following him because Martin was not visible to him, therefore he *couldn’t *have been following him.
He goes on to suggest that it was merely a coincidence that he went in the same direction. And he had gotten out only to try to find an address in order to be of more help to the police in finding him. Because he was in an unfamiliar neighborhood, we are given to believe. Yes. Quite.
Anyway, I hear sarcasm in that. As in “Well, if you couldn’t see him, and therefore couldn’t follow him, then he must have been hiding!” Hiding where, would be the implied question, as it was clear to Serino and Zimmerman both there was little likelihood that he could be hiding. This ain’t the woods, or the jungle, its a gated community. Be easier to hide on a skating rink.
There is a tape of the interview. I haven’t heard it since the trial, but it didn’t come across to me as sarcasm as I recall.
To be honest, Serino comes across as less Lennie Briscoe/Robert Goren and more Tutti and Muldoon, if you know what I mean. His “lies meant to trip up” Zimmerman were pretty obvious, and the interviews did nothing but help Zimmerman firm up his story. Notice who is doing all the talking. How do you “trip someone up” if you don’t let them get a word in edgewise? There is a reason Serino went back to night patrol.
As far as Martin being able to hide: It was pretty dark, and there were some small white wooden partition fences between the units (if you want to watch the reenactment video to see them, go to the 10:08 mark); he could have slipped behind one of them to wait and see if Zimmerman would continue to follow (and we know he did, or at least “continue in the same direction”).
Her interpretation has absolutely no meaning of any kind, and I’m shocked that you would suggest otherwise. Except for the fact that it’s the only thread you have to justify your preferred scenario, of course.
You have too much emotion invested in this, sister. Telling me I’m jumping to conclusions because you have jumped to one (re: my bias) doesn’t do much for your credibility.
That article is interesting. I’m willing to stipulate that GZ “should” have been found Not Guilty regardless, but it’s not my place to make that determination. Nor is it the judge’s – it’s the jury’s job.
Does not the judge have too much power with duties like tailoring jury instructions? The article even implies the possibility of extra-legal considerations:
Both pro-GZ and pro-TM posters insist that there are no shades of gray. If we empathize with a teenager who lost his cool when stalked by the wannabe, it means we want him to beat up GZ. Great username/thought-process combo there, Debaser.
There were (almost entirely white) objections to the OJ verdict. I guess that, at least in Werekoala’s opinion, black thought is racist, white thought is objective. Got it.
The exact times and places of the events are known, but I didn’t follow the trial closely. Is there an animation or annotated map showing plausible reconstruction(s) of GZ’s and TM’s movements?
To much testosterone, to much paranoia, acceptance of violence, to many ideas about religion, to much freedom is given to being allowed to be a nut jobs - then add a shitload of guns in the mix – you end up with people killing each other.
It’s called the god blessed country USA, welcome to the Wild Wild West, apparently it’s still stuck the 18th century.
Sure, it’s not every single pro-Martin poster who thinks this. But many people literally do post that Zimmerman had a beating coming to him for daring to follow someone around. People have posted that they would react the same way and that violence was a natural, unavoidable outcome of being followed and asked questions. I’m not painting with a broad brush when I point this out. It really is what people have been saying.
Do you bother typing this post every time you feel it should be vomited out into a thread? Or do you have it ready to copy/paste at a moments notice whenever your cynicism detector goes off?
We also have objective evidence that GZ shot and killed TM. And yet you jump to the conclusion that GZ was excused for shooting and killing TM but TM had no business assaulting GZ based largely on GZ testimony.
The irony burns a little bit
I was poking fun at the fact that your side claims to KNOW what happened when you don’t KNOW shit.
TM was where exactly? He was by some house and the HOUSE was about a 1/20 of a mile away from where GZ was. We have no idea how far TM was from the house, just that he was subjectively close by.
We have already established that GZ had been following TM. YOUR side is the one that is claiming that TM was starting some shit by cmoing back to GZ after he was already by his father’s house. YOUR side is the one imferring some level of culpability on TM because you think he should have just gone inside and hid under his covers and the fact that he didn’t means that he brought his death upon hiimself.
