The $25,000 Challenge

“If anyone would like to present an argument, or arguments, that changes my conclusion regarding GZ’s moral sine qua non in the current legal case, I’ll gladly contribute $25,000 to his defense fund before the end of this week.”

So says analyst1961.

http://annettekblog.wordpress.com/2013/05/29/may-29-2013/#comment-4013

Apparently that comment has caused quite a stir.

http://statelymcdanielmanor.wordpress.com/2013/05/30/the-trayvon-martin-case-update-29-3-morality-and-inaction/

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2013/5/30/15139/6075/crimenews/George-Zimmerman-s-Fund-Drive

With further commenting happening on later open threads on Nettles blog regarding the matter.

So let’s look at the entire comment(my bold):

I have not contributed to the GZ legal defense fund, which might surprise those who have perused my comments. I think – while completely legal to the best of my analysis – GZ’s decision to get out of the truck with a handgun was a serious moral failure. I also have substantive doubt regarding his claim of looking for an address; I think GZ wanted to be part of the action. I could be wrong, but that element of the story may be indeterminable. That TM got to him before he could get back to his truck after looking for an address seems too convenient from my perspective. Ethically, in my opinion – knowing the police were en route – his job was done after the NEN call. Ergo, I have no compassion for GZ regarding his actions on the night of the shooting, nor the impetus to donate any monies.

Moving forward from that night to the events of the present day, do I think he is the victim of a political and racially-fueled prosecution? Clearly. Do I think he should strike down upon these rat-bastards with great vengeance and furious anger? Hell yes. So, as far as restitution from this seemingly illegal prosecution and the myriad libels and slanders by media and individuals, I’d gladly contribute. However, these cases – and I predict they will be numerous – will be (and already are) handled on a contingency bases by very willing and very capable law firms, and he will not need my funds for that.

If anyone would like to present an argument, or arguments, that changes my conclusion regarding GZ’s moral sine qua non in the current legal case, I’ll gladly contribute $25,000 to his defense fund before the end of this week.

Well I would like to get the defense $25,000 but considering I do not have $25,000 I will have to take the challenge.

Here’s problem number 1. “serious moral failure”

Those three words stung together like that make no sense to me. Regardless, judging by the context of what analyst1961 says, and I hope he’ll correct me if I am wrong, it is that George is in part responsible for the death of Trayvon because of George’s action(s) to put himself into a position of potential danger. This is why analyst1961 has no compassion for GZ, George did it to himself, at least partially.

So there are many ways to attempt to get the defense the $25,000, some like Mike McDaniel and ackbarsays have tried but apparently have failed, as will I I assume, lol.

Let me offer this. In one way what analyst1961 is doing is blaming the victim. Yes, George is the victim. There is no justification for assaulting George. If you can provide me evidence that George “took him down” like Bernie lies about then you would have a justified response on the part of Trayvon but that evidence does not exist. Let us make no mistake on who the perpetrator is here. Trayvon had more than one chance to discontinue his assault. He could have stopped when George tried to get away. He could have stopped when George was screaming. He could have stopped when George tried to extricate himself from the clearly dominating position Trayvon had him in which W6 witnessed. He could have stopped when W6 yelled he was calling police. Despite all of that and clearly winning Trayvon never stopped. Trayvon was the one who did it to himself.

I could try other attempts but that should be a good start however I could go into technical details such as there is no evidence that exists that tells us Trayvon even knew George got out of the truck when he ran. From Trayvons perspective all he saw was some guy sitting in a truck he thought was watching him and later saw the same guy walking down the sidewalk. This justifies what Trayvon did? Not at all. This was a wrong George committed? I fail to see how. I could also say that George said he had his truck lights shining down the direction of the T and could clearly see Trayvon was out of the area only to lose sight of him behind the buildings, no doubt before he even got to walking, and considering his past experience with people getting away figured he got away and at that time felt he was not putting himself into a position of danger.

How about a counter offer. If analyst1961 can convince me beyond a reasonable doubt that George committed a serious moral failure, clarifying serious moral failure of course, then I’ll give an e-cake offering to analyst1961 in a blog telling the world of his greatness over mine. But if he can’t or I convince him, not merely from this post but by any future interaction, then the $25,000 from analyst1961 goes to the defense fund.

Update

As one can see from the comments below me and analyst1961 have had some back and forth. I think despite the nature of the comment section it is going well. However at the pace we’re going the trial may be over before we come to any conclusion. As it stands right now all I really know within that line of thoughts we had in the comment section is that any “thing” beyond the call to police is wrong. The truck thing appears to be just a way of saying that. In other words then, George positioned himself from point A to point B. And this action put himself and others in danger. I find this unsatisfactory to say the least. We know where point A approximately is and we know where point B approximately is. Looking at a map I fail to see how moving from point A to point B is a danger to anyone. Again, I’m not trying to be an ass here, there clearly must be more to it than merely moving from point A to point B. And for that I will have to wait for analyst1961’s response.

Enjoy. Examine. Find the Truth.

Advertisements

371 thoughts on “The $25,000 Challenge

  1. How could he have possibly foreseen that getting out of the truck would lead to a shooting? The end result was not inevitable from the second he got out of the truck. And he wanted to be part of the action? What action? He wasn’t a looky loo trying to get a better look at a fight. The only way it could be a moral failing is if he intended to shoot him from the moment he got out of the truck and there is no evidence that shows that. That would also mean that george believed that he would be able to catch up with a running teenager who had a head start. IMO george thought martin was gone. He wanted to see the direction he was heading to or maybe see if he ran into a house. He would never have followed if he thought the distance could be closed. He was trying to keep him in site not make contact with him.

  2. A serious moral failure in my opinion, DiwataMan. As I noted, his duty was done (as far as I’m concerned) when he hung up with NEN. If the person is so suspicious that you feel it necessary to dial NEN, then doesn’t it stand to reason that you consider this person a serious risk? Isn’t getting out of the truck with a handgun (while entirely legal) the least bit imprudent, a de facto escalation – or perhaps a serious moral failure? And since looking for an address behind the houses / condos doesn’t make any sense, is it reasonable to assume that he went looking for TM, not a house number?

    I’ll be happy to have a reasonable debate with you, I’ve also made a small donation to the GZ legal defense fund, with more to follow if arguments continue to make my rigid moral assessment more grey. And this isn’t about me, as some have suggested, it’s about GZ. And from some private comments I’ve received, I’m not the only one with these reservations. Thanks for all the incredibly hard work you’ve put into this case…

    • TY, YW and very well.

      So have you not given consideration to my attempt in the blog itself following “Let me offer this.”?

      I see nothing in your comment here to indicate so. Please consider what I have to say there and the paragraph that follows it.

      I can take your position here one thing at a time.

      “his duty was done (as far as I’m concerned) when he hung up with NEN”

      So his moral wrong that he committed was going beyond his duty? But beyond his duty into what? That of the duty of another? The police?

      • So his moral wrong that he committed was going beyond his duty? But beyond his duty into what? That of the duty of another? The police?

        That is precisely what I’m saying. The NEN call was a reasonable response, in my opinion, given what GZ had witnessed that night. Is that clear? Not trying to be obtuse, ya know.

        • So then how precisely and in what way exactly did he take on this duty of a policeman? Also, whatever the answer to that is, how is it a violation of the non policeman?

          • Who’s a policeman? Sean or GZ. The answer is neither. If you think Sean is a sworn LEO you’re wrong.

            Not sure what a violation of a non-policeman is? And, again, I’ve said that nothing GZ did was illegal. Nothing. Just my opinion that it was a moral failure. My opinion – nothing more, nothing less. Everyone has one, most people’s stink… Perhaps my own.

            • Going back through the comments if need be it would be George according to you. George went beyond his duty, this duty which belongs to another, belonging to that of a policeman. George took on the duty of a policeman. I’m trying to find out precisely what that is and how in your opinion it is a violation. Are you changing that now?

              • In general, GZ is a civilian and can’t take on the duties of a policeman – am I reading you correctly? Are you moving the goalposts or am I missing something? (not being a smart-ass, just trying to keep up. And only for about another half-an-hour this evening- it is Friday night…)

                • I’ve set no goal post. You just questioned “Who’s a policeman?” Then said George is not. I know he’s not.

                  By your comment you have agreed “That is precisely what I’m saying.” to my comment :

                  “So his moral wrong that he committed was going beyond his duty? But beyond his duty into what? That of the duty of another? The police?”

                  Again, you agreed to that.

                  So it is your position that George went beyond his duty into that of a policeman’s.

                  So unless you are changing that original position we are left with the last question:

                  So then how precisely and in what way exactly did he take on this duty of a policeman? Also, whatever the answer to that is, how is it a violation of the non policeman?

                  • Thank you – now I’m completely confused. And having a Hell of a hard time keeping pace. GZ was doing nothing illegal in getting out of his truck and even chasing TM (not saying he chased him, just saying if he did) I don’t dispute that and don’t think I ever have. Legally. Again, I’d have left it at the NEN call. Please let me know if, or how, that is non-responsive. Thank you, D-Man…

                    • I don’t mean to confuse, I think I’m rather clear and concise. I’d like to get to precisely and with specificity what this duty is you believe George took on that he ought not have. Perhaps starting over would help.

                      “So his moral wrong that he committed was going beyond his duty?”

                      You say yes.

                      Now I ask beyond into what exactly?

                      If you note I have said nothing of legalities, the law, etc. quite the contrary, I’m asking what you think, in your opinion etc. Don’t ascribe to me positions I have not stated and then answer them as if I had i.e. “GZ was doing nothing illegal” I didn’t say he was or saying you said he was. Please just answer precisely what I ask of.

                      We have reached the end of this comment string. I will repost it below as a new comment, Please respond there.

                    • If I might interject here with a question? You stated above that “Ethically, in my opinion – knowing the police were en route – his job was done after the NEN call” The NEN call ended with George already out of his vehicle. so his job was ended, but how was he to get back to his vehicle except by walking back from where the call ended and passing by the T where he was attacked by Trayvon?

          • Of course! And if a bystander tackled a gunman to stop him from shooting more people then that is a moral failure! He should have just let the police handle it! But no, he took on the duty of a police officer instead of just dutifully calling the police and waiting patiently for them to respond. What a moral failure! And if a bystander starts performing CPR on an unconscious person, same deal. He was just taking over the duties of a paramedic! Moral failure seems to often be described as heroism when these types of things are reported though for some reason. Perhaps one of us should clear that up for them! Everyone is only allowed to do their duty, as it is decided by analyst1961!

              • Actually it was a sarcastic appeal to your intellect not emotions, and I wasn’t questioning your character, just your reasoning. Put the “word a day” calendar away and stop trying to shoehorn those words into every comment.

                • Another ad hominem. You want me to apologize for my extensive vocabulary? You think I have a ‘word a day’ calendar? Cute. ‘Big words’ tend to be very precise and their usage appropriate. (n.b. – I used the more common term ‘vocabulary’ instead of ‘lexicon’ – just for you)

    • Isn’t getting out of the truck with a handgun (while entirely legal) the least bit imprudent, a de facto escalation – or perhaps a serious moral failure?

      In a concealed carry state, people are free to carry loaded weapons in most locations. If you have a moral disagreement, that’s your own personal issue, not George’s.

      And since looking for an address behind the houses / condos doesn’t make any sense, is it reasonable to assume that he went looking for TM, not a house number?

      You are conveniently omitting some known facts. George did follow Trademark until he reached the T in the sidewalk. This is where George lost sight of Trademark and the NEN dispatcher asked if he was following and then told George it wasn’t necessary for him to follow. (And George stayed put.)

      The fact that Trademark ran behind the townhouses isn’t George’s fault. And the fact that the addresses aren’t on the backs of the townhouses isn’t George’s fault. And the fact that the NEN dispatcher requested a location for the police to meet George and George couldn’t immediately provide an address is not George’s fault.

      It’s obvious to me that you have an inflated sense of your own intelligence. You consider yourself analytical and “moral”, but you are neither. You are an illogical self-serving fool. Please do not ever be a juror.

      • An illogical, self-serving fool? Quite vitriolic, Tara.

        I’m asking questions and I think you’re assuming ‘facts’ untrue. Sean had the legal authority to order GZ to find an address? Not hardly…

        • She said requested. Where did she say that Sean had the legal authority to order zimmerman to find an address? Show me where she said that or be an adult and admit you were wrong.

          • Tara can’t build her own arguments? I’m saying that Sean can request anything he likes, but he has no legal aurhority – it follows in the ‘logic’ of her argument. QED.

            • I’m sure she can. But I don’t like it when people put words in others comments. It was my way of letting her know that no one else here would think that is what she meant. Although im sure she already knew that. She never even hinted that he had legal authority to order anyone to do anything.

    • I’m guessing if he thought he was a serious risk he would have called the emergency number. And he had no reason to think that martin would double. And using the word moral when discussing the decision to get out of the truck is absurd. Was it a bad decision? Maybe. But a moral failure? No.

        • I’m not sure what that was in reference to. It never crossed my mind in this case to consider “bad decision” as a water downed phrase meaning “moral failure”. What is morally wrong about getting out of his truck? You have no way of knowing what was going through his mind at that point.

            • Repeating that isn’t adding any insight as to your position. I get that it is your opinion. Why is it your opinion? What about the whole truck deal made it a moral failing?

              • Wow. Getting out of the truck in spite of the fact the he assessed TM’s actions to be dangerous enough to warrant a NEN call. Am I missing something – not trying to be obstinate…

                • What is a NEN call? Oh, that’s right, it’s a NON Emergency Number call. NON Emergency. I assume you know what those three letters at the beginning (before the word “emergency”) mean, right?

                  • Yes, I know what NEN means and why I use it instead of the incorrectly oft-used 911. But, are you saying GZ didn’t view TM as dangerous? GZ didn’t want to give out his address out because he thought TM might be around to hear it. Ergo, I’d say that GZ thought TM was dangerous. Fair analysis?

                    • On a scale of 1 to 10 how dangerous did George think TM was, lets go inside George’s head and find out.

                      Why did Trayvon attack George, break his nose, straddle him, assault him and not stop? Everything else is, “she wanted to be raped because she walked down the street in that teeny little skirt!”

                    • “So you’ve admitted that GZ found TM to be dangerous and not merely suspicious, correct? Now we’re arguing degree?”

                      I was being sarcastic regarding your comment to ackbar. You’re not comprehending the simple fact that George had a right to do everything he did, and Trayvon didn’t!

                      Trying to find purity and morality in George’s action, is no different from “she wanted to be raped because she walked down the street in that teeny little skirt!”

                      Your holding George to a standard that is immoral and unreasonable!

                    • I absolutely comprehend that GZ had every legal right to do everything he did. I don’t believe I’ve ever said GZ did anything illegal. If you can point out an example, I’ll sincerely apologize. I’m not trying to find ‘purity’ – never used that word. I’m even considering if I’m conflating judgment versus morality. Never been an issue of legality for me. Never. Ok?

