ABC News has been given a photograph that might make the difference between life in prison and a walk. For weeks, we have been discussing the case and the application of the Stand Your Ground law. As discussed earlier, I think the case was over-charged and I remain doubtful of a conviction. This picture will likely be the single most important piece of evidence in the case. It shows Zimmerman with significant blood on the back of his head — an image that supports accounts from the scene and will be used to corroborate Zimmerman’s account of a struggle with Trayvon Martin where he feared serious bodily injury. [UPDATE: Zimmerman granted bond].
Unlike the photos of Zimmerman at the police station, this photo was taken a few minutes after the fight. Zimmerman’s shaved head could prove Godsend for Zimmerman. Had he had longer hair, the injury would have not appeared so stark.
The photo shows both cuts and a contusion — injuries that would normally be defined as serious bodily injury by many courts in torts cases where head injuries are treated as inherently potentially serious. The original police report said that he was bleeding from the nose and head and that his clothes looked like he had been in a fight. Zimmerman claims that it was Martin who jumped him, punched him, and pounded his head on to the concrete sidewalk.
The prosecutors can still argue that they do not contest the fight but that Zimmerman started it. However, with this photo, the charge of second-degree murder appears even more excessive and undermines Special Prosecutor Angela Corey’s claim that she was not affected by the political pressure to charge Zimmerman. I can understand a manslaughter charge, even with the photo, but no reasonable prosecutor would consider the second-degree murder charge as based on this evidence. Corey clearly must have seen this photo and the reports before her charging of Zimmerman.
The photo should also assist Zimmerman in his efforts to get bail.
Zimmerman, 28, is still being held on charges of second-degree murder of Martin, 17. In my view, a denial of bail would be an abuse and unwarranted given the fact that Zimmerman cooperated at the scene and voluntarily turned himself in.
Source: ABC
Leander : “on Huffington post someone just pointed out to me something I hadn’t registered too much. The noises stop at the point he is asked if he is following him, maybe not immediately but shortly after.”
Around 7:12 on that vid, we hear those wind/walking-with-phone noises. It’c continuous, rhythmical.
At 7:12:02, Zimmerman is responding “OK” to “We don’t need you to do that”
The noises continue *without a break* for about 10 seconds before Zimmerman seems to pause as the dispatchers asks him for name, etc.
That sounds more like Zimmerman pausing only because he feels a need to concentrate more closely on the conversation.
He wasn’t stopping because “we don’t need you to do that”.
It’s more like he’s bad at good multi-tasking.
If that’s conjecture, then the matter becomes very clear at 7:24 on the tape. Having agreed to meet the patrol car at the mailboxes, which are a matter of yards beyond where his SUV is parked – he suddenly changes to ask if they will call him on arrival.
He has no intention of returning to the SUV any time soon. There is only one reason for not returning there. He’s looking for Martin.
If he had actually given up the chase, then he would have gone back to his SUV and the mailboxes.
If you listen to the recording, there is no change whatever to the pattern of background and wind noise leading up to “Are you following him?” and after Zimmerman says “OK”.
Sling, I think, it stops, after a appropriate time to react, that is. But I’ll check that.
To me, a real issue in this case is the idea that we all get to judge whether Trayvon Martin reacted right or reacted wrong to the approach — and we do not know what kind of approach that was but we know it was an unwelcome one — of the apparently white stranger. It does not matter how he responded, for many reasons. (1) Martin was not a cop any more than Zimmerman was a cop. Thus, Martin had no training in how to deal with strangers coming up to him while he was unarmed and alone. (2) Martin had no back-up and, unlike Zimmerman, Martin did NOT know that the police were on their way. So he could have easily imagined that what was in progress was a kidnapping, not a “stop and frisk” or anything else. He could easily have thought that if the guy got him, he would manage to get him into the SUV and manage to spirit him away somewhere and Martin could easily have assumed the possibility of that was greater than he could risk with a polite conversation. (3) Even a wrong response on Martin’s part should have led only to a charge identical to the charge brought against Zimmerman in 2005, so to be fair, Martin would then get an “anger management” 6-month diversion program and everything would be hunky-dory again. You know what? I’m wrong about that. The charge should have been LESS than Zimmerman’s charge of assaulting an officer because, unlike Zimmerman, Martin had no reason to suspect that the guy approaching/following him WAS an officer.
