Skip to main content

Someone who lived close to the spot where the deadly encounter between G. Zimmerman and T. Martin took place made a 911 call to the authorities, and in the background one of the combatants can be heard screaming for help -- then sudden silence ensues after the sound of gunfire.

On the grounds that their methods are questionable, at the outset of the trial the judge ruled that testimony of two sound experts about this cry for help  could not be introduced into the trial proceedings.  One of these experts had concluded that this desperate entreaty was uttered by Martin, while the other had said that the matter was uncertain but that the screamer could not have been Zimmerman.  This ruling was considered to be a blow to the prosecution, and meanwhile the Zimmerman devotees are certain that the cry came from their guy, therefore the "self-defense" nonsense.

Let's see now.  Can't logic and total probability play any part here?

We note that one of the combatants is armed only with a bag of some munchies called "Skittles," a container of tea, and a cellphone.

We also note that the other one, the aggressor and the one who precipitated the whole thing by stalking the teenager, is armed with an operable handgun, and in its chambers are real and equally operable bullets.

So which person is by far the one most likely to have been afraid for his life and calling for help, especially given the only too obvious fact that armies of people have been killed by others wielding handguns, and in fact that is a daily occurrence in these United States of America, in droves.  And while we're at it, we might also ask why so many people of Zimmerman's patrilineal pigmentation are so busy mobbing gun stores and gun shows to scoop up tools much like the one that Zimmerman carried, for the express but carefully unexpressed (in public) purpose of mass shootings of people of Trayvon Martin's persuasion, should they get the chance?  Yet there've been no reports of similar runs for the items that the teenager was carrying, and, as far as I know, history is notably light on recording cases of anyone being shot and killed with a bottle of tea, a cellphone, or a bag of "Skittles."  That is, unless the ever avid firearms death industry has been adding its expertise to the design of cellphones, a development that has not yet made the news, though quite likely that point might be already close at hand.

The idea that a bulky, 207-pound guy with a loaded gun in his pocket is afraid of getting his brains bashed out or of otherwise being offed by an unarmed youth 50 pounds lighter seems totally ridiculous to me.  And this is especially confirmed by how visual sightings as well as noting Zimmerman’s actions during this whole thing, in addition to his total lack of lifetime achievements, suggest without any doubt that as much as 95 percent of the space in his noggin is occupied by pure bone, making it clearly impervious to more than superficial damage from anything short of a jackhammer.

 Yet in his opening statement, one of the defense attorneys, who must share Zimmerman’s cranial bone excess, after beginning his spiel by telling a “knock-knock" joke that fell completely flat and was an insult to the jury, decided to go still farther into lala land by finding a weapon  after all for Trayvon Martin.   He argued that Martin had brought along a concealed weapon in the form of a concrete sidewalk, with which the back of Zimmerman’s head is thought to have come into contact, at the time if not later.

But of course this “self-defense” flipdoodle is not at all ridiculous to those who are so committed to seeing Zimmerman literally getting away with murder.  Such people never ever let absurdity stand in their way.   It's a big part of the American Experience, and all the Trayvon Martin survivors with his kind of melanin count know that only too well.

-

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I Believe That Mr. Zimmerman Could Not (8+ / 0-)

    Have reached his gun in his pocket if he was on the bottom and fighting for his life.  At some point at the end of the fight Mr. Zimmerman escaped from Mr. Martin, reached for his gun and shot Mr. Martin at point blank.  This is one scenario.  The most truthful scenario is that Mr. Zimmerman never had his gun in his pocket at all, but was holding the gun throughout the fight and Mr. Martin was fighting for his life, and was shot at point blank defending that life.

    "Don't Let Them Catch You With Your Eyes Closed"

    by rssrai on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 08:57:34 AM PDT

    •  Expert witness for the defense said otherwise. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sparhawk, VClib, Victor Ward
    •  I agree (3+ / 0-)

      I think what the case rests on is whether the defense can make us believe there is some reasonable doubt about anything.