                    • Yes, okay, “judgment” would be better than morality.

                      If by judgment you mean him looking out for his own safety and the risk he was exposing himself to. I agree on that, as I commented several times down thread. I would have not left the vehicle as I explained, and also why George did, in my understanding

                    • Yes, okay, “judgment” would be better than morality. If by judgment you mean him looking out for his own safety and the risk he was exposing himself to. I agree on that, as I commented several times down thread. I would have not left the vehicle as I explained, and also why George did, in my understanding

                      Thank you, Rick, for that response. Not sure I’ve made it downthread, as I’ve been chasing comments on a couple of different sites…

                    • But that was after GZ had already left his truck and gone down to the T in the sidewalk. GZ realized at that point that the suspect had run and he no longer had an idea of where the guy was, so he didn’t want to give out his address in case the guy could hear him. To me, it doesn’t sound like GZ was scared that he was going to be attacked, it sounded like he was afraid that if the suspect heard his address, then the suspect might pay a visit to his home later. That doesn’t necessarily mean he thought the suspect might engage in a physical confrontation at his home – he may have thought that the suspect might egg his house or spray graffiti on the walls, etc.. We don’t know that part.

                      The key point isn’t what GZ felt when he reached the T in the sidewalk and realized he could no longer see TM. The key point is whether GZ had a right to get out of his truck. He clearly did, and the fact that he was armed when doing so makes him no less “moral” than if he’d been unarmed.

                • Zimmerman once called NEN for the danger of kids playing in the street. He didn’t want to confront the kids, probably thought a talking to from the cops would have a more dutrable effect, etc. The only potential risk was to the kids, and clearly not an emergency.

                  • If he were merely suspicious and not dangerous, why wouldn’t GZ give the NEN call-taker his own address? I think GZ assessed TM as dangerous based partly on that exchange alone…

    • There is an obvious error in your logic regarding this matter. You talk about George hanging up on the NEN, but you seem to be implying that the call was terminated prior to George getting out of the car. This is an error on your part if that is what you are saying.

      George remained on the phone with the NEN when he got out of the vehicle. He was walking, not running as he was speaking to the NEN.

      The other error that you make is that you seem to be under the impression that George was aware that he had the gun, when in fact the weapon was concealed in his holster. The gun itself was very lightweight and I doubt that he even considered the gun until that last fateful moment.
      Can you prove otherwise?

      • The other error that you make is that you seem to be under the impression that George was aware that he had the gun, when in fact the weapon was concealed in his holster. The gun itself was very lightweight and I doubt that he even considered the gun until that last fateful moment.

        Neither of us can prove GZ was aware nor unaware that he had a gun with him. I find it highly unlikely that he wasn’t aware. Only my opinion…

        • it was a very lightweight gun. I am not a gun owner but I have seen enough comment about that particular gun to indicate that it is believable that George had forgotten that he was wearing the gun until his shirt was raised and the holster was discovered.

            • I’m surprised no one has mentioned that Zimmerman said himself that he had forgotten he had the gun (CVSA, 41:51). I’m inclined to believe him, since it’s an admission against interest. He would look better claiming he took a forty second beating because he was reluctant to resort to the gun.

              • How is saying he forgot he had a gun an admission against interest? And I’m not a CCW person myself, but, how do you forget you have a gun? That strikes me as unlikely… Just my opinions of course – I’ve made enough enemies in the last 48 hours…

                • Since he carried the gun at all times, except work, it was a part of his body. He was not in a constant state of awareness of that he had it, since he had not had reason to use it.

                  The speed and surprise with which the attack happened, combined with the severity of the broken nose pain, prevented him from realizing that he had something to stop the lethal assault which went on for 2 minutes.

          • I read a case where a woman was being attacked for a rape, and in the process backed into a wall. At that point, and not before, she felt her holster pressing between her ass and the wall. That reminded her she had the gun. Rape did not happen. Would have, but for her immoral act of deciding to carry a gun.

            • Right, there are a variety of ways to approach this moral problem analyst1961 believes exists what you mention here is where does one draw a line. Moving from point A to B? Getting out of the truck? Driving from point A to B? Stopping at the clubhouse? Leaving the house with the gun? I’m taking it one step at a time. We’ll see where it goes.

              • I think analyst is conflating risk with duty, or duty with risk, or something like that. Going above what duty requires (and Zimmeman had no duty at all, he could have seen Martin breaking in somewhere, and ignored it and drove on his way) isn’t immoral, even if somebody else does that for a job. He’s going to have to add another element to make “going beyond duty” into an immoral act.

                I also sense an argument along the lines of increasing risk is immoral. I’m not buying that one either. I do think it is illuminating to ask what risk Zimmerman can be assigned to be taking, and whether or not that is a reasonable risk under the circumstances. But if you think Martin started the fight, then blaming Zimmerman for being outdoors in his own neighborhood (on the sidewalk even!) is akin to blaming the rape victim for being attractive or in the wrong place, when she could have stayed in the car/home.

                He’s just being judgmental with the benefit of hindsight. Basically, his argument is that the incident is Zimmerman’s fault, morally. If Zimmerman hadn’t acted immorally, the incident would not have progessed to the shooting.

                • You said: Going above what duty requires (and Zimmeman had no duty at all,

                  I cannot agree that Zimmerman did not at least think he had a duty. In fact, I think that is exactly what he was doing.. acting out of his perception of duty.

                • Cboldt said: He’s just being judgmental with the benefit of hindsight. Basically, his argument is that the incident is Zimmerman’s fault, morally. If Zimmerman hadn’t acted immorally, the incident would not have progessed to the shooting.

                  This. Analyst, this is why you are generating the ire you have experienced. You seem to be confusing judgment with morality. I have always felt that reasonable people can disagree about what George should have done after losing sight of TM, but that legally, he was completely within his rights.

                  Let’s examine the morality question further. RTL had been subject to numerous instances of thefts, burglaries, and even a home invasion. Perhaps you are unaware of an incident from, IIRC, August of 2011, in which a young mother was forced to lock herself and her infant son in an upstairs bathroom, in fear of both their lives, after intruders entered her home. Remember that SZ was home alone most days working on her degree online. He was concerned for her safety, as well as the safety of his neighbors He volunteered to help the police by being its eyes and ears. Parallel to that, he had felt threatened by a pit bull in the neighborhood. His initial thought was to get pepper spray, but he was advised that pepper spray was ineffective against an attacking dog, and that a firearm was a better solution. He performed the steps necessary to obtain a CCP. I have carried concealed, and as others have stated, when you carry regularly you are mostly no more aware of your firearm than you are your underwear.

                  George was understandably frustrated that the criminals responsible for the incidents in RTL were never apprehended. I think he knew that the best deterrent to future criminal activity in RTL would be a prompt, visible police response. This is where some go off the deep end and argue that GZ tried to physically detain TM, an assertion unsupported by any evidence. I believe that GZ wanted the police to find TM, and that finally having one of the neighborhood creeps arrested, or at least questioned, would make his neighborhood safer.

                  With that in mind, I believe GZ made a morally correct decision to leave his vehicle and assist the police in finding TM. He placed himself at some risk (though I think his perceived risk was very small…GZ thought TM had fled the area) in order to keep his wife and neighbors safer. I do not understand how this can possibly be convoluted into a moral failure.

                  What I DO believe is immoral is the notion that GZ somehow gave up his right to not be beaten by exiting his vehicle. The unspoken assumption of TM supporters is that GZ deserved the beating he was getting because he had the audacity to get out of his own car in his own neighborhood, and that he should have taken his beating like a man, even if it meant death or brain damage.

            • oh yes that sounds like a good use of a gun.

              I was lucky because when I was around 13 I faced an incident where someone tried to lure me into a vehicle. I ran to a friend’s house. No gun, but was safe.

              I am not a gun owner, but I can see that it would be very handy in a lot of situations.

  3. Sure Analyst, supporter who believe in George’s innocence will donate the $25,000 as they did with the $32,000 donated in the last 48 hours knowing that at least today in the USA, it is not illegal to get out of a truck. That is the Traybots theme song.

    • Show me where I said it was illegal, cherpa1. Show me where I’ve said that. You can’t, because I haven’t. I’ve said the opposite – it was legal. You’re not only being dishonest about my claims, but you’re conflating legality and morality. Please read a little more carefully before you incorrectly attack me and lump me in with the Traybots. Wow…

      • Analyst, he may be conflating legality with morality, but you are making up definitions of what morality is. There is simply no way that the act of getting out of one’s truck could be defined as an immoral act. You’re attaching that definition to it because of what happened a few minutes later, but the act of getting out of the truck was not immoral, any more than it would be immoral for me to get my flashlight and go outside to check on the noises that I heard by my garage last night. By your logic, I should have just called the police and stayed inside to watch reruns of Kojak so that the police could do their job.

        • No, I’m thinking about getting out of a vehicle with a gun while a suspicious person may be around. You had a flashlight, not a gun, right? Big difference in my opinion. I’m posting a couple of over-arching responses below that may answer a few other questions – and another example of issues legal, moral and those of judgment. Thanks, ackbarsays.

          • So you’re suggesting that if I hear a noise outside my home, and I put my handgun in my pocket and then go outside with my flashlight to investigate, I’ve crossed a moral boundary that I would not have crossed had I not placed my handgun in my pocket?

            Note that in this example, I placed my handgun in my pocket in response to the perceived threat I heard outside. In Zimmerman’s case, it was normal for him to carry concealed at all times.

    • A lot aren’t even saying that anymore. Check out leathermans blog today. For once its worth a read although I think his conclusion is obviously wrong, unless he can read both Zimmermans and martins minds.

    • He just said it was a moral failure. Whatever that is supposed to mean. How dare zimmerman try to get a better look at where someone he considered suspicious was fleeing to. If he didn’t have a gun, then would you consider it a moral failure?

  4. II contest the statement you made that neither Mike nor ackbarsays have yet to convince me. ackbarsays has actually moved the needle a bit (hence my initial donation) and Mike has yet to respond to my comments. If you think I should automatically donate because of Mike’s post, which was based upon not my comment, but by an incorrect interpretation thereof, then I’d ask a man of your attention to detail to re-check those facts – as I find that a little one-sided and not at all reasoned discourse.

    • What happens if you call nen, then you leave the scene and, instead of verifying the location of the subject as be moves about, the ariving officers identify the wrong person walking nearby and it leads to an altercation.

      Is the caller liable for fleeing the scene, should an officer or that other person face harm due to this misunderstanding/ encounter, and not properly identifying the subject he called about?

      • I don’t think the caller assumes some legal liability for misidentification of the suspect, do you? Seriously? It would certainly curtail calls to NEN or 911, huh?

        • George is not a caller. He is trained to operate under certain standards and his prior actions shows he behaves accordingly. As for his decision, it is a logical failure more than a moral failure. For the first time in his short N.W ‘career’, even though he was not officially on patrol, he still had standards to follow and he handled those responsibilities as he would if he were patrolling.

          With that said, I do think there is a difference between a LOGIC failure and a MORAL failure. A moral failure is to assume one is aware of their action and know of the consequence and choose to bypass morality and act as they desire. When the defense releases trayvon’s homeless man assault, it will be clear we are watching a moral failure.

          If for the first time in my life, especially as a N.W volunteer, I am approached by somebody and am clearly agitated, it is a logic failure to get out of the car because MY jeapordy is on the line. And we see his safety matters to him during his ‘immoral hunt’ as the press would call it, because he was too chicken shit to give out his address because he was scared the kid would know where he lives.

          He was thinking of a future where Trayvon lived – now I want proof Trayvon was doing the same with george when he was on top of him. I realize I cannot have that discussion in this thread, so I am on my way to find it. I would not hold my breath.

    • I’m only stating my opinion about what is prudent and moral – what other baseline could I possibly have? I think I’ve made that clear about twenty-three times. (twenty-four, now) Do you happen to have handy a universal definition of those two words, vis-a-vis the elements of this criminal case?

          • He’s attaching the word immoral to George’s actions because those actions resulted in the death of Trayvon. In other words, he’s making the argument that if George would have stayed in his truck, Trayvon would be alive. Where have I heard that before?

              • Heh. From that article comes this sentence: “Beliefs are often mistaken as facts for many people, but this is not necessarily true.”

                The clause after the comma turns the sentence into a real head scratcher.

              • Forgot to say that morals, values and beliefs are not always the same and may even seem to conflict. So are we still talking about morals? Maybe he or we should define morals in the sense he refers to them to discuss this intelligently. Otherwise, we are not all on the same page.

                This does require judgment and I do not like judging someone’s morals because that is IMMORAL.

                • Who cares if the label is “morals” or “values” or “right/wrong” or whatever? The $25,000 challenger finds Zimmerman to not have clean hands (hey, there’s a term from equity law!), and invited people to persaude him to drop or adjust his finding.

                  An argument over what the label should be sidetracks the $25,000 challenge away from Zimmerman’s conduct. And sidetracking internet arguments is one of the hallmarks of an internet troll.

                  • He is the one that chose the word moral. Had he said that gz made a mistake or was foolish to get out of the car I wouldnt really disagree. He obviously felt that the word morals was important. I think questioning soneones judgement is very different than questioning someones moral. I believe he made a poor choice in words and is now stuck with that fact. I think he informed us all that he did indeed mean moral at least 25 times.

                    • I did choose the word ‘moral’. I think I was trying to explain, on multiple occasions, that I wasn’t questioning what GZ did from a legal perspective and used ‘moral’ contra. The fact that a human being (like him or not) died that evening may have driven my selection of moral instead of judgment. Regardless, as you’ve noted, I’m stuck with my chosen term. Again, I’ve made one donation since my initial post and may be making more. I’m learning a lot and there have been some fine arguments put forth.

                  • Crap, cboldt. If I’d have ever dreamt my comment would get more than a few responses I’d have never made it. But as my ‘offer’ is indeed the subject of this thread ‘The $25,000 Challenge’, how is the argument being sidetracked? You’re free to ignore it, as is everyone else. Again, I’m a fairly long-term commenter at JOM – not exactly a place which suffers trolls.

                    • My “hallmark of a troll” remark was directed at Jordan, for moving on to argue what label ought to be affixed to your challenge (morality? judgment? right/wrong? prudence/imprudence? recklessness? negligence? some sort of culpability?), instead of arguing the merits of your challenge, which, as I take it, is Zimmerman’s conduct.

                      I don’t take your challenge as one of if “we” can somehow come up with the right label, you will feel better about Zimmerman’s actions. I took Jordan’s post as one over what was the right label.

                    • My “hallmark of a troll” remark was directed at Jordan

                      choldt: I guess I missed your reply to me and still do not see it. Was it in a reply to someone else?:

                  • ah, cboldt! You’ve seen the light!
                    i like your “clean hands” reference used in courts of equity. i think gz’s motivation was to not let trayvon get away. his suspicions were clearly correct. again, i am wondering if the break-ins stopped after that. i would bet they did. as pinecone said, most people are cowards and would not have the guts to do what gz did. but if more people did, it could put a big dent in crime.