Actually, judging Martin’s response to Zimmerman’s approach in this case is offensive, in my opinion. No excuses are needed for Martin’s behavior no matter what it might have been, because if his behavior was more effective, either evasive behavior or actively defensive physical behavior, he would be alive right now and he could defend himself against charges that he acted wrong. Since he cannot defend himself from any such allegations that can be made against him now, it is inappropriate to even make them. Zimmerman approached him, knowing that he had a loaded gun on him. Zimmerman thereafter shot him dead. Martin’s conduct in between those two WRONGFUL acts is not something I think should be criticized.
I am relapsing: this [call is] more than twice as long as his average earlier ones, at least the ones I know.
Tony C, You began your response to me by saying that ,
“No, you do not need ALL the facts, you need only the pertinent facts..”
***That statement of yours is true IF the case were something like say, someones car that had been stolen. You don’t need ALL the facts to something like that at all.
In this case however someone has been shot and killed and now the life of another person hangs in the balance.
You DO NEED ALL the facts to this serious case. What was the motivations behind both? Who provoked who? Why was there a conflict?
It is IMPERATIVE that ALL the incontrovertible FACTS are collected , establish and verified. Not just the BASIC facts.
Your response tries to minimize the seriousness of this tragedy to corroborate your words.Sorry but this case isn’t comparable to someones car being stolen!
You then go on to say-“..and it is highly probable we have ALL of those in hand<-an assumption.
***Based upon what information do you 'feel' we have ALL of the facts? Sounds a bit BIASED for you to say that .
continuing on-"..trust me when I say that high IQ and being a research scientist is not a correlation you should draw. In fact, you should not assume any job description or credential implies a high IQ.."(and you've displayed a good example of that in this response)
***Christopher Michael Langan,with an IQ at nearly 200 (a former bouncer), is a GOOD EXAMPLE of someone that would not feel the NEED to boast of his earlier career here on this thread just to prove his points.
Somehow I think that BECAUSE OF HIS HIGH IQ that he might not be in total agreement with your presumptuous conclusions.
Tony you also said -"I mention I am a research scientist (and those other things) only because they all require being reality-based, logic based, and eschewing fantasy worlds and unsupported assumptions, all of which I happen to do as my natural inclination."
***You mentioned that you are 'all of that' only to somehow SUBSTANTIATE what you have said thus far. Why? Who else has done that here? Is this an example of underlying pomposity ?
One only needs to reread all those quotes of yours, posted May 9, 2012 at 11:09 am,,to show that all along YOU have been EMBRACING nothing but unsupported ASSUMPTIONS here .
The ‘follow’ part is unarguable. “Are you following him?” “Yes”.
Tony, Sling, I agree he must have followed him further. Sling, listen to the tape again, on Huffington post someone just pointed out to me something I hadn’t registered too much. The noises stop at the point he is asked if he is following him, maybe not immediately but shortly after.
My point would be, just as Trayvon Martin assuming he simply walked on, and the encounter happened were it’s generally assumed it did, Zimmerman would have needed not more than double the time to return to his car. Which means he would have been back there, I am estimating here, at least 19:15. One can check the actual time he is running. We know at what time plus minus a couple of seconds his call ended.
My problem is strictly, I do hear the statement he utters under his breath, but I have enormous problems to hear the fastening of seat-belts or opening or shutting of car doors, as some do. If I hadn’t read that, admittedly I would have assumed he ever was inside his car to start with, since I hear none of these noises, or the noises to not signify anything specific to me. Which ones result from the typing of the dispatcher, or office background noises? Or does that technically make no sense to you? Maybe I do not have an ear for the acoustics of an American car door shutting. I know it is only a slight–now I have a language problem–blobb? with our SAAB door. That is a familiar sound to me. Would I recognize any car door noise in the world, I doubt, I would. Do we always hear the car doors belong to specific cars in movies, I know we don’t.
My initial impression was that the dispatcher tries to keep him from following, something he seems to be doing the first time with the well known result as far as I know. This more than twice as long as his average earlier ones.