      Zimmerman outweighed Martin, was older and had been trained. Despite that the defense witnesses testified to things that would support a verdict of not guilty by reasonable doubt if you found them believable I find the whole scenario argues against them being believable

      Zimmerman started it, he was the aggressor, he was armed. After shooting Martain he didn't attempt to save his life as the medics did. I put the responsibility for what happened on Zimmerman because nothing prevented him from avoiding the whole thing.

      The scenario Defense was arguing was shot full of holes when it became apparent that if Zimmerman was under Trayvon Martin on the sidewalk he couldn't draw his gun from where the testimony said it was holstered.

      If Zimmerman was holding a gun on Martin while both were still standing and then there was a confrontation in which push came to shove and both were struggling and it ending up with Zimmerman on the ground shooting Martin that possibly plausible excuse for self defense was not argued.

      I'd vote to convict.

      Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

      by rktect on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 11:19:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Been there, failed to do it... (0+ / 0-)

      I've been in the situation before - pinned by another combatant in a deadly fight (I came out of it severely injured and would have died a month after if I had not randomly thought to go to the hospital again and ask some questions).

      When pinned down, by a person who was maybe 30 pounds lighter than me... it was all I could do to try and grab his mouth... rationality escaped me and I ended up getting bit hard on my fingers...

      I had a car full of items around me, including my own camera bag which was heavy enough to make a perfect bash in his head weapon (this was the 90s, that thing was weighty).

      But he had me down.

      Getting something out of my pocket; which included keys and a few sharp items, was an impossibility.

      If Trayvon had pinned Zimmerman, this would have ended very differently.

      Having been in the Zimmerman claimed position: the bigger but unskilled person pinned down - there was nothing I could do but get beat on until I was able to squirm out from under him.

  •  You just outlined a very good case for a civil (8+ / 0-)

    suit, where probability plays a big part, i.e.,  where only a preponderance of evidence (51%) is required to prevail.  I think your argument would indeed have an excellent chance to prevail in that setting.

    However, the burden of proof in a criminal case is "beyond a reasonable doubt."  What is reasonable to one person is unreasonable to another.  In the absurdity that is the 21st century, the word "reason" itself has been cheapened beyond all - I almost said "reason."  And there are 12 "geniuses" sitting on the jury, each of whom has an individual idea of what reasonable means, shaped and distorted by his own worldview, whipped into a frenzy by prosecutors and defense attorneys who don't give a damn about guilt or innocence, only winning.  And yes, I know that's the way it's supposed to work.  Justice.

    Given that, I tend to favor a judiciary that is extremely conservative about what evidence of guilt is permitted, regardless of what my own personal, reasoned opinion about that evidence would be if presented.  There are too many innocent people in prison and in graveyards as the result of a failure to reason out the correct answer, especially in my home state of Texas.  It is on their behalf that my position rests.  Even if someone I personally deem guilty is exonerated because of it.

    Of all the preposterous assumptions of humanity over humanity, nothing exceeds most of the criticisms made on the habits of the poor by the well-housed, well-warmed, and well-fed. --Herman Melville

    by ZedMont on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 09:00:38 AM PDT

  •  Martin didn't know Z had a gun. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Victor Ward, Neuroptimalian
    So which person is by far the one most likely to have been afraid for his life and calling for help
    If M didn't know Z had a gun until the final moment, why would that impact an assessment of who was more likely to be screaming?
  •  Okay, here's what I think... (10+ / 0-)

    Mr. Zimmerman, carrying a loaded handgun, against the instructions from the 9-11 operator and well beyond his responsibilities as a so-called, self-appointed neighborhood watchman, stalked, pursued, and confronted a 19-year-old unarmed boy.  Trayvon Martin was doing noting illegal, nothing suspicious, yet Trayvon Martin is dead at the hands of George Zimmerman.