                    • Thanks, howie.

                      Self defense should be easy to prove IF the court follows the law, but OTH, the jury instructions are so poorly written that jurors cannot follow the law.

                      Those instructions make a HUGE difference because in a sense, they circumvent the law. Wonder why? It’s a rhetorical question but a review of the history of SYG and Self Defense in Florida shows how the law evolved and changed the old jury instructions.

                      IIRC, this all started when thieves were invading homes during our once frequent hurricanes. How many innocent folks are still in prison from legitimately defending their homes in a crisis?

          • No.
            Judgement is the evaluation of evidence to make a decision.
            Morals refer to the determination of right and wrong.

            If GZ was naive and did not consider TM to be the physical hazard he turned out to be, GZ is only responsible for underestimating TM cruelty, stealing stuff versus harming a person.

            I have always viewed this nonsense about GZ getting out of his car as blaming the victim. Worse it is a form of mental reconditioning from the crime enablers, on one hand we should not be suspicious of YBM and on the other we should KNOW they are dangerous, and if we misjudge the hazard we are to blame. Twisted beyond any acceptable standard. YBM are either safe or not.

            • I agree with Cassandra’s take.

              The difference for me happens to be that I can use some anecdotal information that does not relate to George Zimmerman, and is a lot closer to home. That evidence involves my sister who was attacked by a man who punched her in the face, leaving her with a lot of bruises, and lucky to be alive.

              In that case, the man’s dog strayed onto the property where my sister lives. She scopped up the dog to remove it from the property. The owner of the dog attacked her. Did she see it coming? No. Did he know it was caught on CCTV? Ha, I hope the police have identified him by now!!

              In other words, one needs to ask this from the point of view of the reasonable man. Soe here goes:

              1. The NEN told George: “Let me know if you see something (or words like that)… and it was after this that George had lost sight of Trayvon Martin, and then got out of his truck. Was this the action of a reasonable man? I would answer in the affirmative, especially if his intention was simply try to see if he could locate where the person might have gone.

              2. When the NEN told George “we do not need you to do that”, the response was “OK”. He then went to the end of the walkway to get an address, and got as far as the T-intersection when he was accosted. He had his car keys in his hands. Is it reasonable to suggest that because the car keys were in George’s hands that he had any intention of getting involved in an altercation, or was his intention to go back to the vehichle to wait for the police?

  5. Oooh baby, Illinois just passed a concealed carry law today! I’m getting my FOID and I will be a gun owner and concealed carrier soon. And I will get out of my vehicle whenever I please.

  6. I will gladly pay off the National Debt $16,000,000,000,000.00 plus any extra crump change, if she can change my mind that Mr. Zimmerman acted justifiably in self defense.

    • He likely acted justifiably in self-defense. That self-defense having occurred after he left the truck – the moral quandary to which this post refers. Temporal relationships: not just for breakfast anymore…

  7. This has got us all arguing semantics. It’s obvious that unless you all can change his mind about the meaning of the word moral then you can’t win.

  8. For me, Zimmerman’s decision to get out of the truck has nothing to do with morality. It just seems stupidity. Every possible thing Zimmerman could be looking for, an address, street number or more likely a view of Martin from a distance, would be better, faster, safer accomplished has he stayed in his car and driven past the other end of the dogpath, perhaps pointing the headlights into it and then going to the back entrance, and let the cops in there, as he had done on another NEN call, 8/6/11, when he thought a couple of suspicious person were going towards it. Also revealing is the 8/3/11 NEN call which ends:
    Dispatcher: Okay. And, so, is he near the … ?
    George: The back entrance to the neighborhood.
    Dispatcher: So, he is at the back entrance?
    George: Yeah.
    Shellie: He just went between the houses now.
    George to Shellie: He just went between the houses, to the back?
    Shellie: Yep.
    George: Shoot.
    Shellie: He is looking at cars.
    George: I’m going to …
    Shellie: No you’re not.
    George: Why not?
    Shellie: ‘Cause. Don’t go out there.
    Dispatcher: Okay. We’ll get an officer out there to check the area.
    George: Okay. Thanks.
    Dispatcher: You’re welcome.
    End of Call
    The above is remarkable because on this one Shellie was with him and prevented him from doing the stupid thing he did on 2/26/12. Also he doesn’t seem to be gungho about meeting the cops.
    I suggest you look over the other NEN calls to see how different Zimmerman was on 2/26/11 than previously. There is a thread discussing them on TLForums. http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2061.0.html
    The best guess seems to be that Zimmerman wanted to try something different when he saw Trayvon since his previous calls didn’t lead to the cops finding the suspect, but he was not capable of carrying that off in a reasonable way.

    • You missed the part that was erased. Shellie tells George to fire at will if anything moves. She is on the way with 30 round clips and reinforcements. Just hold out till I get there.

    • You’ve mentioned this before Ricky. Do you have an official audio link for the transcript you provided above, for the 8/3/11 NEN call? Not a forum discussion link. An official audio link where we could hear what you seem to have heard.

      Because every time you mention that particular call, (and you have done so on several blogs), you seem to add something to it ! Que pasa?

      Also, you add some conjecture each time. In this one you’ve added, “Also he doesn’t seem to be gungho about meeting the cops.” Your opinion is particularly disturbing, because there is no proof of this. If anything, all the world has been in an uproar about how chummy George was with cops, that was the whole reason for an uproar. There were videos of him visiting and walking out of the Sanford police station with no escort. You cannot have it both ways!

      Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!

      • I only have the audio links to wesh.com given in the first post in the linked discussion in TLForums. As for the rest of your post, Rich, I don’t really know what you are doing except directing some sort of ad hominem in my direction. I wasn’t the only one in the TL discussion who thought Zimmerman’s behavior on 2/26/12 was noticeably different, especially the getting out of the car and, his later explanations about the effort to find a street sign or address that hadn’t been asked for, and hemming and hawing about where the cops were to meet him which was never a concern previously.

        • “As for the rest of your post, Rich, I don’t really know what you are doing except directing some sort of ad hominem in my direction.”

          Where’s the ad hominem in my question to you, Ricky? There was no Ad hominem, and you would know this if you understood the rules of good logic. You certainly read my comment on DMan’s thread, “Same guy, different blog,” about the use of Ad hominems, and now you think you’re being clever by using my own words to deflect attention away from your scheme. The rules of logic favor truth seekers, not liars.

          Please go ahead and post the exact audio link containing the script for the audio you posted here. It doesn’t matter if you talked about on TL, or if the link is on TL!

          THIS blog is where you provided an “unknown” script, and you should’ve provided the audio, along with the exact time when we can hear what you quoted us, so people can see that you didn’t make it up. I always do this anytime I post a video.

          Its a simple matter of providing the legitimacy of what you are talking about so people can see for themselves. If you’re going to post hearsay about what George and Shellie said on the call, then cry “ad hominem” when someone detects your baloney, you are no different than Sharpton and the BGI crying “foul” and “smear campaign” when their fraud about little Saint Trayvon is exposed.

          Please post the exact and official audio link from that dispatch call, otherwise everyone will note that what you are posting is baloney!

        • And provide your rationale for how you came up with saying this about George, “Also he doesn’t seem to be gungho about meeting the cops.” Little foxy comments mingled into the conversation is why I keep my handy dandy baloney detection kit with me at all times:

          • On the other NEN calls he doesn’t set up any meetings with the cops except the one he tells them to go to the back gate where he will let them in. I got the idea that previous to 2/26/12, he was very willing to stay out of the investigation that would occur when the police arrived. He also seemed to think the clubhouse was an adequate address.

    • I don’t think you have grounds to even assign “stupidity.” The suspicious guy is running away faster than Zimmerman gan go, and disappears. I see nothing immoral, stupid, or illegal in getting out of the truck in an attempt to see where the suspicious guy is headed. Of course, it does increase risk, and if the “risk compass” has to point to zero in order to get a clean bill of moral health, well, all us are moral failures. Maybe stupid, to boot.

      You didn’t make this point, I think analyst did. “His duty was discharged.” Oh, so now were going to assign moral failure to doing more than duty requires? ROTFL. Utter nonsense.

      • As he was leaving his Ridgeline, he told the dispatcher that Martin was heading towards the back entrance. I hope you go over the previous NEN calls and see if you can explain why Zimmerman’s subsequent action on 2/26/12 was so different than on previous occasions in which a suspect or suspects was heading towards the back entrance. I’ve presented evidence that Shellie Zimmerman probably disagrees with your assertion that GZ was stupid to get out of the car.

        • A review of that evidence can’t disclose an answer to the “why” question; and I’ll wager that even as a matter of speculation, there are plenty of distinguishing qualities among the various incidents. The threshold question is whether or not Zimmerman intended to close distance with Martin, to come in contact with him.

          I don’t think Zimmerman was stupid to get out of his car. I was expressing disagreement with your “For me, Zimmerman’s decision to get out of the truck has nothing to do with morality. It just seems stupidity.”

          • I also argued it was stupid because anything he could have (lawfully) done while out of the car, he could have better and safer accomplished while in it and driving to other locations. I don’t think the defense has to defend getting out of the car at trial since, as you have pointed out, it is well short of being provocative. Saying on Hannity’s program that he didn’t regret the decision didn’t make Zimmerman any friends and he better not repeat it on the stand.

          • It appears that Robert got all of the brains and the “polish” leaving George a quart or so short but bless his little heart for having one and trying to do the right thing even if talking cops over and over and not getting an attorney are stupid damn things to do.

            I really have my doubts if he acknowledges even now that it was not so smart to think he could “win” by yakking his mouth since he continued to do by going on show with Sean Hannity. Oh, boy!!

            Then he wants a jury trial instead of an immunity hearing to prove to the world that he should be believed and I bet you a silver dollar he wants to take the stand and set the record straight. And O’Mara just might give him that chance. Oh, brother!!

            OMG. Did I really write that?

    • Thanks Ricky. Yes, I hear where Shellie said that, but I also got the feeling from the dispatchers tone as though they were pressing for more info, and George was wanting to go out of his way to help, rather than being gung ho.

      I am glad Shellie stopped him. George, from everything we are seeing about him, seems way too naïve. As I commented to Analyst, below, George got out of the truck, precisely, because he was NOT racially discriminating at all. Jesse Jackson would discriminate against blacks, and choose to be safe, but not George. I have to believe its because George was a liberal, part black and mostly inexperienced in the ways of dirty street thugs.

      And also, in regards to your comment below, there may be other explanations for not wanting to meet with them. Perhaps he was on his way somewhere, and didn’t want to wait for them.

      I can understand your reasoning on this, but taking other things about George into consideration, this is the guy who was verified by the truth detector to never go above the speed limit, which tells me he is seriously compliant and if he had as much as a social appointment, he wouldn’t stop to meet the police, if it wasn’t absolutely necessary.

      And as far as wanting to meet them at the back gate, that is very understandable from a landlord’s point of view. I prefer police not to block the front area, making the property look bad, or alarming new residents by creating a scene.

      And about using the clubhouse as alternate, he said that the guy could be in the area and he didn’t want him to hear. This is very good precaution he was taking, because there are ways for someone nearby to hear the information with voice enhancers or other devices to tap into the conversation.

      I actually bought a $10 hearing device for someone, and was amazed at how far it could pick up voices, for a hearing person. So, very good precaution, not to give out your own address, since someone could note it and surprise the snitcher with a payback or something.

      Thanks for the explanation, I have a better understanding of how you were thinking. I hope what I’ve said helps explain why I think differently.

      • this is the guy who was verified by the truth detector to never go above the speed limit

        That was a control question. Erwin told Zimmerman to lie, for comparison of his reactions (CVSA, 58:10).

        • So George is normal like the rest of us? Thank goodness for that.

          That example may not work, but look at the testimony of co workers, neighbors, friends, family, police, acquaintances and note that my point stands regarding his compliant and considerate nature, both before and after this experience.

  9. Although not officially on duty that night, George had the duty to report and observe suspicious behavior in his complex. There had been several burglaries in the complex before this date. After losing sight of Trayvon, it was not unreasonable for George to get out of the truck to attempt to get a visual of where Trayvon had gone. He was asked, “Where did he go?” by the dispatcher. Trayvon had a substantial head start on George and was running. It would not be unreasonable for George to think that he might see Trayvon at some distance and to assume that he was not in close proximity to Trayvon. We know, in retrospect, that Trayvon could easily have made it back to Brandi’s condo with the lead time he had on George. George did cease to follow Trayvon and proceeded back to his truck when the non-emergency call center told him, “We don’t need that”. The incident occurred much closer to George’s truck than to Brandi’s condo. The only serious moral failure I see is Trayvon’s decision to either double back or hide and wait for George and then his act of assaulting George. Imputing the label of “moral failure” to one’s act of getting out of his truck or suggesting it was imprudent when the circumstances did reasonably suggest that George and Trayvon were in close proximity is illogical. It was Trayvon’s decisions and actions which led to this trajic incident.

      • Was the person running away in those other situations? Were they much closer to his car than martin was? it is impossible to know his motivation for why he never previously went to check things out. There is not enough info

    • He was asked, “Where did he go?” by the dispatcher.

      False.

      George did cease to follow Trayvon and proceeded back to his truck when the non-emergency call center told him, “We don’t need that”.

      First unknown, second false.

  10. Continuing from above:

    I don’t mean to confuse, I think I’m rather clear and concise. I’d like to get to precisely and with specificity what this duty is you believe George took on that he ought not have. Perhaps starting over would help.

    “So his moral wrong that he committed was going beyond his duty?”

    You say yes.

    Now I ask beyond into what exactly?

    If you note I have said nothing of legalities, the law, etc. quite the contrary, I’m asking what you think, in your opinion etc. Don’t ascribe to me positions I have not stated and then answer them as if I had i.e. “GZ was doing nothing illegal” I didn’t say he was or saying you said he was. Please just answer precisely what I ask of.

  11. It’s obvious that analyst has gotten exactly what he wants, attention. He throws out there a large amount of money that he knows the defense needs, and it comes at a very opportune time, right? He knows the defense needs the money, he exploits the dire situation for his own purposes. Or are they his own opportune purposes? I doubt it.

    Analyst keeps moving the goal post, keeps ignoring rational and reasonable arguments as “I’ll read what you said in the morning, I’, tired now.” Never gets back to the arguments, such as that from ackbarsays the next morning. Analyst has ruffled up the dust, that is his main goal. Yet his quest for anyone to “help” him with his moral dilemas is false. If an adult doen’t have his own moral pinnings when they reach adulthood, they will never be convinced from anyone else. Analyst seems to be begging for someone, anyone to change is long held beliefs, which is not possible. No one can, or should beg someone for money for GZ’s defense, when that person has the die hard position, yes it is die hard, that GZ was morally wrong to exit his truck. The other argument that analysts makes is that GZ was a lying azzed bastard when he said that he was looking for an addres, even thought later GZ tells the NEN operator that yes he is trying to follow TM to see whee he had gone, yet GZ never goes far beyond the T where TM attacked him. The evidence map is there. GZ never got anywhere near BG’s apt.