*******************************************************************************
I have only one link left, but I am more and more obsessed with precise dates, it seems. This is an important info. In 2009 he completed this 14 weeks, if this figure is correct, training Community Law Enforcement Academy
Strictly this provides ample chances to know some of the officers, or to have at least seen them occasionally depending on where it took place.
@ Leander — I stand corrected, Zimmerman Pere DID express sorrow to the Martin family in the letter. Yes I had read the letter, but some time AFTER the letter and AFTER Father Zimmerman said he was not going to comment any more, he came out announcing that Trayvon Martin broke his son’s nose and threatened to kill his son. THAT mixed me up because in my memory, the letter and the commentary afterwards merged. Sorry.
But on to the issues you so generously addressed — thank you. Not all domestic violence is big bad bully men beating up small sweet innocent women, but it is domestic violence, regardless. We have learned that in trying to protect women from domestic violence, one of the major problems is that even when a situation IS a case of a big bad bully man beating up a small sweet innocent woman (yes, it can happen that way), any counter-charges on the bully’s part can turn into a serious problem in accessing protection for the alleged victim. THUS, ONLY if a domestic partner can access protection — not punishment for the spouse but effective PROTECTION — can anything effective be done. The real problems that arise accessing PROTECTION can embolden a bully to the point of murder.
That is where our society has the most to deal with. We don’t want to be unfair to accused abusers (especially if those accused are people who generally fit into the categories that our most powerful people ALSO fit into) and yet any kind of coddling or legitimizing perpetrators of abuse turns them into much more dangerous perpetrators.
My suggested solution to this was always — for DOMESTIC VIOLENCE — to allow the victim to get OUT safely and to protect the victim, while not actually criminally punishing the alleged perp. This would apply to children who allege abuse and to spouses who allege abuse. If the society simply SUPPORTS them for long enough to get them OUT, and doesn’t try to prosecute anybody, crimes can be prevented rather than punished.
But none of this works when a stranger identifies another stranger as his target, follows him, and kills him. The only reason the DV charges were germane to the Zimmerman case, in my opinion, is that they showed:
1 – allegations of previous violence on Zimmerman’s part when he got stressed;
2 – Zimmerman’s habit of insisting that HE was victimized when he was accused of violence against others; and
3 – Zimmerman’s ability to walk away from trouble that did have the hint of stalking about it.
As to corruption, I believe that it is much more prevalent than you may believe it is. The reason I believe that, of course, is not a result of careful study of careful studies done — indeed, careful studies done could only come out accurate if there was a large enough sample, and the sample is never large enough because only a small minority of generalized corruption ever comes to light — but of my personal experience. Literally hundreds of cops have spoken to me frankly about their experiences with corruption in their own departments, because I used to be a presenter (child abuse cases) for the US Public Health Service. Cops attending my panels or round-tables would “go off the record” with me very often and very easily and nobody mentioned names. Several of them actually helped me “crack cases” when I described situations to them and I DID NOT MENTION NAMES EITHER. A cop helped me prepare a dossier that was presented to the Department of Defense about a child abuse case on an army base. Profilers from Quantico gave me free consults! All kinds of doctors and nurses and providers would come to me during time-off at three-day conferences and work with me — all free — and almost every one of them had a story to tell me (anonymously) about the corruption, at every level of every agency and at every level of the military and civilian hierarchies in which they had worked. The ones with the most “war stories” were always the ones closest to retirement, ready for the “KMA” days.
I believe Corey’s job had two big components to it: (1) Come up with the proper criminal proceedings to resolve the case and remove the “stand-off” that was dangerous; and (2) Draw attention — both federal and public — away from what actually happened in the Police Department and Prosecutor’s office from 2/26/2012 until the story became unmanageable. This latter is very important, of course. We DO have some undeniable facts about it: (a) TWO witnesses at least have gone public saying that the police did not want their information, and that the police were actually refractory to them when they tried to repeatedly offer their information; and (b) the initial police statement that “we have no evidence that the killing was NOT self-defense” was a complete reversal of the general approach, which is to ASSUME that the killing was NOT self-defense unless there is valid evidence that it WAS. Taking the suspect’s statement itself as if it is truth that can only be questioned in the presence of evidence to the contrary never works if the other person in the struggle is dead and thus unable to testify.