    Who was screaming on the tape?  I don't believe it matters.  It well may have been Zimmerman.  Zimmerman appears to me to be a somewhat pudgy, out-of-shape coward/bully who would scream like a baby if physically challenged.  So yeah, Martin may well have punched the bastard and scared the shit out of him (I'm frankly surprised he didn't wet his pants); but there is no way; no way in hell Zimmerman was afraid for his life to the extent it would justify firing a gun.

    IMO, the whole "who was on top of whom" debate only obfuscates the salient point - Zimmerman went after Martin with a loaded gun and killed him. The rest is bullshit.

    You can't spell CRAZY without R-AZ.

    by rb608 on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 09:04:44 AM PDT

    •  Right. (6+ / 0-)

      And we know his state of mind when he told the 911 operator that "those" people always get away with it.

      I watched very little of the trial but yesterday I saw the woman testify who says the neighborhood watch was set up when her home was invaded.  It turns out Zimmerman was pretty mad the kid was underage and got away with it.  I was surprised that the defense used her as a witness.  As the prosecutor I would have used that information to show why he would chase after and kill one of "those" people.

      Republican tax policies have led to financial conditions which have caused Republicans to demand cuts to programs they have always opposed.

      by AppleP on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 09:13:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  rb - but the rest is critical in a murder case (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rb608, erush1345, Neuroptimalian

      There seems to be big focus on Zimmerman's conversation with the 911 operator, what the operator said to him, that he left his truck, and that he was armed, all of which would matter in a civil case. It has almost no bearing on this trial under Florida criminal statutes. The jury will be instructed that they can only consider the evidence presented at the trial and the current, applicable Florida law. The instructions will make you, and many others here very unhappy, but that will be the duty of the jury and how our criminal justice system works.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 10:02:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  " logic and total probability" (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Victor Ward, Dogs are fuzzy, denise b

    is really history and race.

    This case, like a lot of others will get wrapped into
    the burdens of 400 years of racial injustice.

    some people see a racist white man, hunting a african-american  teen and killing him.

    some people see a black thug stalking a well meaning citizen
    and attempting to beat him to death.

    I see two people making stupid decisions, that led to life changing results for both of them.

    TM seeing he was being followed, could have run home or called the police or his father.

    GZ could have stayed in his car.

    both made bad decisions.

    Probability is a heck of a reason to lock someone up or send someone to jail.

    He Probably did something wrong so we are going to convict him.

    The state has a burden of proof to show GZ unreasonably shot TM.  It's a real tough burden.

    if TM had been shot in the back, that would be unreasonable force by GZ.

    if TM had been shot at 10-25 foot distance, that would be unreasonable force by GZ.

    The evidence shows GZ shot with his pistol in contact with TMs clothing.  

    The Defense expert testifies that TM was crouching over GZ when he shot him.  

    so from a logic point of view, TM who was 50 lbs lighter, younger in better shape and was one block from where he would be headed to, allowed a fatter out of shape doughboy
    to catch him in a few dozen yards, beat him mercilessly
    such that he was screaming for help and then hold him up in the air one handed while he shot him.

    If one man is running away and the other is following,
    even if GZ is a really good athlete, the capture point would be much further down.

    So TM must have either gotten lost/disoriented, went to ground or ran around behind GZ and crept up on him.

    if it's option 3, that's engaging to a fight.

    if it's option 2, it's either because he was winded or looking to spring a trap.

    a young healthy teen is unlikely to be winded in such a short distance,  

    if he was looking to spring a trap, again, that's looking to fight.

    if he was seeking to spy on GZ and determine his intentions,
    that's a neutral thing.

    that remains he was lost/disoriented.

    He knew the area, had been there before, was not far from his destination, and  even if disoriented, it's unlikely he would run right back into GZ.  

    if he had, he had again two choices.  engage or dis-engage.

    if he chose to engage it was a terrible choice.

    I don't know what happened, but, the evidence isn't
    exactly pointing to cold blooded murder.

    i think 2 people made poor choices with life altering results.