    For those following the big deal Analyst story, this should give you your biggest hint-

    My mind is not completely made up – I was sincere in my offer to reconsider not only facts I may have misconstrued or the evolution of my moral compass.

    The ‘analyst’ in my moniker is part of economic analyst – and I had run the return-on-investment calculations much as you had: $500k for the defense. I would expect GZ to garner a windfall of 100x the cost of his defense; perhaps triple that amount, i.e., $50 – $150M.

    “Who pays? Who doesn’t? I would say he has targets of opportunity large and small. I’d hit the large media first and hardest. Very little negotiation, very big payout. I’d then take that money and destroy the smaller targets – the defenseless, ya know, kinda like GZ is right now. Great vengeance and furious anger. I’d shellac TM’s parents. I’d crucify a couple of the bloggers and their parent corporations. And I’d sue a few particularly disgusting, vile, and racist individual blog commenters into insolvency. Oh, and I’d enjoy every damned second of it, too.

    And I’m not an attorney, but one of my friends who’s a plaintiff’s attorney – who has won billions of dollars in patent settlements – likes GZ’s chances. (an argument to authority, but…)”

    If analyst wasn’t looking to cash in on the incident. you should have no doubt now. I guess since Nelson and the state have been allowed the express train to a GZ railroading, Analyst decided that his return on his investment just wasn’t worth the risk. If he was so morally challenged, would he have even looked at how much money he could have made off GZ?

      • NO DOUBT! I bet you would. I know you want to see the battle between the Statute of Liberty and Lady Justice. That is what this is. SOL lands a blow with her torch but LJ swings blindy with her scales and hit SOL in the knee! Stay tuned folks this is gonna be a wild one. Tune in to HLN for the latest round by round coverage…Don’t miss it! One of them is going down. Unless they beat each other to death.

    • Exactly, Minpin. It is an attention getting scheme, to distract us from the upcoming trial.

      DMan asks analyst to convince us beyond a reasonable doubt of GZ’s moral failure. But, know that EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE.

      Unless we are living in the dark ages, or in some rural idiot village with no common sense, the burden of proof has to be on the one making the extraordinary claim. Why is everyone trying to prove a negative?

      This is the whole problem with the whole case against George! Goodnight!

      • Yes Rick. Now that the damning info is coming out about TM, Mr. Analyst has to throw out a really big dollar donation amount to take the focus of the much more important info. about TM. So far he has been getting the diverted attention he so desperately needs and wants.

        Does anyone realize what this diversion tactic is? Don’t focus on the texts and the photos, hey I have $25,000 to give, but you will neer meet my demands, but I have refocused the discussion.

        • The only way to a fair trial is if Jerry Springer is the Bailiff. 🙂 What is the intent of the posts? Good, or bad? I have questions about this whole process. Start to now. I thinks something is fishy. Real fishy.

  12. I know what a strawman is, sorry if I ascribed one to you – why don’t you follow a seven-pronged attack in real-time and then casually impugn my responses. I’m being kind and respecting your ‘house’ – I hope that we can continue on a reasonable and cordial plane. Don’t ban me like you did CLSS. (insert laugh track here…)

    Now I ask beyond into what exactly?

    Getting out of the truck. I’d have made the NEN call and been done.

    Again, not being obtuse, I just feel that I’ve answered this or we’re talking past one another. And I have another fifteen minutes this evening – glad to try again.

    • I don’t think you’re being obtuse.

      I was hoping though for a more detailed response than merely “getting out of his truck”. Certainly there is no wrong with getting out of a truck.

      Now I’m not trying to be an ass there. I am asking and commenting genuinely. I don’t want to state your position for you so I press on with questioning. How is getting out of his truck going beyond his duty? Or if you don’t like that we can start over with establishing how he has a duty to begin with.

      • Very good, that is indeed my point of departure (no pun intended): getting out of his truck.

        To elaborate a little, he had called NEN, and he knew that officers were on the way. (although I’m sure most of us are surprised at how quickly they arrived on the scene)

        To me, again in my opinion, anything more put himself in danger (which he has the right to do) but possibly others. Would you consider this: what of GZ fired his weapon, missed TM and the bullet ricocheted off a wall and hit some innocent bystander – perhaps a kid walking his dog? Does that make sense?

        Trying to talk this through. Thank you again D-Man. Out for the night – will be happy to continue tomorrow if you want, or I’ll be happy to put this away. Your site, your rules, sir.

        • Yes let us continue when you are ready. I will post some thoughts in the blog post itself regarding our back and forth here with a response then whenever you decide feel free to respond, unless I die or the internet breaks my blog will be here.

        • Contributing money to Zimmerman’s defense might also be motivated by:
          outrage at the circumstances under which he was arrested and charged. The moral failing of others, especially a few lawyers, can easily be regarded as exceeding Zimmerman’s. For me, the main annoyance of the situation, is that it points up the failings of US style legal procedures and if I were a billionaire I would put my money into changing it.

        • Say that GZ got out of his truck, walked to RVC, returned to his truck, and waited for the cops… all without encountering TM.

          Would you still say “GZ’s decision to get out of the truck with a handgun was a serious moral failure.” ?

          IMO, you are blaming GZ for not knowing the unknown subsequent events… even though TM had more control over (i.e, whether TM/GZ would encounter each other)

          • Great question, ding7777! Without parsing it, it’s the single best argument I’ve heard – will seriously reflect upon it…

            May I respectfully ask you this – why (and now I’m parsing) did GZ feel the need to walk all the way over to RVC to give an address (house number), when there were addresses (house numbers) much closer to him on Twin Trees? Said another way, from the approximate location of his truck – and even if he were already out of the truck when NEN requested an address – it appears that there were available addresses much closer than the ‘T’ or RVC. Walking to the ‘T’ or RVC is GZ’s legal right, of course, but it makes me believe the auspices of just finding a house number is a bit suspect… Still legal, of course – just wondering.

            • Ok, I thought I had mentioned that before, but maybe it was on another blog (I get lost sometimes!) The reason he didn’t bother with an address (number) on Twin Trees is because by itself it would have been useless. In other words, he could not remember the name of that street. I know it sounds strange, but just listen to him on that NEN call… he really doesn’t know the street name. If he did, he wouldn’t have gone through the whole juggling act with Sean trying to explain where his truck was parked. Therefore, since he KNEW the name of the next street over (Retreat View Circle), he could put both a name AND a number together.

              • Were there numbers in the back of the houses at all? thought I heard one reporter say that there were no numbers so he had to walk over to a street with a name.

                Jello is the expert on all that. I know he’s looked at the map and photos thoroughly.

                • Numbers are on the front of the houses on Twin Trees that would have been in front (and to the right) of him just before heading down the east-west sidewalk. But no numbers on the row of houses that would have been to the left of him at that point, since those were facing RVC, not Twin Trees. But regardless, George obviously could NOT remember the name of that street, so a number, even if he saw one, wouldn’t have done much good. Once he headed down that sidewalk, NO numbers on ANY of the houses. He was then at the rear of ALL the houses. So in order to get to the front of any houses where he knew the name of the street, he had to keep going straight across… just as he said he did. The only question (and even George varied in his statements) was just how long he lingered on that east-west sidewalk, and near the “doggy station”, before continuing on east to RVC.

                  • He had some flashlight issues, it was dark and raining, and probably some fear looking around could have slowed him down considerably.

                    I hate these complexes at night, with all the perfectly manicured bushes and patios, lots of places to hide and look around at. My neighbors would have had to be really sweet to me to go to that extent for them.

              • On the previous NEN calls he either gave the clubhouse address or told the cops he would let them in at the back entrance. The latter case was the only one he felt a need to meet with them at all when they got to RATL. I am amazed that I am the only one here who finds this behavior change by Zimmerman troubling and need of an explanation.

                • According to George, Trayvon circled his truck. That is threatening behavior. It’s entirely possible no prior incident felt as personally threatening to GZ as his encounter with TM, thus the change in his (GZ’s) behavior.

                  • Waaah!! And the change was to put himself into much more danger than he did on previous occasions? He would be safer running after him in the dark than staying in the truck? Obviously, your explanation strikes me as incorrect. I think Zimmerman, even before this incident, decided to do things differently this time because his previous NEN calls hadn’t lead to the suspect being apprehended by the police when they arrived.

                    • Ricky Jimenez: Why don’t you just say what you feel you need to say? It’s clear you suspect GZ’s motives, so just be honest and we can move on. Stop pretending you’re asking questions you actually want answers to. It’s a waste of time. Your mind is obviously made up.

                    • I do want an answer to why he got out of the truck instead of driving towards where he thought Martin was heading. However I have enough sympathy for his situation that I don’t want him to try to explain it while on the stand. If he does, I think Bernie will tell him that the only reasonable explanation is that he wanted to detain Trayvon at gunpoint with the expectation that George goes to pieces. Even a 2nd rate lawyer would have no trouble demolishing, “I was looking for an address to give the dispatcher”.

            • Said another way, from the approximate location of his truck – and even if he were already out of the truck when NEN requested an address – it appears that there were available addresses much closer than the ‘T’ or RVC.

              If Zimmerman’s own account of his movements is accurate, he was on RVC before he was actually asked for the address. His defenders on this point have to assume that for some reason he decided to get an address before he was asked for one.

      • Since the analyst states that this is his opinion, it is that, just an opinion. It is not a fact. It need not be based on anything. it need not be worth anything.

          • Oops. ‘Indeed’ was directed at hooson1st.

            A witness for neither. Sure as heck not on TM’s side. I want GZ (provided there is no bombshell evidence to sink his story) to prevail, as he did nothing legally wrong on the night of the incident. And with the mentioned caveat re: evidence, I want him to prevail against those who intentionally tried to destroy him. In a big way…

            • It was great talking to you Analyst. Thanks for the discussion.

              I agreed with someone earlier that this a refocus of our energy, but your congenial and rational manner has helped us to analyze what we believe, and how and why we came to those conclusions. So it was very beneficial, and I hope that someone sends this thread link to the defense because these arguments could be useful in court also.

              • I think I took something you said earlier to be a compliment, only to be informed by you that it was, indeed, sarcastic.

                If your comment was sincere, it is very much appreciated. I love the open exchange of ideas and question my own values, morals, preconceived notions, et cetera, on a regular basis; hence my original ‘offer’. I wish I had been more deft in drafting that comment, for obvious reasons. I sure as heck never expected the quantity or intensity of the responses. Thanks, again…

                • I would not make a sarcastic compliment to anyone. If I said something nice, it is genuine!

                  You might be confusing our exchange below, where I did use sarcasm:

                  “Analyst says: “So you’ve admitted that GZ found TM to be dangerous and not merely suspicious, correct? Now we’re arguing degree?”

                  Rick says: I was being sarcastic regarding your comment to ackbar. You’re not comprehending the simple fact that George had a right to do everything he did, and Trayvon didn’t! “

            • I don’t understand why you are withholding sending the defense the money if you want them to prevail. Do you think the prosecution’s case is so weak that even if they can’t pay expert witnesses, etc, they will prevail anyway?

              • I think I’ve explained that countless times. It’s even parsed at the top of this post via D-man.

                I think the prosecution’s case is null. Starting with the PCA. That being said, a weak case may have no significance if the fix is in. Similarly, no amount of money can beat said fix. I hope the whistleblower is the coup-de-grace for Corey, et. al…

    • “Getting out of the truck. I’d have made the NEN call and been done.”

      I would’ve done the same, but that is because I have grown up with young black men and I know how ruthless and cruel they are to whites. They will never share the victimhood title, no matter how they brutalize their white victims. Its all about reparations out on the street. I have experience that George clearly didn’t.

      Most people are rationally discriminating against blacks, including Jesse Jackson who said, “There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved…. After all we have been through. Just to think we can’t walk down our own streets, how humiliating.”

      George got out of the truck, because he did NOT racially discriminate against Trayvon, as Jesse Jackson would have done!

      The NEN asked for the street name and to keep an eye on which way Trayvon was going. George being as conscious as he is of complying with authority, felt duty bound to get the information. He could have been more argumentative and said, “you do realize I will have to step outside my car, to get you that information, don’t you” OR “you do realize, I have a wife and family, don’t you Sean? This guy circled my car and acted very strangely, are you sure you want me to go out there, before the police arrive?”

      People do not catch the little misunderstanding, where the NEN guy didn’t realize that George would have to get out of his car to comply, and George being the reserved stoic type that he is, didn’t vocalize his move of getting out of the car.

      • The NEN asked for the street name and to keep an eye on which way Trayvon was going.

        False. The dispatcher asked Zimmerman to tell him what direction Martin was going when Zimmerman saw him start to run.

        The dispatcher didn’t ask for an address until long after Zimmerman had left the truck.

        • Please go ahead and post the entire call audio and point out each hair split and how it should be grammatically worded, when people are paraphrasing and not quoting anyone as in, “The NEN asked for the street name and to keep an eye on which way Trayvon was going.”

          Also you need to point out the exact minute when Z got out, and when the address was asked.

          This will allow you to better participate in the conversation instead of running up and down, playing Eric Cartman, splitting hairs with every word! Point out each detail on every audio, and every document so we can see you have your facts and note your brilliance.

          Participate, show your research, share your ideas, debate, compose some prose!

                • Thanks.

                  Whenever I’ve tried to watch a whole episode of that show, I always felt it was too dull. But Matt and Trey sure can be funny when they do hit the mark.

                  When Team America, World Police came out, there were predictions that anyone who didn’t like South Park wouldn’t like the film. Wrong. I loved the puppets, recorded the movie and watched it a few times.

                  ‘Please. I’m not from Hollywood, I’m not going to f* your mouth, and my time is very valuable.’ (From memory.)

                  Anyway, good joke on your part. Sorry for the uninformed incomprehension.

            • Authoritah! I knew you’d be all over that one, Jello, that’s why I left out the “authoritah” part.

              But remember, hippie and luddite don’t make me a hippite! I am too young to be either! K? 😉

              • Hippite! Never heard of that. “Someone entering senior citizen-hood who still maintains the dress and attitudes of his or her youth.” I’m not quite to that age yet either. But when I get there, yeah… I might be something close to a “hippite”. 😉

          • LOL. You know not what you ask. I believe there are some people at TalkLeft who feel I have already done quite enough of that, and more, thank you very much. Here’s 177 pages.

            Since we are trading suggestions, please read every page, then tell me all the ways in which my work is less than satisfactory.

            I read DiwataMan’s blog regularly. I think it’s a valuable resource, and I much appreciate all the hard work and careful thought he has put into analyzing the case. But I rarely read the comment threads, much less participate.