There is a very strong scent of corruption in the Zimmerman case. Perhaps the feds will help us get to the point where we are sniffing in other directions by the time they wrap up their investigation (that is often the way things go) but that doesn’t change the air quality in Sanford.
Yep, Sling, a man on a mission…
Oh well, since we’re on it again 🙂
This “Ok he was following but stopped on ‘don’t need you to do that’ ” thing.
If you listen to the recording, there is no change whatever to the pattern of background and wind noise leading up to “Are you following him?” and after Zimmerman says “OK”.
It’s as he’s on the move and continues on without a break. No stop, No U-turn. He keeps following.
@leander22: the more I wonder what is “correct behavior”?
Correct behavior is legal behavior, nothing more (like deference) and nothing less. At least in Florida, which by virtue of their SYG law defines “threatening” behavior as stripping one of their rights to life, liberty, and free speech, the only question for Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin has to be who had reason to fear for their life first. In my mind, that was clearly Trayvon; he did not seek out or pursue Zimmerman and everything he did he did in response to Zimmerman’s pursuit of him.
He sees the violent behavior of some young black men as a defense mechanism.
I see it as the natural result of a lifetime of second class treatment. Second class education, second class job opportunities, second class police and judicial treatment with a greater presumption of guilt and lesser access to fair defense and being on the short end of the stick for preferential police protection: Less pursuit or prosecution of murders and kidnappings in predominately black neighborhoods than in predominately white neighborhoods, and greater prosecution of victim-less crimes (like drug possession) in predominately black neighborhoods than in predominately white neighborhoods. It is not a “defense mechanism” and the sources are not amorphous, they are statistically evident. it is righteous anger at the system for a lifetime of the infrastructure of their society (law enforcement, banks, employers and corporations) using their discretionary powers to effectively discriminate against blacks in favor of whites.
leander22,
Your comment reminds me again of part of Zimmerman father’s statement.
He says
“The events of February 26 reported in the media are also totally inaccurate. Out of respect for the on-going investigation, I will not discuss specifics. However, the media reports of the events are imaginary at best.”
But then he destroys the effect by adding
“At no time did George follow or confront Mr. Martin.
The ‘confront’ part is a matter of Zimmerman’s word over the girlfriend’s word – with something of Zimmerman’s state of mind as evidenced by the 911 recording and also something of Zimmerman’s history.
The ‘follow’ part is unarguable. “Are you following him?” “Yes”.
He issued that statement on March 15th. At that stage he had nearly three weeks during which he had opportunity to discus the matter in great detail with George.
Perhaps the father’s statement was just classic “deny everything”. That’s instinctive for some.
The 911 recording seems to have been released a few days later. That must have had at least one unwelcome surprise for him.
thesethis is (not) an American story onlyI will stop doing this from now on and trust your eyes and mind from now on.
The friend, the detective chief superintendent, I may have mentioned earlier is a specialist for organized crime and corruption. He once recommended a study by a female criminologist to me. This lady tried to get corruption cases all over Germany for her research, there were quite a few courts that denied to pass on the cases to her, they told her they were sealed. Corruption I think is mainly on a different power layer. And there are murky gray areas between organized crime and respectable big business it sometimes feels.
True the police officers may have been aware of George Zimmerman, or may have met him before in connection with earlier calls or trainings, this I guess Crump and partners will try to find out. But strictly this would bring it all down to a much more human level, the level “Brenda-Belle” suggests. They know he is a good functioning reporting citizen trying to help, and yes, this may well influence their perception. Why should he both help and look for their cover? There perspective may be as simple as that. Of course one officer didn’t feel that way, the rest was politics. Which ultimately touches the above established power field.
Interesting interviews with five black young men. Christian Science Monitor, Will Jones
This was my initial response, and if I wouldn’t have observed the politicization of the story, it may well have stopped there. But the more I think about it, the more I wonder what is “correct behavior”? My own experience tells me that confronted with a deep suspicion based on apparent prejudice, it is really hard to behave the way the other side wants or expects you to behave. Every thing you do, may well support his suspicion, and you are aware of it, that she interprets your behavior based on his preconceptions, if I may shift between personal pronouns here?