    •  One person (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      protectspice, FiredUpInCA, IreGyre

      made poor choices. The adult with the gun who presumed Martin guilty of...something... based on the melanin level of his skin. Zimmerman had to hear the police drawing near; they were on site less than 90 seconds after he fired his weapon.

      He did not have to instigate this; he did not have to escalate this. He did not have to be armed; he did not have to pursue Martin.

      Place the blame where it belongs.

      Fear doesn't just breed incomprehension. It also breeds a spiteful, resentful hate of anyone and everyone who is in any way different from you.

      by awesumtenor on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 02:09:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  they both made poor choices. (0+ / 0-)

        GZ decided TM was suspicious. That's clear from the 911 calls. GZ even on his own, decided to call 911, follow in his car, and even follow on foot.

        That's all on the record, that's all in calls.
        It was stupid to get out of his car. It was stupid to
        follow on foot.  

        However it was not illegal.

        TM made poor choices. He knew he was being followed
        by an unknown "Creepy Ass Cracker".  He decided to call his GF, instead of his Father, 911, etc.
        TM was running. For reasons unknown he decided not to run home. He was one block away.  

        TM was running while GZ was fat and out of shape, somehow TM let the distance between them close to zero.  That was a poor choice.

        The issue the jury has to figure out is "Was GZ reasonably in fear of his life or bodily harm when he fired."

        two men made poor choices, it cost one of them his life.
        It may yet cost the other his life.

        •  He was *already* on the phone (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FiredUpInCA, IreGyre

          The whole thing wasn't more than a few minutes long. It's obvious GZ was on a mission to detain until the police arrived. TM fought back as anyone would do, and was killed.

          •  Apparently (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            protectspice, IreGyre

            Submitting to being stalked and detained in his neighborhood, is the new "poor choices."

            "I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights." (From "You Said a Mouthful" by Bishop Desmond Tutu - South African bishop & activist, b.1931)

            by FiredUpInCA on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 02:38:23 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Meant to say (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              protectspice

              Not submitting to being stalked and detained in his neighborhood, is the new "poor choices."

              "I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights." (From "You Said a Mouthful" by Bishop Desmond Tutu - South African bishop & activist, b.1931)

              by FiredUpInCA on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 02:41:38 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  when you sense trouble, (0+ / 0-)

                you can move towards it or you can move away from it.

                that's just basic city skills.

                when I'm headed home from the subway, and 1 or 2
                unknown males are following me, I don't turn around to see what's up, I start walking faster.

                That TM lacked these basic city skills, just speaks to bad choices.

          •  you think that, (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Neuroptimalian

            you may even infer that,
            but i haven't heard any evidence that that happened.

            Think timeline.

            THe timeline has 5 minutes from the last Zimmerman phone call to the first 911 call by a neighbor.

            TM was "Running" a healthy young person should be able
            to run down an city block in under a minute.

            if GZ ran him down to detain him, i'd be amazed.

            that 5 minute gap is reasonable doubt.

            •  When someone pulls a gun on you, do you run in a (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              IreGyre

              straight visible line to your house, or do you run and hide?

              All common sense flown out the window. TM deserved tobe accosted and then shot because he ran and hid instead of just making a beeline for his front door. ABSURD.

              •  TM was running before GZ left his car. (0+ / 0-)

                so unless GZ was waving a gun at him,
                from inside the car, TM had decided to beat feet
                even before the first bit of stupidity happened.

                And for me, a door with family and friends seems a lot
                better idea then hanging out in the dark.

  •  All of these issues were hashed out in court (4+ / 0-)

    ...and were for the most part found wanting.

    (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
    Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

    by Sparhawk on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 09:17:07 AM PDT

  •  What makes no sense to me, is why Zimmerman (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rb608, JayBat, jdld

    would have screamed at all!

    The crime scene must have revealed that Trayvon was not carrying a weapon.  There apparently was no broken bottle being wielded and no large rock found in the right spot at the scene.

    Thus, a skinny, unarmed teenager, carrying candy and a beverage, would cause a grown man WHO HAD ENOUGH NERVE TO FOLLOW HIM IN THE FIRST PLACE to scream?  THAT makes no sense at all.