            I found this thread interesting, so I decided to read the whole thing. I noticed some things I disagreed with, and responded. But I’m not planning on becoming a regular participant here. Sorry to disappoint you.

            I’m not splitting hairs. For example, the distinction between ‘Which way is he running?’ and ‘keep an eye on which way Trayvon was going,’ is quite significant for the very point you were arguing.

            Even if Martin ran out of sight before the dispatcher finished the question, it could be plausibly interpreted as asking which way Martin was running when Zimmerman saw him start to run. And if you interpret it, over-literally in my opinion, to mean that the dispatcher wanted to know which way Martin was running at every moment during which he was vocalizing the present tense question, there would be no way for Zimmerman to determine that. That is, continuing the assumption that Martin had run out of sight by the time the question was complete. By the time Zimmerman got visual on Martin again, he might have changed directions again. So, in no way does that question imply that Zimmerman needed to follow Martin.

            Saying ‘keep an eye on’, clearly would imply following the subject if he moved out of sight.

            If the dispatcher ever said anything that could be plausibly paraphrased as ‘keep an eye on’, that meme wouldn’t be so popular with Zimmerman’s fans. Contrary to your insinuation that it’s just too hard to remember someone’s exact words, I believe that if the dispatcher ever said such a thing, you and your fellows would have no problem remembering exactly what he said, and making that your meme.

            Zimmerman got out of the car in the third minute of the call. It’s only four minutes and five seconds.

            The dispatcher asked for the address at 3:18. Here’s a clip starting at 3:14.

            I’m not a South Park fan, so the Cartman allusion is lost on me.

            • George is innocent, dammit! INNOCENT!

              But thanks for taking the time to “compose” something. LOL! I’ll let you and Jello take it from here. Thanks

  13. “Trayvon had more than one chance to discontinue his assault. He could have stopped when George tried to get away. He could have stopped when George was screaming. He could have stopped when George tried to extricate himself from the clearly dominating position Trayvon had him in which W6 witnessed. He could have stopped when W6 yelled he was calling police. Despite all of that and clearly winning Trayvon never stopped. Trayvon was the one who did it to himself.”

    This is brilliant Diwataman.

    I would like to see this whole paragraph in the Defense arguments, every bit of it.

    Could someone send this to the Defense, please? This needs to be stated loud and clear so no there is no doubt about who the victim is.

  14. It seems to me the purpose of a Neighborhood Watch is to work in concert with law enforcement to keep crime in the neighborhood to a minimum. It seems to me when neighbors feel the need to create an NW rather than remain sitting ducks for criminals, the neighbors on the NW team take on certain responsibilities to help keep their ‘hood safe. So it would strike me as absolutely pointless in light of the purpose of NW if all GZ did was call NEN and then either sit in his truck like a potted plant, losing sight of TM in the process, or scurry back home and throw the deadbolt behind him before LE got there.

    If he’s an NW volunteer, and he’s working in concert with LE, and his neighborhood has been burglarized in the past by young black males, then calling NEN and trying to keep TM in sight makes absolutely perfect sense to me, on all levels, including a “moral” level. It’s true GZ could’ve driven his truck around to try to find out where TM went, but I would think he’d have a much better chance of seeing where TM was and what he was doing if he was on foot. He was trying to help LE find and detain TM in the event he might be up to no good, and he’d certainly be more obvious driving his truck around. So I don’t have any question about the rightness of what George did that night once he saw TM. What he did was call NEN, and then try to keep TM in sight so he could point him out to LE. It has always made perfect sense to me in the context of his NW duties, the problem with crime in his neighborhood, and the age, gender and race of prior perpetrators.

    So that leaves me to wonder if the moral dilemma has to do with the fact GZ was armed when he got out of his truck — not that he got out of his truck. There are people who feel gun ownership is immoral. Perhaps analyst1961 is among them?

    If not, I simply can’t fathom what analyst1961 thinks was immoral about GZ’s behavior that night. I would think an NW volunteer would consider it immoral not to do whatever he could to keep a possible criminal in sight while waiting for the police to arrive.

    • So that leaves me to wonder if the moral dilemma has to do with the fact GZ was armed when he got out of his truck — not that he got out of his truck. There are people who feel gun ownership is immoral. Perhaps analyst1961 is among them?

      I own lots of guns, NRA member off and on, wildfowl hunter…

      If not, I simply can’t fathom what analyst1961 thinks was immoral about GZ’s behavior that night. I would think an NW volunteer would consider it immoral not to do whatever he could to keep a possible criminal in sight while waiting for the police to arrive.

      I’ve given a detailed answer re: that somewhere – will try and find it instead of composing it again. Thanks…

  15. Pingback: The Trayvon Martin Case; Update 29.3: Morality and Inaction | Stately McDaniel Manor

  16. I’m not gonna try to convince you, Analyst. We’ve exchanged a few comments in other posts, so you know where I stand, and maybe some of it changed your mind a bit. So I just wanna say something amount the young man named George Zimmerman. And his “morality”.

    From virtually everything we’ve learned about him, he is not only an ok guy, a decent person… he is far, far above average on the “morality” scale, if that scale is measured partly on caring about and helping people. Sherman Ware, the two kids he tutored, attending to relatives when sick, comforting his big brother Bobby when he “came out” and was feeling abandoned, trying to help his friend when he thought he was being attacked (by the undercover cop), organizing the neighborhood watch, explicitly telling his neighbors they could call him 24/7 if they have any problems, on and on and on. This is a very, very good guy. If George made any mistakes or misjudgments the night of Feb 26th, they were just that…. they were NOT “moral failures”! This guy was watching Trayvon out of no desire to be a “hero” or anything of the sort. He was doing it solely because he CARED ABOUT THE WELL-BEING OF HIS NEIGHBORS! Many of whom he didn’t even know personally. He was willing to spend a lot of his spare time and energy for something that would bring him no personal reward. He was even putting himself at risk, just on the off-chance that some would-be burglars/muggers decided they wanted to make an example of him.

    I don’t know, I just can’t see how you think this guy could intentionally do anything that could be harmful to another human being. And if (whatever he may have done) it wasn’t intentional, how can it possibly be “immoral”? George is a very, very decent human being. He has seemingly spent much of his life going out of his way to help others… looking for no reward. So I’d hope that any of us would want to do whatever they can to help him. It’s totally up to you if you want to help him now, of course. I didn’t see it in real-time, but someone showed me something Nettles said the other day:

    “On Feb 26th, 2012, George Zimmerman cried for help. It’s now time for all of us to answer him.”

      • The safari prosecution! Animals can attack at any time, stay in your car. Keep hands inside the vehicle at all times. Any sudden movements may upset these delicate creatures and they will attack out of fear.

        Poor George, actually believed that black teenagers are normal humans who thought and felt as he did? That they are capable of so much racial hate and deadly vengeance would be beyond his imagination back then! He is not a virgin anymore! Neither are any of us, thanks to Crump and Jackson!

    • I don’t think analyst1961 is a troll and I don’t think my post is focused on him rather the notion that George did some thing wrong. The purpose is two fold; to deal with a common aspect of the case that no doubt will be part of the trial and to get the defense $25,000, both laudable efforts I would think. My approach is focused on analyst1961 only inasmuch as it is he who is making the claim but the topic is clearly focused on this particular aspect of what he believes George did that he considers wrong.

      • “and to get the defense $25,000”

        Why do you believe analyst1961 has 25k to donate and why do you believe he would donate it even if he does? He’s a troll.

        • “I’ve also made a small donation to the GZ legal defense fund, with more to follow if arguments continue to make my rigid moral assessment more grey.”

          Seriously? That isn’t a troll? No evidence he has any money to donate. No evidence he even donated the troll bait of a ‘small donation’.

        • coreshift:

          I am not being argumentative, but exactly what is your definition of a troll and what makes analyst a troll?

          Do you also have proof of his financial condition? I mention the latter point because he offered to provide that proof to Nettles, IIRC.

          • Yes, and speaking of intellectual firepower, or lack thereof, for the record Analyst1961 has the distinction of being the only blogger ever censored by Nettles, once for threatening another member and then, for calling her vulgar name for female genitalia. Just so you know with whom you are dealing, a word to the wise should be sufficient.
            So there you have it, both morally AND legally bankrupt!
            As long as you continue to feed the troll, he will keep seeking attention in a sorry attempt to divert time and resources from this case. Once everyone is on to his game, he will slink away to somewhere else (hopefully the CTH will get the honor!)

  17. I don’t understand how anyone can judge something someone has done is immoral when there’s no evidence the person has even done the thing that’s being judged as immoral.

    • Simple ” i am liberal/black fanatic and george has a gun/is not black and is therefore guilt before innocent because he is wreckless/racist and i assume the best only in trayvon due to being naive/having white guilt/black.”

      Tada.

  18. What about trayvon’s morals when be approached the car? Should he not have just gone home? Was that not what he supposedly wanted to do when al sharpton jr sold hs this bs story which is why this case exists in the first place? Recall spd investigated this already. He was a free man for a reason. Unless spd is not as credible as ben crump and his 18 year old 16 year old. Trayvon, walking home as the story pretended was his goal, means he is alive today. He confronted george first.

    • The fact that the SPF did a thorough investigation and found no basis for an arrest will or should be a very difficult burden for the state to overcome.

      What are they going to say about SPD? That they are corrupt or incompetent? Certainly the implication is that they did something seriously wrong or did NOT do their jobs and ignored evidence.

      What changed from their reaching their decision to not charge George to the State filing such a major offense as second degree murder? Only one thing changed.. the introduction of a lying 16/18 year old “nitwit” who had refused to talk to SPD.. or so says the office of the court, Mr. Benjamin Crump.

      Let’s see how the jury handles that. To convict George, they must also convict the SPD and I hope the defense will elaborate on that point to show how preposterous this thing has been.

      • a lying 16/18 year old “nitwit” who had refused to talk to SPD.

        When did W-8 refuse to talk to SPD?

  19. If George had 4 guns on him and Trayvon were the scared boy he was made out as, the time it took to check George out could have been used to go home. It is amazing how this country was brainwashed in this case – I bet 98% of the people don’t even know Trayvon came to check George out. George only cared about one thing, his safety. He hides in cars. In Trayvon’s world, he’s a bitch. A snitch. He was naive and stupid, but the idea that he acted in any way with malice or low moral character – to do that would to go after Trayvon hoping the police would not know. He was begging them to come. He’d be the first person in history to call the nen/911 and hope they catch him doing something as horrible as hunting somebody ‘like a rabid dog’

    Let’s not waste our time anymore. Let’s just work not to convince one person, but to show the reality to every other person who has their head up their ass. This is not personal to analyst, but rather a way to get our focus in the right direction. Doing that would raise a lot more than $25,000 for Obama’s/Holder’s/Crump’s racial payback punching bag.

    • When people actually believe something as illogical or as stupid as this, there is NO HOPE for changing them.

      “He’d be the first person in history to call the nen/911 and hope they catch him doing something as horrible as hunting somebody ‘like a rabid dog’”

      You cannot change that kind of stupid, can you?

  20. I haven’t read the exchange here. Analyst & I swapped discussion at Nettles before this post went up, and maybe the same ground is covered here, maybe not. What provokes me to post is the assertion that getting out of the truck was a moral failure. IMO, the analyst fails, logically, becuase the analysis is done with hindsight, and only with hindsight. Using that same approach, you will fine that a parent who takes his or her children in a car, is involved in an accident (through absolutely no fault of the parent), and the children are killed, made a moral error in putting the children at risk of an accident. The same parent, where there is no accident, has no moral culpability. Conclusion? Putting your kids in the car and driving has no moral component – you have to look for more if you want to somehow assign blame.

    I may have mentioned it to analyst, I know I did at TalkLeft, that this inquiry has to be done with the question of what risk did Zimmerman think he was exposing himself to? Less risk, I think, then a parent who takes their child in a car. It’s logical error to impose moral judgement based only on what actually happened. The moral judgement is done with eye on what could reasonably be foreseen to happen.

    There is another element of morality here. Negligence and intention. The parent who goes out on a drive may be drunk, or texting, or doze off, or otherwise be insufficiently attentive; and the accident may be caused by the driver/parent. There is no similar negligence angle to Zimmerman, that I can see. He was walking. He was not putting anybody but himself at risk. But if Zimmerman’s -intention- when he exited the truck was confrontational, then I don’t have an issue with the claim that there is a moral shortfall. That shortfall attaches via the intention, not by per se (only) getting out of the truck.

    • Please pardon me for “butting in” to the conversation, as I have only one small observation to add, and have no interest in becoming embroiled in the debate, itself. IMHO Analyst1961 has shifted the (moral) responsibility to George by requiring *him* to anticipate (and take responsibility for) the actions of Trayvon Martin. If that is what Analyst has done (and it certainly appears to be the case) then I can only respond by asking: When does one individual become morally responsible to anticipate the actions of another (whether reasonable or not) and bear the responsibility (either morally or legally) for the ultimate outcome? Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat.

      • I’d just say, to be fair, that I don’t believe analyst is “shifting” culpability. I think he finds Martin to be at fault for the fight, for beating on Zimmerman, and so forth. What Zimmerman lacks is moral purity or moral perfection. If Zimmerman had drawn the line where analyst draws the line (using the benefit of hindsight), and stayed in the truck as Martin skipped out of sight, then Zimmerman would be morally pure. We wouldn’t be wasting our time with this debate eiter. We’d be wasting our time on some other pointless debate.

      • LetJusticePrevail: Great post. And if I generalize your point to the broader issue of ongoing white guilt in this country, then it’s clear the BGI and apparently many blacks themselves expect whitey to take responsibility for the actions of the black community.

          • No, you didn’t take it that far … I did. Reading your comment gave me a flash of clarity (at least in my own mind). After I posted my comment, it occurred to me that the refusal to take personal responsibility for oneself and one’s children isn’t just a problem in the black community. It’s an equal opportunity societal problem across the U.S.

            • I totally agree. It is a matter of excuse making, rather than accepting accountability. I’m not trying to pound on analyst1961, personally, but on the basis for his *opinion.* Whether or not it is intentional, he *has* shifted the burden of responsibility onto the victim (George) just as much as a rape victim is blamed for going to a party at a frat house. Sorry, analyst, but I reject your entire premise, and suggest that you send the $25k electronically, since it will take too long for the check to travel by mail, and clear.

  21. anaylst1961 says ” Getting out of the truck. I’d have made the NEN call and been done.”

    If you believe in morality as you say,then you would accept that what one does is a choice, as they are an agent of free will. That applies to both individuals. A person who can not do other then what was done is not subject to moral judgement. If a person had forseeable alternatives, then yes, they are subject.

    Hindsight knowledge is not subject to moral judgement. Of course unless it was premeditated.