And yes, then there is this from Tabias Wilson.
He is talking about the difference between were he lives now and were he lived before.
He could have defended his son by simply saying, “I cannot imagine George ever trying to hurt someone unless he was terribly frightened or badly hurt.” Also, Zimmerman Pere didn’t waste any tears for the poor parents whose son was dead, did he?
that’s actually what he did, Malisha, did you ever read the letter?
Robert Zimmerman sen.’s letter.
Trying to make this short: corruption is a very effective context for a thriller. But there are also rules that make it dangerous for a policeman to be corrupt. It’s the same thing as with ordinary citizen, it could be discovered.
Concerning law. It helps to know the basics. In a postgrad program, in what we call cultural management, I was basically trained in economics and law only. I have to admit, I was fascinated by law, much more than by economics.
Let me pick out the obligation for society to prevent future crime by awareness and treatment e.g. of an aggressive behavior resulting from anger. Wouldn’t that need a similar repressive legal law and order system? Were do you differentiate between a”normal” aggression and “deviant” one?
The core problem in psychological training that is forced on someone is, the only thing he may learn is to dissemble. We all have good antennae for expectations. After all, it wasn’t our own decision to have the training, it was forced on us by society, or as in the following case by the father, a doctor (a medic?).
A friend who may well have been the most glaring example I ever met with a symptom now called a bipolor disorder (interestingly we meet the theatrical masks in this article), I still prefer manic depressive, once was sent into the “secure unit” of a mental institution. I do only know the British term for it. She told me she started to paint to pass time. One day one of the employees looked at a painting she liked herself and must have registered she smiled. The lady said, oh it seems you are better. From that moment she realized this, she was constantly in a good mood outwardly, since she realized this would get her out. I do not know to what extend this experience shaped her later behavior, but I can assure you, I never in my life met someone that could switch in a second from entertaining whole parties to disappearing into her room were I found her as bundle deeply down in the most deep depression.
Something else. Can we fight a behavior based on generalizations and mirroring, with our own generalizations?
Generalizations: we observed several black juvenile burglers here, of course all the thefts and break-ins were committed by such (Taaffe), weren’t it actually just two? And maybe another one, that was caught later? So do “we” simply have to watch out for black youth? Which necessarily leads to profiling.
Generalization: all domestic troubles are created by dominating authoritarian males. We do not know to what influence people that now describe George Zimmerman as power-mad, would have done the same without the Trayvon Martin shooting in mind. His former female co-worker does. It admittedly caught my attention too, I am interested in that personality trait. I haven’t looked into the people complaining inside the community so far.
mirroring: I kept wondering if–this is not an attack on Tony’s theory which ultimately is influenced, like I am necessarily, if I do not applaud Dershowitz, by the use of the word profiling in the affidavit–interestingly George’s brother Robert Zimmerman, jun. suggested in an interview, that his brother may well have carried his own gun in his waistband. He too, could of course change his story to fit evidence. In this case support his brother’s later public narrative during the bond hearing: He wasn’t sure that Trayvon was not armed. This obviously contradicts his earlier narrative, Trayvon wanted to wrench his gun from him.
Recorded aggression. I would like to know, when Zimmerman’s trouble with the drunken female happened in his security job happened. It could suggest a different pattern. Does he have an slight alcohol problem, which he compensates by projecting the real evil of being drunk on females? Does he have the impression, no male would ever appear so disgusting when drunk? Surely not himself? Had his girlfriend drunk something before he visited her, I understand they didn’t live together. I am assuming that Zimmerman who grew up in a very conservative family never once in his life witnessed his mother, grandmother or sister even slightly inebriated.
Given this background he may well be the traditional macho. Was there a dilemma on the side of his earlier girlfriend that in a way she was attracted to it, on the other hand, due to a very different background, she also struggled with it. And that is the real core of their strife? The two met somewhere in a bar and formed an acquaintance?
Admittedly I don’t have experience with these type of men, the only thing life thought me, is that men that were bodily punished tend to behave in that way too. But they may not be dangerous as long as the girl-friend or wife has similar traits to the mother or generally the women in the larger family.
One tiny addition, that has been on my mind while reading your comment.