    Ayn is the bane! Take the Antidote To Ayn Rand and call your doctor in the morning: You have health insurance now! @floydbluealdus1

    by Floyd Blue on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 09:20:15 AM PDT

  •  This trial is like a road map (13+ / 0-)

    for how to legally kill young black men.

    Money doesn't talk it swears.

    by Coss on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 09:21:52 AM PDT

  •  Why would Zimmerman stop screaming for help after (12+ / 0-)

    the shot was fired? It is his assertion that he didn't think he hit Trayvon & kept wrestling with him after. So why'd he stop screaming for help?

    'Cause your eyes are tired & your feet are too & you wish the world was as tired as you." - Lowell George

    by rasbobbo on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 09:38:42 AM PDT

  •  This is not the central issue. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    IreGyre

    It is far more important whether you conclude that the "f***ng punks" comment combines with taking his gun and disaobeying the request not to continue following Martin to constitute malice.

    Have you heard? The vice president's gone mad. - Bob Dylan, 1966

    by textus on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 10:33:27 AM PDT

  •  Why would the guy with the gun scream help? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FiredUpInCA, IreGyre

    That makes no sense. The guy with the gun or the guy with the Skittles yelled for help. Which one do you think would do that?

    O great creator of being grant us one more hour to perform our art and perfect our lives. ::: Jim Morrison :::

    by Kevanlove on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 12:40:35 PM PDT

  •  Zimmerman unlikey to be convicted... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FiredUpInCA

    With the voice experts out, and all of the claims and counter claims...

    I suspect he will get acquitted.

    This is why the prosecution is trying for the Child Abuse charge. They know they've likely lost, but that the guy is likely guilty.

    At this point it is a search for anything that might stick.

    But sadly this case is more likely to go down as yet more proof that Black males do not have a right to life in the USA...

    - And even if Zimmerman did act in self defense... that would still be true.

    For me, the only facts that mattered were two:
    1. Zimmerman chose to go after this guy. He picked the fight, and started before Trayvon even knew he was being followed. Self-defense should be precluded from being argued on the sheer grounds that Zimmerman hunted him down.

    To get to self-defense, Zimmerman, as the instigator, would have had to flee from the fight and then be pursued by Trayvon - something no one is claiming happened.

    Stand your ground? Not if you started it.

    2. Another Black male is dead in an encounter that did not need to happen.

    One almost has to wonder what Trayvon was thinking not being armed in a reality like this, where its a foregone conclusion that eventually, they will come for you.

  •  It's a disgrace (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    maggierose, IreGyre

    The 'voice experts' were disqualified, and yet 9 out of 10 defense witnesses were only called to give their opinion on the same. Defense had ZERO credible or relevant witnesses, only family members, cop friends, and Sanford cops who are looking to save face. Remember it was them in the first place who were 100% willing to beleive GZ's version of events.

    It really will come down to whether or not the jurors are racist. As is so often the case.

  •  Trayvon's sceams (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    IreGyre

    I think the screaming we hear on the 911 call is Trayvon and he is looking at the gun Zimmerman is getting ready to aim -  right for his heart.  It's the only plausible scenario for the sequence of screams heard on the call.  It's not a Zimmerman getting the gun ready to fire as  the screams wouldn't be so regular in sequence and uninterrupted .  I think the rhythm of the screams depict a more static situation such as Trayvon facing that gun as Zimmerman got in position to aim right into his heart.

    •  I agree - screams sound really scared (0+ / 0-)

      The screams seemed to me to be coming from someone who is really frightened for his life. I do think it is Trayvon and he has seen the gun and knows that he is at great risk. For Zimmerman to shoot at that point seems very cold-blooded to me. And his affect and interviews throughout showed no remorse. Even after he came to understand that the boy was not a criminal, he still didn't care.

      The worst thing about an acquital is that Zimmerman will still be walking around with his gun and this could happen again.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site