    Just because there are alternatives available does not mean that at the moment the person was knowledgeable of the choices or consequenses. A person who makes a bad choice at the time without the ability to forsee the future of events is excused by moral judgement. Something can not come from nothing, my friend.
    There is noway GZ could have anticipated nor could he have forseen the other person actions. If he could he may have made the better choice and stayed in his vehicle. If by leaving his vehicle he became the aggressor then being the moral judge you are, you must also consider the other persons forseeable actions when they remained in the vicinity
    although they had forseeable alternatives, as well, and even more so. You then would fairly have to morally judge the intentions of that person when they chose to stay in the vicinity after they lost the guy.

    Evidence indicates from the moment GZ left his vehicle his intentions were to assist the police in locating someone who ran after he already viewed them as suspicious. Even if he had no intention on finding an address assisting the police in locating someone is neither immoral or criminal.
    The fact that you or I would have done something different does not mean anything other then we would care to judge the hindsight someone should have had at the time.

    What matters, all that matters is what occured when the two met up.

    The end must justify the means to decide morally who was right and who was wrong.
    If GZ did not do what you would have done has no effect on whether or not he is guilty or innocent of second degree murder.

    You are assuming GZ knew the result of leaving the truck would lead to his being physically assualted. You are also assuming TM hit GZ because TM was being followed and had some sort of emotion that lead to him staying in proximity to the area. Now I would have reacted diffrently then TM and just continued on my way after I lost GZ or called 911, knocked on a neighbors door, or told the person I was on the phone with my location to call for me. Should I morally judge TM for not taking my choice?
    Just because I would have done something diffrently, does not change the alternatives TM should have taken to avoid this stranger following him.
    Morally speaking, the end must justify the means. If TM had just gone home, after he ran from the guy who wrongly assumed he was up to no good. I can insert various theories into what TM thought about GZ in order to reconcile why he reacted this way. But TMs actions speak louder. He stood his ground and the result of that is the moral of the story no matter who did or did not do something to avoid it. It was what is was.

    That is the moral of the story.

    The end

    • On reading your post, I had an epiphany. Analyst’s moral judment uses his sense of actions he would have been willing to take in the same or similar circumstance. Actions (or inactions, one would presume) outside of those, that results in injury, are immoral.

      Analyst noted in the thread at Nettles that he thinks getting out of the truck would be okay (although I think his point of view is that it would be a moral imperative) if Zimmerman saw a crime being committed, like an assault or a rape. Funny thing is, this is -EXACTLY- where the cops say to NOT get involved, a crime in progress is an emergency. But, what the cops say aside, analyst would not assign moral culpability to Zimmerman for getting out of his truck to attempt to stop a crime in progress. I speculate that he may assign moral failure if Zimmeman stayed in the truck while watching a crime in progress.

      • I think you give analyst too much credit. Analyst’s judgment is certainly personal, but it has nothing to do with morals or what is prudent. Analyst is insecure. Analyst doesn’t understand courage. Analyst doesn’t understand helping to protect others. Analyst doesn’t understand altruism. Analyst expected George to cower in his vehicle because it’s SAFE, not because it’s right.

        • +1,000 Tara. It reminds of Gov. Scott appointing a special prosecutor, who he and Bondi knew would find charges no matter what, rather than calling out the national guard in the face of threats in his state of riots by the BGI. He gave the BGI strength and a loud voice.

        • “Analyst doesn’t understand altruism.”

          The inability to recognize “altruism” is a growing phenomenon in the western world.

          Asian immigrants are more about competition and a self serving mentality than people care to recognize. It is rare that they will put themselves in harm’s way for another, especially strangers, and especially in a foreign land, and never when it involves blacks. Their religions are very attractive to westerners because its all about detachment and calming down the passions one feels when seeing others suffer. Looking at the dire straits of Asian countries and the devaluation of human life, its obvious their spirituality is not a help to society.

          The new Atheist progs are the worst in their inability to empathize, understand and be compassionate or heroic. They consider altruistic and heroic acts to be above and beyond the call of moral duty, something that leads to delusion and regret in humans.

          The hero theme and the desire to put others before ourselves is a uniquely western phenomenon coming out of our Christian understanding and culture. This is why Analyst and people like him cannot understand what George did that night!

          • The hero theme and the desire to put others before ourselves is a uniquely western phenomenon coming out of our Christian understanding and culture. This is why Analyst and people like him cannot understand what George did that night!

            In the context that GZ had only witnessed a suspicious person that night. Didn’t witness a rape or even a property crime did he? I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re not calling me an Atheist prog, ok?

            • Please excuse the “Analyst and people like him” part.

              One thing, though, you said George did not witness a rape or a property crime, simply a suspicious person. Yes, but recently George’s neighbor feared for her baby and her life when the burglars broke into her home.

              I imagine, George wanted to make sure that this suspicious person was not back for round two. So although he didn’t witness a crime, he was willing to go the distance to prevent one and ensure the suspicious person did not get away.

              And yes, George has a natural heroic tendency to protect and stand up for others as he did a homeless man, and his friend at the bar when they were unjustly attacked by strangers, who turned out to be plain clothed detectives who arrested George.

              When you spoke about moral failure of George, it seemed like New Atheist rhetoric, which is all about moral superiority over people like George who say things like “God’s will.” Praying state prosecutors are okay, and the delusional Trayvon memes and myths are okay. Famous Atheist leaders were the first to sign petitions for Trayvon, and demonize George for his faith.

              Altruism is generally a higher call of duty they do not value, but regard credulity and faith as moral sins for human beings. You clearly are not of their ilk, so thanks for saying that.

        • I’m insecure? I don’t understand courage? I don’t understand altruism? I don’t understand helping others? Profoundly wrong on all counts.

          Where did I say GZ should have stayed in his vehicle because it’s safe? I just said, given what he witnessed – a person acting suspiciously – calling NEN seems like an appropriate response. Just my opinion…

      • You are correct, cboldt. And you may be helping me clarify my assertion. Whether the cops thinks it’s the right thing to do or not, if I see someone being raped and I don’t do something about it, then that is a serious moral failure on my part. And I would certainly question GZ’s or anyone else’s morals / ethics / judgment if they could sit by and watch a woman be raped. And, furthermore, I sure don’t think GZ would stay on the sidelines if he witnessed a crime of that proportion. Rape being far more egregious than viewing a suspicious person.

        • In a separate message, I posted what I think is the bottom line in your quest and request for persausive argument. Your yardstick for “morality” or “judgment” in view of Zimmerman’s action is your own sense of what you would do in the same or similar circumstance. The only yardstick that counts in this debate is your own, which is different from “objective morality” which allows a HUGE range of acceptable actions. We are each of us unique, some more bold, some less bold.

          If you’d been in Zimmerman’s shoes, you would have acted differently. You would not have been armed, and you would not have exited the truck. I don’t see any moral problem with that. But Zimmerman didn’t do the same thing you would have done, and since your yardstick is your conduct, Zimmerman is a failure against your yardstick. Period. You need analyze no further.

          That doesn’t make Zimmerman a failure against any “objective morality.” His actions were easily in the range of reasonable judgment. Naive maybe, but he’s not looking for trouble. You may even agree with that. But even if you do, Zimmerman is still a failure against your yardstick. Send your money elsewhere, to somebody who would act the same way you would.

          • Thanks, cboldt. I’m willing to adjust my morals, or even that I chose to use that particular word – it’s an evolutionary process, not life-long rigidity.

            I didn’t call GZ a failure, in toto, he’s probably a decent guy. I just would have acted differently in that one situation. As I’ve noted in other posts, I’ve now donated some money to GZ and am open to doing more.

            I was just surprised when you implied that my actions were indicative of a troll. I am not. We’ve had some fine exchanges, and as I noted the other day, and you’re one of the most brilliant commenters I’ve had the pleasure to read. Kindest regards…

            • I don’t think “morals” is the right word, but I think you’ve clarified the gravamen of your “concern” very well, so I figure arguing over a label is pointless for purposes of the discussion. The issue is way more probative than the label is.

              I meant for “failure” to be taken in a loose and narrow sense. Getting out of the truck after calling NEN, and while armed. That is your sticking point. You would not have done that, Zimmerman did that. There is a difference between what you would do and what he did. That is “failure” or “moral culpability” or whatever you decide you want to call it. If Zimmerman had stayed in the truck, the incident wouldn’t have happened – at least not the way that it did happen.

              I don’t know what I said that you take as an implication that you are a troll. I think you are sincere. IIRC, you said yourself you were confused as to how to consider Zimmerman’s conduct, and invited discussion.

              Thank you for the too kind compliment.

            • I don’t think you should “adjust your morals,” I don’t think your decision to stay in the truck in the same circumstance is immoral, wrong, a failure, etc. I don’t think your point of view (or Zimmerman’s point of view) is wrong. You two just use a different “risk/benefit calculus.”

              What you refer to as “adjusting your morals,” I am looking at in a very narrow form. You would have to come to the point of view that if you were in the truck, armed, and had called NEN on a supsicious person who was not presently commiting a crime, that YOU would decide to get out of the truck in order to maintain a view of where the person might be going. Well, I’m not going to argue that you should come to that point of view, that you should do that. You should do what is right by you.

              No matter what you do, if something bad happens, you will second guess yourself, and you will be second guessed by others. That’s the way of the world. Monday morning quarterbacks outnumber Sunday quarterbacks by a factor of thousands.

            • analyst: We have known and respected each others views for a while now and I do not recall ever dissing you but you mentioned in general a comment I had made and I asked you to be specific cuz I do not remember it. No big deal.

              I am sure you are aware that you have been become well known here and at Nettles place as well as Mike McDaniel’s Blog. I do not recall anyone ever becoming so “popular” as to become the primary focus and/or subject on multiple threads at at least 3 different blogs.

              Certainly you see how YOUR $25,000 has become so controversial that it has provoked personal attacks even among friends. O am being honest with you in saying that my observation is that, by now, many are growing weary and want you to either put up or shut up.

              Good luck in doing the right thing and making the correct moral decision. I bet you (and others) learned a lot from this

              Peace.. . 😀

          • George has friends with a wide diversity of views from what we know of him. He would appreciate whatever help you feel to give him, if you should decide to donate Analyst.

            Not all George’s supporters agree on everything, including his actions. If you contribute, I think you invest wisely, and you would indeed have George’s gratitude.

    • You are assuming GZ knew the result of leaving the truck would lead to his being physically assualted. I made no such assumption. I would say GZ might have assumed something unfortunate, perhaps a confrontation, could have happened as he had just called in a suspicious person and didn’t want to give Sean his own address in case TM was around to hear it. Fair?

      And I also agree with you that TM should have simply gone to BG’s.

  22. Acts that are considered by many to be immoral (not debating these, just listing them):

    Abortion
    Adultery
    Premarital sex
    Homosexual acts
    Lying
    Cheating
    Truckexitism
    Stealing
    Divorce
    Polygamy
    Capital punishment

    Something doesn’t fit in the list above. Can you find it?

  23. I have always said that GZ made a. Tactical error by getting out of his truck. However; GZ would not be guilty of committing an immoral act because it is Trayvon Martin who is morally responsible for Trayvon Martin’s vicious assault on GZ.

    The only people who are morally responsible for Trayvon Martin’s assault on GZ are Tracy Martin, Sabrina Fulton, Brandy Green and the MDSDPD who knowingly and intentionally allowed TM to run loose in spite of his well known propensity to violence. Jthese situation immorally equivalent tonallowing a rabid dog to run loose. They have no right to object to someone hunting TM down like a dog.

  24. One thing this thread shows is that Zimmerman getting out of the car bothers people even if they buy his self defense claim. His reasons for doing it, strike me, at least, as the most far fetched of anything contained in his interviews. And it really is thin gruel for making an argument to defeat self defense. I keep having visions of BDLR badgering Zimmerman about it for four days while the defendant gets more and more frustrated and forlorn. If anything should keep him off the stand, that’s it.

    • Good point, Ricky

      Listening to stories from victims, over the years, I find that the most important thing is how you tell the story, and whether or not others have the same maturity level and understanding about justice to comprehend what really happened.

      An example, was a story about a teenager kidnapped by a pimp and turned into a prostitute. The facts were undeniable and her rescue by her uncle and aunt was equally horrific. The police took two hours to get there, while the uncle was nearly beaten to death by the pimp.

      Yet, when Diane Sawyer gave the girl a chance to tell her story, the girl sounded like she was lying, or enjoyed her little adventure. Of course, Sawyer immediately picked up the teenager’s inability to realize the danger she was in, and the crime that had been committed against her.

      So, I am worried about George, because most victims of horrific crimes separate their emotions to such a degree, that they are not able to articulate what happened to them in a way that makes sense. God help us!

    • The only people who are bothered by George getting out of his truck are the ones who had already chosen to perceive him as the aggressor despite all of the evidence to the contrary.

  25. He could have gotten out of the car with 44 guns attached to him. If he went back to the car, and left it all alone…

    And that’s the problem for the State. How do they prove that this was NOT the case. How would you, if your life depended on it?

  26. It just seems so stupid for anyone to expect that a person who is legally allowed to carry a concealed weapon is not going to carry it when there is a perceived threat.

    Should I only carry when I’m in my own home? When I go outside I should make sure to leave my gun at home? WHAT’S THE POINT OF CONCEALED CARRY THEN?

    • Excellent point Tara, and one I’ve wondered about for a long time. Because GZ was the NWC, did that render his concealed carry permit useless? As a private citizen, he had the right to carry his gun, had gone through the safety classes, went to the gun range etc. Was he expected to never carry a gun because he was the Neighborhood watch captain? He was on the way to Target that night, but saw something, and said something. I’d bet GZ had a shopping list in his pocket or in his vehicle.

      • “Because GZ was the NWC, did that render his concealed carry permit useless? As a private citizen, he had the right to carry his gun”

        And that is exactly the question the media tripped Taffe up with, “did you know he carried a gun on him while on watch?” And Taffe backed was like errr, no, I did not know that.

        Also he was not on watch that particular evening, but on his way to Target for groceries.

        The one place he didn’t take his gun was work, because the work rules prohibited guns on property. Otherwise it was concealed carry at all times, that means everywhere!

  27. George was the School Principal, School Resource officer, Bus Driver, Fool that didn’t bleed enough, Teacher that blamed him for a fight, and everyone else in Trayvon’s life that he was raging against.

    Trayvon was a ticking timebomb.

    Multiple Schools couldn’t handle him, his Mother couldn’t handle him, his Father couldn’t handle, the Bus Company couldn’t handle him and it was coming. Tick, Tick, Tick….

    • None of it is admissible in Nelson’s kangaroo court!

      Because we are smearing Trayvon’s victimhood, and desecrating his innocent angel image in everyone’s memory, by such truth speech!

  28. Because I agree that the safer choice may have been to stay in the vehicle then leave ,in no way implies I feel that is what GZ should have done to avoid getting assualted. If he had the ability of to forsee he just may have. But the safest choice was to just roll on by and ignore when he saw TM hanging around front lawns.
    Which is what most people would have done. So therefore by not choosing what most would have done, GZ is either culpable, or guilty.
    Of course I see it that there is not anything wrong by assisting police and his choice and that choice had no effect on what TM chose to do or not to do.