I do not think these is an American story only, a story that shows everything that is evil, if that was the case it wouldn’t attract me to the extend it does. The only factor that is really different is the SYG law, with it’s own possibilities, or legal frame for the “perfect murder” the law creates. …
Shano, in March I began to see the Zimmerman case (which I was still calling the “Trayvon Martin case”) as a watershed event. It meant that several things that were bothering me for a long time had come to attention in a case that didn’t really SEEM to encompass them all, but really did.
1. Corruption in the justice system. It is so pervasive that it will probably never come to light “who did what to whom” on 2/26/2012 in the official realm. Was there a cop or perhaps were there two cops who already knew that Zimmerman had potential to kill somebody, and who were prepared to make sure it didn’t matter if he did so? Was Wolfinger contacted so that he could give them the method of dealing with the case so it would go away? Was their remarkable failure to get information from Martin’s cell phone part of a “make it go away” plan that is still in operation, although under cover? All that and more. I have no trust at all for the law enforcement folks. Most cops are honest and straight-up about their jobs, but the few who are crooked are so effective at keeping others from ruining their game that it matters little how many “good guys” there are per “bad guy” when you’re targeted by a bad guy. In fact, the “good guys” are powerless to stop what the “bad guys” do.
2. Cover-up technology. Hang on; put on your seat-belt; put on your crash helmet; it is not over yet. The special effects will be amazing.
3. Targeting, and blaming the victim. Our country has become an international juvenile delinquent, blaming the victim every single time.
4. The free reign of the bullies. There are gangs of people in the mainstream media AND on the net who shamelessly shout down and intimidate others who try to exercise their rights of free expression. At times it doesn’t matter; at times it is the very SOUL of the allegedly free press. I have had journalists tell me that they were TOLD by their editors to stop covering stories because “the judges do not like it.” You hardly HEAR about the cases that sink like a stone in a quiet brook because journalists are either afraid to write about it or too aware of the damage it will do their careers to buck up against powerful people with stories they want to keep under wraps. The reason the Zimmerman case overcame this media wet blanket effect was that Sharpton and Jackson made such a high-profile initial media assault that they couldn’t be ignored. You can’t mount an offensive like that in every case, but the kinds of injustice we have seen in Florida is extremely common, EXTREMELY COMMON.
5. The “make up anything; they HAVE to believe you” response. I have seen it all, and a lot of it done by the courts themselves. I saw a habeas corpus sit on a federal judge’s desk for 17 months so he could call it MOOT when it could have been decided in 10 minutes because it was a felony trial with NO JURY and NO JURY WAIVER. The judge knew if he heard the case he would have to strike the conviction so he let it sit there until the sentence was over and called it “moot.” That, in my opinion, is no more honest than Zimmerman saying, “I was looking for a street sign and then I was headed back to my SUV and he jumped me from behind.” In my book, that federal judge = George Zimmerman = “tell them anything.” Here’s another one: A judge in Harford County Maryland, family court, had a charcoal drawing on his wall of a young girl, about 12, 13 years old at most, sitting cross-legged facing front, in jeans, unzipped, so you could see her navel and just a bit of her pubic area, and she was looking forward and up with a “come hither” look. OK, it was not a photograph, it was a sketch, but c’mon! And his chambers were filled with teddy bears and stuffed animals. He was not there at the time. I asked his secretary, “Whose art work is in here?” She said it was the judge’s. I asked, “Whose teddy bears and stuffed animals are these?” She said, “Oh they’re HIS, he likes to make the kids feel comfortable when they get interviewed in chambers, you know, in custody battles or abuse cases. The kids just LOVE the Judge. Sometimes he lets them keep a teddy bear.” Just make up anything; they have to believe you. (This same judge ruled that a child had not been molested because when he walked into the children’s waiting area and said “hi” to her, she said “hi” back to him. He concluded, “She’s not afraid of men; she doesn’t have anything against men; if this had happened to her, she would be afraid of men, but she isn’t. She’s perfectly normal.”