Well, the state did a shitty job generally. I wasn’t literally proposing that this is what happened but I was highlighting that you don’t know what happened. You are inferring it largely from GZ’s testimony.
And other than GZ’s testimony, there is no evidence that things went down the way he said.
I agree, but the state’s failure to prove Zimmerman’s guilt beyond a reasonble doubt doesn’t mean that he is innocent or that things actually went down the way he claims.
Anyone have a transcript of the trial?
That’s the way YOU are interpreting that statement.
I didn’t damn GZ until he continued to follow TM after he was advized not to.
There are hours and hours (and hours and hours) of the trial on youtube, if you’re interested. I believe it gives a better feel for the witnesses to hear their words and see their expressions rather than just reading, YMMV.
I have mostly stayed out of these threads because, to be honest, all I knew about the trial was what I’d seen in the media. Watching the trial, hearing the witnesses and 911 tapes, and absorbing massive amounts of testimony it’s insane to me how different the picture is from what the media presented. Whatever your opinions are now I would encourage anyone to watch all of the information presented. I can honestly say it’ll be a long time before I trust news stations/reporters again.
I still have a lot of mixed feelings about what happened, but I truly believe there is no way the jury could have convicted him based on the evidence. I say this as someone who was ready to run him out of the country with a torch like villagers chasing Frankenstein after those first few months of the media blitz.
It was decided by someone other than youself that Jeantel’s testimony should be presented to the jury. Somebody certainly thought her interpretation of events was worth admitting. It was up to the jury to decide if some or all of it was credible.
Sure they could. I showed exactly how, using the evidence, they could have easily convicted him of manslaughter (and should have).
See? Prosecutors sucked ass.
So? Her interpretation of exactly what Martin meant when he said he was by his father’s house has no weight, no meaning, no value, in terms of saying whether he was 2 feet or 300 feet. She had no way of knowing. Unless she said “Martin and I agreed long ago that when he says he’s “right by” someplace, it means he’s 4 steps away”, there’s no reason to think her interpretation is better than anyone else’s.
In my opinion, the media selected a narrative early on, and then had little choice but to stay with it, even as it unraveled in front of them.
Remember Zimmermman’s taped call?
For a full week they ran that recording, on both the Today show and NBC Nightly News.
How could anyone blame you for concluding the guy was a not-so-closeted racist?
That was the real quote.
When the deceptive editing was exposed, NBC claimed they would conduct an an “internal investigation.” That investigation resulted in an pseudo-apology on April 3, 2012. NBC said that what had apparently happened was an “error,” made in the production process “that we deeply regret.”
Of course, that was made via written statement, not on air, and certainly not aired for a week day and night on the Today show and NBC Nightly News. What did they say on-air, you might ask?
Nothing else. No context, no explanation for WHY Zimmerman had sued NBC Universal, nothing.
Do you think that may have contributed, just a tad, to the certainty in te country that Zimmerman was a racist?
I’m sorry, I can’t agree. And please understand, I am not going to get into a patented back and forth and back and forth fontapalooza Stoid style postfest with you about it.
Specifically with regards to your “Fact finders” post I cannot agree with most of your numbered points. You feel the way you do after (I assume) hearing all of the evidence presented and I feel the way I do.
That was one of the things that got to me. There were others. I was reactionary and enraged and convinced of absolute guilt with malice.
Like I said earlier though, I still am conflicted about the whole thing and it’s just awful all the way around. The most awful, of course, is the death of a young man.
So, how did he decide Martin was up to no good, or on drugs or something? Some special training that allows him to detect a buzz at maybe fifty yards? Some behavioral quirk that matched the profile of doped up scofflaws? Was it the Skittles? Did he even see the Skittles? OK, maybe if he saw the Skittles, his presumptions had some merit.
Rather than being some utterly unjustified presumption that is typically based on race, as is common knowledge. Yeah, I guess if you can prove he actually saw the Skittles, I’d have to say his attitude as conveyed by the quote was entirely sensible and reflects a clear and unbiased mind.