    • Danny, I admire you greatly, and hope your mom is doing OK.

      What you are proposing with GZ staying in the vehicle for his safety is not much short of saying that everyone should stay in their homes, lock the doors and windows, and hide out in the basement just in case you may get into a dangerous situation if you venture out into society.

      “Which is what most people would have done.”

      I really hope and pray that the majority of the country will just roll on by when they can make a difference in helping someone, or saving a life. Yes, we surely have become a nation of cowards. Many have been conditioned to view violence as same thing different day. And, oh well, I am not going to be arrested or sued for helping my fellow citizens. There is something very very wrong with the people who have bought into that narrative.

      • Correction- I really hope and pray that the majority of the citizens in the country will “NOT” just roll on by when they have the chance to help other citizens being attacked.

      • Thank you for the kind words. I really appreciate them pinecone.
        I agree. As, bori pointed out on his blog, people confuse ethics with morality to the detriment of society.

        “A moral system valid for all is basically immoral.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche

    • agree with pinecone (see below). no good deed goes unpunished as we know.
      About a year ago, i asked, somewhat facetiously, whether the break-ins at the Retreat at Twin Lakes had stopped. I would bet that they have.

  29. Kind of off topic, but not totally. Analyst had commented that George Zimmerman may have had the security of knowing that he had a loaded gun on him, that gave him the confidence to exit his vehicle. He said that he owns numerous guns. He also talked about encountering a “wobbly and disheveled man in his gated community” unarmed, and that he has 24/7 security guards. He was pizzed that the guy even got into his fortress.

    What would he have done with Trayvon Martin? Seems to me that if he encountered a guy that felt dissed, Trayvon would have likely punched Analyst’s lights out. Because Analyst didn’t have a weapon, we would be reading about a guy in a gated community that was killed by an out of control person who wasn’t about to be dissed.

    • He should have run him over? Sorry. Just kidding. But this has evolved in to the theatre of the absurd and the twilite zone. There are millions of possibilities. I could spend the rest of my life figgering them. All we can go by is actual real evidence.

    • “Analyst had commented that George Zimmerman may have had the security of knowing that he had a loaded gun on him, that gave him the confidence to exit his vehicle.”

      If he held any confidence in having a gun, it was not there when he was being pulverized and assaulted by a mad man for 2 minutes.

      The surprise and speed of the sucker punch broke George’s nose disoriented him! One thing is for sure: The gun was not out and not in his hand!

      George was not second by second aware that he had a gun during the encounter. Most victims of violent crimes will tell you, it all happens too fast to think.

      Thugs count on speed and surprise to catch you off guard. It wasn’t until the gun was exposed and death by ruthless thug was certain, that George realized he could stop the attacker.

    • Analyst had commented that George Zimmerman may have had the security of knowing that he had a loaded gun on him, that gave him the confidence to exit his vehicle. I never said that. Ever. And shouldn’t I be concerned that someone is trespassing? It is private property.

      I don’t live in a fortress, either, and I reminded you about another untrue statement you attributed to me about the guards in my community, saying they are armed: they are not. You are correct about one thing, though, if the guy I confronted had TM’s attitude I could have easily been knocked out or killed…

    • Which is why I said this previously on bori’s blog:
      “On getting out of the truck? It is hard to concieve that removing himself from his vehicle was simply because he has a firearm. If this is what someone concieves then they are more questioning how moral a person is IF they carry a firearm in the first place. Because we know after all guns are designed to be lethal. So basically carrying a firearm in their mind is immoral. They are attempting to argue the morals of an individual who intends on shooting for self preservation. In short….justifiable use of deadly force. “

  30. Something that no one seems to have considered. After TM circled GZ’s truck, and then ran off, could he have run just far enough to ditch any drugs or blunts he had on him? He put the watermelon juice in his hoodie pocket. He could have used that can to bust GZ’s vehicle windows, and sucker punched GZ in his vehicle. He did seemed determined.

    As someone here had said, TM had so many opportunities to disappear, never to be seen again by GZ, or the police. When W^ came outside, and witnessed the beating TM was giving to GZ, if TM was feeling threatened, he could have stood up and run to W6 for protection, if he wanted protection. He didn’t. When he was gone from GZ’s site, he could have called 911 and said he was being followed by some big scary dude. He didn’t. TM had many opportunies to get away from GZ if he wanted to. I honestly believe he was in a rage against GZ, because GZ could have gotten him in even more trouble than he was already in, and he was not about to let that happen. GZ had to be silenced.

    • This is why i tell people to pay attention to his texts and how he would treat a snitch. Wagist, a now defunct blog, had one post early on regarding trayvon ditching his stash and coming back out to play. Kinda made sense. Glad you are discussing that aspect because it fits him like a glove in so many ways.

    • All valid points, pinecone. TM certainly could have made it to BG’s without being impeded by anyone. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, I think DeeDee was egging TM on for a fight. That’s why she ‘got guilt.’

      • But it’s more than that. He wanted George to fight him so he could defeat a snitch, as is shown in his texts – he wants to beat anybody who snitches (one person, speficically).

        George is naive and doesn’t understand how that world works. He only cares about his safety and thought his security blanket would be there for him. He didn’t realize that chasing candy on a railroad tracks might lead to a train running him over. A moral judgement would require the sole intent to cause harm. He was too busy waiting for cops to come to him. But, at this point, it doesn’t matter. The fix is in. And we are allowing carney barker lawyers to use power to convict anybody they want, get rich and ruin lives.

        So if you were to make a donation, it’s not to George or his defense. It would be to ensure people, even if it’s one extra person, realizes that this entire case – literally, is built on a sham that, if it works out, will be common practice and, one day, may claim one of us as a victim. To me, that is what this is about. More than George. More than Trayvon. Ty for your time.

        • “He wanted George to fight him so he could defeat a snitch, as is shown in his texts – he wants to beat anybody who snitches (one person, speficically).”

          I agree with you, but the idea is engrained in us as a social and moral obligation not to tell on others. What makes people think a snitch of any kind is a traitor?

          I know blacks think whites are always out to police them. But whites and other cultures also do not like snitches, and do find a way to make them pay for telling on them. Its simply the degree and legality of the payback that is the issue.

          Take someone blasting their music at 3am every night, and there is one neighbor home, at that hour, who rather than have a confrontation calls the landlord. The person playing the music wanted the neighbor to walk over and ask him nicely, rather than snitch on him. What happens next all depends on what is a social expectation.

          And this is one reason why there was a big ol’ board on property saying, yes, we will snitch on you if you seem suspicious, our call what constitutes suspicion. That too wasn’t enough!

          What should society do with the perceived injustice snitches seem to inflict on others?

  31. Let me try one more analog to try and explain the difference between a moral failure and bad judgment. And I’m asking if this makes sense – trying to understand if this is too nuanced or if I’m just confused.

    A person goes to a bar, has a few drinks. They decide to drive home and they are not legally over the limit in my state (0.08) but maybe 0.07. On the way home, due to being impaired (but still legal) the person swerves into the other lane, hits a car head-on and kills the other driver who is totally sober. Is this bad judgment or a moral failure, i.e., they didn’t break any laws.

    And, perhaps more analogous to the GZ case as far as the actions of each party, same set-up for the driver as in the previous scenario – not legally drunk. In this case, though, the other party although totally sober, accidentally swerves into the lane of the person who registers a 0.07. Due to being slightly impaired (but still legal), the driver’s reflexes aren’t what they would be sober and a head-on accident still occurs and the other (sober) driver dies as a result. Is this bad judgment on the part of the impaired driver, a moral failure – none of the above, just an accident?

    And the reason I ask using an analog is that many appear to be emotionally invested in the GZ case and it may be easier to try unrelated parties and actions.

    • Why did Trayvon attack George, and not stop? That is the question you need to answer first!

      George is a resident, Trayvon is not. Trayvon should have been playing by the rules, which warns anything suspicious will be reported.

      George can get out of his car to smoke, to walk, to follow someone he suspects visit the neighbors, pick up daisies, whatever he wants. Why did Trayvon attack him?

      People are invested in the future of this country, in truth, in freedom, in preserving the rights of their children to not be assaulted by savages who get offended at the drop of a pin. People are waking up to realize, possibly for the first time, that an injustice has happened, civil rights have been violated, laws have been broken by our government, and an innocent family has been terrorized by those who have readily accepted a mythology of Saint Skittles.

      • I’m not defending TM, at all. I think you’ve made a false dichotomy. And the evidence tends to support the attack pretty much as GZ described. Hopefully there will be nothing to refute this – but given the prosecution’s actions, I wouldn’t bet on it.

        • There is no false dichotomy. You want to get inside George’s head but you don’t want to look at the evidence.

          Sean, NEN, asked him for a street name which George did not have. Sean requested he keep an eye on the individual, which was impossible since Trayvon had run between the buildings.

          George could have argued, “you do realize, I have a wife and family, don’t you Sean? This guy circled my car and acted very strangely, are you sure you want me to go out there, before the police arrive?”

          But George quietly complied, and the NEN guy didn’t realize that George would have to get out of his car to comply. George being the reserved stoic type that he is, didn’t vocalize his getting out of the car and when asked if he was following, meaning he was putting himself in danger, he was asked by Sean to not do that. Sean is going to testify this in court!

          Because many of George’s friends and relatives have expressed their personal knowledge of George on many blogs, throughout the year, we know that George is a very intuitive person and very eager to satisfy everyone’s least little wish. This might be his Catholic upbringing or that he is a great guy.

          Either way, you could easily comprehend this yourself, by seeing how willing he was to jump through the hoops for police, by waiving his Miranda rights, and without rest be questioned non stop, including a truth detection test and a video enactment, which is going above and beyond the call of duty.

          • I don’t have to ask about TM hitting GZ, as the evidence to date shows that to be an accurate telling of events. I’ve spent hundreds of hours reviewing evidence and opinions on this case, since March of last year. I’m just making sure you don’t think I support TM at all in any of this. Nothing could be further from the truth.

            I agree that GZ went way above and beyond the call of duty by cooperating with the police. And, while ill-advised, (as GZ may soon find out if some of he said and did without counsel, is used against him) I think it supports the notion that he feels he is innocent. And I think he is innocent of any crime, i.e., he did nothing illegal, given what I’ve read so far, and with the caveat that all the evidence is not public at this time – you are aware of that, right? Not being a jerk, just asking.

            • There is a disconnect in your thinking that George getting out of his truck with handgun (not in hand, but on his person) was a moral failure, if at the same time you seem to understand that he went beyond the call of duty in his cooperation with the police and everyone.

              You are projecting on George, what you would think and feel, and that happens when a person truly has no way to imagine how someone else may not think the way they do.

              • His cooperation with the police was, as I said, ill-advised. Further, cooperating with police isn’t the same as hitting the ground with a gun while there may be a suspicious / dangerous person around – so I don’t see a disconnect.

                I only have my morals and I can’t imagine what GZ was thinking or feeling, just saying what I think I would have done. Nothing more, nothing less…

                • “hitting the ground with a gun”

                  He was not a gun in hand military commando. The gun was on his person, and it is doubtful that he was aware of the gun, on him, since he allowed himself to be brutally assaulted to the point of near death for 2 minutes. Those blood curdling cries certainly do not reflect a man with gun in hand.

                  And if you accept that it wasn’t on his person, then sure, the speed and surprise of the attack could have disoriented him from thinking of the gun on person, but it could also easily be that he was awaiting the cops, and did not want to use his gun, as he has said so many times.

                  He took using a gun quite seriously, if you reflect on the fact that he shot once, and once only. And the first thing he asked the neighbor to tell his wife is that he had to discharge his firearm. He did not take using the gun lightly. And I think he was willing to take a beating till the police arrived, if someone would have helped distract and shook this kid off him.

                  • The fact that he fired the gun, despite KNOWING the cops would be there any minute, just goes to show how terrified he was. He knew he couldn’t wait even a few SECONDS longer… without possibly dying himself. I know that’s not really what we’re debating here, but I just wanted to say that.

                    • I agree, Jello. And I think it’s fair to add that the police were en route because he called them! This case has so many unusual plot twists, narratives, characters, schemes, and motives that even Hollywood would write-off as improbable. Wow.

              • And also are you good with your doubt about whether or not he knew the street name?

                If you are not, I can tell you from my own experience living in the same area, in a similar complex, I did not know the other street names around the complex, after a decade of living there. Its never needed for anything. When giving directions, Floridians seem to rely on markers more than street names.

                • I believe I said, looking at the map and the approximate location of his vehicle, there were closer addresses than RVC. But, since we really don’t know where his truck was parked (or I haven’t seen any evidence) it may pole vaulting over a mouse turd. And I don’t know the names of a couple of the streets around me, either, but I know that there are roads that the houses face (with house numbers), and I know the difference between those versus the alleys or dog walks…

        • This is the second time you claim a false dichotomy. Are you saying there is such a thing as a true dichotomy? LOL This is mighty brave for someone who is begging the question!
          Sometimes one event really does cause another one that comes later. Oh, and examples are NOT false dichotomies, they are examples. That is….still true even if if there is no such thing as true dichotomies 😉 And of course, like I have stated to you previously on Nettles blog….you either believe GZ was morally right to get out of his vehicle, or you believe he was immoral to get out of his vehicle. Clearly, you can’t feel neutral on the subject of him leaving the vehicle because you are the one who is begging the question, and required convincing of what is moral and immoral. Hence, did the end justify the means or not?

          • Dichotomies do exist, and don’t require the modifier ‘true’, as it’s redundant.

            Please point out where I’ve begged the question – I hate that logical fallacy, and am very sorry if I employed it. If you think that including an opinion in my premise is petitio principii, then do you feel an opinion can be a point of departure for argument? You’ll erase a lot of Greek and Roman philosophy if you do.

            Please, if you don’t mind, point out where I specifically labeled examples as false dichotomies. You may be less adroit at classical rhetoric than you think. Or you may have some issues with comprehension or inference. Or, I may be in error and have written something completely daft. If so, my apologies in advance.

            • I am not the one that stated dichotomies did not exist. You did by claiming there are false ones. I just pointed that out. If there is a claim something is false, then their must be a truth to it? Something can not come from nothing.

              ” If you think that including an opinion in my premise is petitio principii, then do you feel an opinion can be a point of departure for argument? You’ll erase a lot of Greek and Roman philosophy if you do.”

              Where had I added any opinion to your premise? Very simple. You stated your opinion which is…. you would have done different then another individual. You have stated what it was you would have done differently.
              There are limited choices. Either to remain in the vehicle and wait for the police, or to make the choice GZ did and get out of the vehicle. This is not an opinion, this is a fact.
              Why is this not a false dichotomy? Because we are discussing your choice, which was to remain in the vehicle, and the choice someone already made, which was to exit the vehicle.
              You limited the “choices” when you made your decision compared to GZ’s.
              You can not claim any false dichotomy to choices already made. I am simply analyzing each of your choices and determining what is moral and immoral with the knowledge I have, as you have asked.