But your questions. Unfortunately, it IS pretty common for men who have committed violence to get a “slap on the wrist” if nobody dies. Zimmerman would arrange with his lawyer first that he would give all indications of being apologetic, sorry, really respectful to the court, ready with the “I used bad judgment” response, yada yada, and the lawyer would make the deal. He comes from a good family, father is a judge, they are so ashamed, they will be helping him to get over this, it was just because he had one too many that particular night, he misunderstood, the officer and he have met and shaken hands, all is forgiven, he will never do anything like this again, he is mortified, blah blah blah. MIND YOU HE would not, himself, have to say any of this. Lawyer works it all out. I have seen such a thing happen IN CHAMBERS so there is no public exposure even (forget that speedy public trial stuff; it’s all talk) when a baby-sitter negligently killed a two-month-old BABY! She got off with a one-year probation and she was not allowed to drink during her probation — but neither did she have to report to her probation OFFICER at any time. They call it “inactive probation” and just hope she doesn’t kill anybody else during that year (because to do so would violate probation). The lawyer does all the talking and collects his $25K and it’s over. It keeps the lawyers out of bankruptcy when they have overspent on whatever they overspend on. A dozen cases like this per year and they can float the practice.
The arrest in July and the two domestic violence incidents in August does make sense. Zimmerman was described by a co-worker as a Jekyl and Hyde type. He’s on the upswing or the downswing. When he’s on the downswing, he’s getting drunk, he’s getting mad, he’s disinhibited, he’s talking too much and getting folks mad and riled and he’s mad and riled and irritable. OK so he swings on a cop. UH OH. Safer to just go home and choke the old lady. Swing on a cop, get arrested and have to go through the whole “forgive me” routine. But if you just beat your girlfriend, you can get your own restraining order when she gets hers, and then you’ll ride out the storm while you date other women. Just don’t swing on any of them until your probation is up.
There are many wife-beaters who can really keep it together when they’re with their bosses, with authorities, with people who have power over THEM. I figure Zimmerman for the kind of guy who will generally be able to respond carefully and politely to authorities (he lost it when he was drunk) while he is a bully and an abuser with people over whom HE has authority or thinks he should have authority. Actually, I think he comes by that honestly. That’s how I figure his father, the Magistrate Judge, as well. I found his letter quite obnoxious. He was accusing a dead man of having done all sorts of wrongful things to his son, and while I do expect a father to try to defend his son, I don’t think it should go so far as to impugn actions to someone that (a) seem quite improbable and that (b) are essentially slanderous. He could have defended his son by simply saying, “I cannot imagine George ever trying to hurt someone unless he was terribly frightened or badly hurt.” Also, Zimmerman Pere didn’t waste any tears for the poor parents whose son was dead, did he?
So now I went father than I was asked.
The answer, sadly, is: Yes, George Zimmerman’s prior experience with law enforcement (failing to adequately address really dangerous behavior that threatened the peace of the community) was not atypical for a white man in suburban Florida in the 21st Century.
OK, braved the long page load to ask a question. GZ gets a assault charge in July. Does he go to court before he gets charged with two more assaults in August?
Would a normal person only get a 6 month rehab on probation?
I feel the same way you do Malisha. If we cannot walk around & defend ourselves against strangers or abusive husbands or anyone else who is attacking us then the Law of the Jungle reigns. I thought my taxes paid for civilization instead.
leander, I can still read the posts on my email if I do not want to wait for this page to load, so still reading. I do not know why this case seems to encompass & symbolize so many things that are wrong in America right now.
Leander, I didn’t read Shano as suggesting that you stop commenting; I sure hope you don’t!
That image is very interesting, but basically, I still feel the same way about the CRIME ITSELF that I felt before Turley posted the “bloody head” pix and before the “Trayvon is a petty thug who would have come to no good” started to infect the web like a malignant tumor. IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE.
If someone is coming after me, I hope I can knock him in the head before he kills me, yes I do. I call that standing my ground or maybe I call it simple self-defense or maybe I call it “my right to be human too” but whatever it’s called, I do not want to live without it!
And if I have to be perfect in order to enjoy the right not to be murdered, then I live in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and I’m gonna say so. If I ever had a problem with anybody in school, that doesn’t mean that some nobody with a gun is entitled to kill me and then fools on the web get to say, “OK so Zimmerman shot someone, but Martin was no angel either!”
It’s bullshit. Here’s what I have to say to anyone who imagined that the post-mortem slander of Trayvon Martin somehow excused or exonerated Zimmerman, his KILLER:
Go and prove every victim of the Holocaust was a perfect person. Can’t? Go prove every soldier killed in Vietnam was a perfect person. Can’t? Go prove every person in the WOrld Trade Center on 9/11/2001 was a perfect person. Can’t? Welcome to the real world. You’re not allowed to kill people even if you have decided they are bad people. Get used to it.
OK, maybe Shano is correct and I should shut up now and leave this thread alone.
But this is interesting creating the image of Thug Trayvon Martin by photoshopping photoes and hacking into his account?
The two images, make sure to wait till the image shifts to what appears to be the original. Doesn’t the hand appear too be light?
Source, The Lede.
Shano, it’s my guess that if GZ did not have a gun with him (a loaded gun with him) on 2/26/2012 he would not have gotten out of his car. Which is as it should have been.
His other calls to the police had not resulted in arrests. I think he was very put out by that fact.
Leander, I have struggled with the unwieldy web-page too when I go to comment; typing doesn’t seem to work very well, and sometimes whole words later, I see that it choked on the letters and just spat them out. Still, the reason I stick with this particular thread is that Professor Turley put it up with an assumption that I wanted to immediately comment on (negatively, but respectfully and logically): that blood on Zimmerman’s head implied self-defense on Zimmerman’s part. I found that a totally unacceptable leap of something other than “faith” — although now that I read more of the Professor’s philosophical posts, perhaps it does share some elements with “faith.”
Anyway, I am glad you’re still doing research while you’re commenting on this page. I do have some experience in the domestic violence field and I will tell you that the commonest experience in the DV protective order world is that the victim reports the violence and asks for a protective order; the very next day or, if the perp already expected a report to issue, even that same day, the perp asks for one as well, claiming he was attacked. Well, then, says the judge, “this is a he-said-she-said kinda case and I can’t figure out what really went down so let’s grant them both for a year and let everybody co ol down,” so they do a “no fault” and the thing goes away.
UNLESS somebody LATER gets killed, of course.
You do not need an influential father to get out of a DV complaint the way Zimmerman got out, of course. Everybody can use that very facile explanation of what happened; it’s almost impossible to make the courts look long and hard at context, factual minutiae, or logic. The courts are inferentially illiterate, for the most part.
One thing to remember, however, is that if George Zimmerman intends to try to go to trial and bet on acquittal, he has to expect that the girlfriend with the protective order, the woman he threw across the room (allegedly) when he was working “off the books” on a security guard job at a private party, the co-workers who saw him behave like a “Jekyl and Hyde” personality, the neighborhood resident who said he was afraid to walk in his own neighborhood because he would be “chased” by Zimmerman, the folks who called 911, the neighborhood watch people who were worried about Zimmerman’s behavior, etc. etc. If you have a parade of people getting up there and saying that Zimmerman [scared][hit][hurt][insulted][worried] them before 2/26/2012, you’re going to have a rough row to hoe to put up enough Joe Olivers and Frank Taafes to say “he was a real nice guy who meant nobody any harm.”
I’m actually very interested in his school records, now that we have heard all about Trayvon Martin’s school records. Not a word out of Manassas, Virginia, huh?
Thanks for keeping up on this. It is intriguing.
I think Otteray Scribe will come back and blog some more about the case when it heats up again. It looks to me as if he is very busy — check out Daily Kos.
@Bosco: No, you do not need ALL the facts, you need only the pertinent facts, and it is highly probable we have ALL of those in hand.
I do not recall mentioning my IQ. I did mention I am a research scientist, but trust me when I say that high IQ and being a research scientist is not a correlation you should draw. In fact, you should not assume any job description or credential implies a high IQ, on the contrary, both imply a deep expertise and knowledge in a rather narrowly defined subject area; nothing more.
I mention I am a research scientist (and those other things) only because they all require being reality-based, logic based, and eschewing fantasy worlds and unsupported assumptions, all of which I happen to do as my natural inclination.
IQ means little, Emotional Quotient means less, I will let readers conclude what they will about either statistic, good or bad. They are going to anyway no matter what I tell them.