              The question you are begging is whether or not GZ’s choice was moral. You already have deduced it was immoral, not only immoral but that since you made a different decision there are no other choices other then your choice . If one’s premises entails one’s conclusion, it is “begging the question.”

              • Are you saying there is such a thing as a true dichotomy? That is what you asked.

                You added premise to my argument, without which a question cannot be begged. And, importantly, I’ve asked to be shown any possible errors in my reasoning, assessment of morals et cetera – up front. My pins are set up to be knocked down, not accepted as truth. Cool? A clearer, and self-evidencing classic p.p. is this: ‘Funds required to diminish the effects of global warming…’ with global warming (cause) yet to be proven. My construct is entirely different.

                Thanks, Danny.

                  • With the original comment, I was asking for advice., even a whomp upside the head. Where was I worng… Am I missing something… As I’m now asking, did I conflate judgment and morals… Can they be completely exclusive…

                    Not circular logic, by my understanding. I offered my opinions, not truths. Again, c’mon…

    • In both of your scenarios, the person who was just below the legal limit KNEW, with virtual certainly, that at some point on the way home they would encounter other cars on the road. George, on the other hand, assumed that Trayvon was long gone, and there was virtually no chance of encountering him up-close and personal.

      • Without splitting too many hairs, I’ve made several short drives lately without encountering another vehicle on the road. But, point taken – it’s really hard to find a good analogy…

        • I know, it wasn’t that bad an analogy, depending on the circumstances. My point being, under the circumstances George found himself in, I really don’t think he did anything wrong… I really don’t think he had any expectation OR desire to wind up close to Trayvon again. And if that’s true, then I see no way there can POSSIBLY be a “moral” component to this.

    • “A person goes to a bar, has a few drinks. They decide to drive home and they are not legally over the limit in my state (0.08) but maybe 0.07. On the way home, due to being impaired (but still legal) the person swerves into the other lane, hits a car head-on and kills the other driver who is totally sober. Is this bad judgment or a moral failure, i.e., they didn’t break any laws.”

      First of all let me say I believe I understand your views on morality now.

      Accidents are not subject to moral judgement.
      Only intentional actions are subject to moral judgement. However, sometimes even unintentional actions can become reckless, and may also be subject to moral judgement.
      I need much more information about the individual to determine whether or not they made a bad judgment. Such as their logical structure, ethics, how often they consume alcohol, the circumstances in which they drank alcohol, their age, where they on medications, etc.

      • Thanks, Danny. (I think…) As I’ve mentioned, I was just trying to find a few analogs – and admittedly not dissertation length, and unfortunately missing a few details, as you point out. And, unfortunately again, we can get into a semantic discussion of what determines an accident. I very much wish I hadn’t opened this can of worms and am busy trying to respond to those who have responded.

        • Hey you’re back, lol. Wasn’t sure if you were going to come back to this board given so many replies you have received. I find it unfortunate that you have gotten such a response here as it has disrupted our conversation. From our conversation I still haven’t figured out exactly how you believe George was wrong for what he did. Perhaps we should start over.

          Can you articulate the wrong? Such as “it is wrong for people to…because…” or “One ought not do…because…”.

          I don’t think George did anything wrong. I think even if he had intent on following Trayvon that would still not be wrong. I think even if George was the one to confront him and say “What are you doing around here?” that still not would be wrong.

          • Dman. Here is how it works in the real world. Go back to the beginning. Serino was trying his best to put together a charge he could sell to the state attorney. In the end and after all the investigation the only thing he could come up with was unnecessary killing of a felon in the process of committing a felony. It is the lowest degree of homicide. He could not even sell that to the State Attorney. So the SA wanted more. Thus the grand jury. The ST could not accept that low charge because there is no way to plea bargain down to a lesser charge. Also even a conviction on that charge would ruin there chances at law suits. It labels the Tcon as the felon he was. This leads us to the intervention.

          • Hi D-Man:

            Yes, you’re right – and I should have ignored many of the comments. I’ve certainly never been part of something like this before.

            Let me knock out a few easy ones first: TM should have gone home, I think he doubled back, and I think DeeDee egged him on to fight GZ.

            GZ, upon available evidence, did nothing illegal. Not even getting out of his truck with a gun was illegal. Period.

            The prosecution in Florida is sinful.

            Now, for your main questions. I think it was wrong for GZ to get out of his vehicle after he had called the NEN and while this suspicious guy could have still been around, possibly leading to a confrontation or worse.

            One ought not to expose oneself, or others, to escalated danger, e.g., gunfire, in non-emergency situations. I’ve used the rape analogy a few times on other posts – If I had seen a rape, I’d call and jump out of the truck. GZ would, we can easily assume, do the same.

            Am I clarifying this for you, or am I still viewed as on tangent? I’m sincere and I’m trying. Also, if you’ve had enough of this, dump the thread and ask me not to mention anything like this ever again. I’ll respect your call – I think you know that. Appreciate you defending me against the accusation of trolling… Thank you.

            • Okay a couple of things first. I am not sure why you direct things at me that have never been part of my conversation with you. You do that sort of thing in nearly every reply to me. Now you have predicated your reply here with “Let me knock out a few easy ones first” and your following examples. I never mentioned any of that yet you make it as a response to me as if I had. Then you end with “Am I clarifying this for you, or am I still viewed as on tangent?” This is unnecessary, when have I said such a thing as you being on a tangent?

              I am not the rest of the people commenting to you. Please, if you respond to me respond to what I say and not what the world is saying.

              Now let me address this:

              “I think it was wrong for GZ to get out of his vehicle after he had called the NEN and while this suspicious guy could have still been around, possibly leading to a confrontation or worse.”

              I don’t see a wrong in that. Our mere existence contains that very same element. Are you saying we should embrace antinatalism? “It is wrong to have children for one day they may be driving to the store where people who no doubt intend to do them wrong along the way would then no doubt cause them to suffer therefore we ought to end the human species.”

              “One ought not to expose oneself, or others, to escalated danger..”

              That’s an odd sentence to me in the particular instance of George moving from point A to point B.

              • My preamble was no different from your closing where you made overarching statements: I don’t think George did anything wrong. I think even if he had intent on following Trayvon that would still not be wrong. I think even if George was the one to confront him and say “What are you doing around here?” that still not would be wrong. Fair enough?

                You did ask what GZ did wrong. From our conversation I still haven’t figured out exactly how you believe George was wrong for what he did. I think my first response to your question was specific to GZ and this case – why are you introducing antinatalism? Didn’t you just admonish me for the same perceived non sequitur?

                Per the second, could you provide a little more clarification re: moving from point A to point B? Is this the truck to the ‘T’? Much thanks…

                • Yes the truck to the T.

                  “why are you introducing antinatalism”

                  It’s an attempt to find this wrong you believe exists. There are always suspicious people around. There are always people around who will cause you harm. Our mere existence not only can but will lead to confrontation or worse. Therefore…

              • I think what analyst1961 is saying the problem in leaving the vehicle in their opinion was because GZ already called NEN and the police were on their way. The moral dilemma I think being questioned is taking such action(getting out of the safety of the vehicle) when no- one is yet in danger, or putting ones-self in danger.
                I do not believe analyst1961 is saying GZ is immoral for thinking TM was suspicious, but is questioning how moral it was for GZ to remove himself from safety and giving the appearance he was a threat to TM.

                Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

                However, I still believe these thoughts are the result because GZ was armed and TM was not.

      • Can a person be immoral if they do not know they are? What is the morality of a law that sets .08 as a standard? How is one to know what their BA level is? .07 or .08? Can one call 911 for the Police to come check them before they drive?

        • Well, 0.08 is certainly arbitrary, but it is the law in my state. Many bars have BAC machines at the exits. It was a just a hypothetical, not a dissertation, c’mon… And everybody knows you call the NEN for blood alcohol content checks! (a little humor)

          • They do? What a liability risk. Suppose they are calibrated wrong? They do not have them here. A fatal wreck by a customer would leave them wide open. But I think it a good question. I will give you the answer. Implied Consent.

          • Analyst1961….you up?
            It seems your analogy of GZ moral judgement with alcohol impairment both physically and mentally is, to me, off base.
            When TM started running, If you can read Google Maps, TM was some 150 feet minimum from GZ sitting in his truck, that’s half a football field. So if you were on a football field, and you were trying to catch up with your
            suspect, and you were in the end zone and he was at the 50 yd line…could you catch him…could you even shoot him with a pistol from that distance and hit him?
            Why did TM run…logically…he did that to bate him, set him up for attack, there is no other reason because “he wasn’t doing anything wrong”…looking at the beautiful condos in the rain at night in the dark…nothing wrong with that.
            So, running some 150 feet from GZ planted the idea in GZ’s head…why is he running? and for what reason. GZ was in his truck sitting. Tell ME how dangerous being half a football field away from a “suspicious” person is dangerous…AND how could GZ let the NEN dispatcher “know what else he does” if TM is out of sight….the kid (TM) could have been shot by
            one of GZ’s neighbors for…is there still such a thing as being a “peeping tom”?
            In conclusion…suspicion, is all it is, suspicion…UNTIL it BECOMES danger.

  32. Here’s something I posted at another blog earlier this evening, in an attempt to try to explain how George’s actions can all easily make sense…

    ———————–

    George’s initial reason for getting out of the truck just after saying “He’s running” WAS partly to “follow” Trayvon… as he stated on the tape. But “follow” meant only (as he also said later) go in the same direction. It did NOT mean “chase” or “pursue” or, least of all, “attempt to catch”. It was all about trying to get in a position where he could maybe see where Trayvon had gone, possibly getting a glimpse of him as he disappeared down at the south end of the sidewalk. I suspect George hadn’t really stopped to think how unlikely that was, considering the dark, distance, and weather. When he resignedly says, “He ran”, it’s almost like he’s slapping himself for having such a “dumb” idea. “What made you think you were gonna be able to see him?”

    And then I think George just stood basically right there, right near the “doggy station” during most of the rest of the call. Probably peering southward down the sidewalk into the gloom, just shaking his head. Then, after standing there for awhile, and still not having much luck describing to Sean where his truck is, it’s at THAT point that he thinks, “Well, since I’m already here, why not go on over to the street and see if I can get an address.” I think that’s pretty much what he’s in the process of doing as he gets to the end of the call. And it would also explain why he suddenly changed from meeting at the mailboxes, to “call me when they get here and I’ll tell them where I’m at.” And by the time he hung up with Sean, he had NOT YET gotten the address.

    So then (which accounts for some of the “missing time”), George stands on RVC for a little bit, getting an address and maybe even looking southward down the street just in the slight chance he might still see something. Maybe he at first plans to stand right there and wait for the cops. But then he starts to head back to his truck. You’re gonna ask, “So why was he walking back to his truck rather than staying on RVC where he had just gotten an address?” As someone else said, it was cold and raining. He really didn’t know how long it would be before the cops arrived. So why not walk back to the truck, jump in, drive around the block and park on RVC in front of the address you had just gotten, and which you intended to give the cops when they called you?

    I think that scenario pretty much explains all of George’s actions, and fits well with the timeline and distances involved.

    • “George’s initial reason for getting out of the truck just after saying “He’s running” WAS partly to “follow” Trayvon… as he stated on the tape. But “follow” meant only (as he also said later) go in the same direction. It did NOT mean “chase” or “pursue” or, least of all, “attempt to catch”.

      And he did all of that because Sean the NEN dispatch was asking for that information.

      George did not simply do this on his own, lets remember that!

      Sean asked him for the street name, and he asked him to keep an eye on the individual. And Sean will be testifying that in court.

      • George gave all the information that Sean had asked for as he was getting out of his truck: Martin was running towards the back entrance. As I keep pointing out, George’s action of ignoring Sean’s implied suggestion, 15 seconds later, to get back to the truck, shows he was really stupid and reckless (not immoral IMHO) that night, in contrast to the way he behaved on other NEN calls. If he also is stupid enough to take the stand at the trial, he will have plenty of opportunity to explain the difference.

          • “We don’t need you to do that” implied “Get back to the safety of your truck”. Zimmerman admitted that during one of the Serino interviews. He said he didn’t comply right away because he felt obligated to get the dispatcher an address. Whether that was an outright lie or some other manifestation of an addled brain, I don’t know.

            • While playing the NEN call for Zimmerman on 2/29/12:
              (plays tape 2:26 to 2:34 )
              Serino: OK, at the point where he said, are you following him, and he said, we don’t need you to do that, what went through your mind?
              Zimmerman: He’s right.
              Serino: So you shoulda stopped and went back to your vehicle.
              Zimmerman: I still wanted to give him an address.
              *******************************
              The only thing that can remotely be considered as a request for an address was,
              2:57:16 – All right, where are you going to meet with them at?
              There is absolutely nothing on this or previous NEN calls to show that a particular house address would help catch a moving suspect, out to rob a house on an early Sunday evening.
              When I was a kid, when somebody came up with a such a story, we would all chant, “And the farmer took another load away”.

              • Oops, the address reference was:
                3:18:39 – [crosstalk: unintelligible] Okay, what-what address are you parked in front of?
                But it is clear that the dispatcher was just complying with Zimmerman’s ridiculous request that the cops look for his truck, which he later dropped.

                • What, more than anything, did George care about when he got out of that truck? I would wager it is the thing most obvious and it is not helping the police find him for their sake, nor is it to approach Trayvon.

                  What is the most obvious reason a person, who has a habit of wanting the cops near him, who is too scared to give out his address when he may be close to the kid who he fears may be hiding, would want to know where that kid is or where that kid lives.

                  Anybody? His personal safety. He is a beta male. That’s why the man with a gun was on the phone in his car worried when he was approached by Trayvon. Want proof an alpha male doesn’t call NEN/911 when he wants to approach somebody? Ask Trayvon’s cousin or friends if he was one to call 911. Then ask the NEN crew if he did. Then find one story where an attacker called 911 first and recorded their movements leading up to the planned attack.

                  It doesn’t exist. Neither does this story. It never happened that way, and that is the entire point. The entire thing is a misdirection that transferred the alpha male properties from Trayvon to George, because human behavior is one thing that cannot be disputed that transcends all cultures and ages. Alphas attack, beta’s retreat.

                  You can’t win lawsuits if your victim is an alpha male. George’s mistake was not knowing the difference and letting instinct take over. He felt safer knowing what was going on. HE didn’t have to leave the cars before, for the most part, because there was no risk. Ever.

                  But now a kid knows what he looks like and what car he is in. That is scary. When that happens, you want them caught – off the streets. He didn’t need him dead, he needed Trayvon to be off the streets. Like the other people he called in, who he never assaulted, shot or confronted.

                  People needed to be misdirected so we could transfer our focus from human behavior to narrative. We overlook the obvious, sometimes, that instincts and fear cloud judgement and lead to actions that are not meant to be immoral but sometimes are stupid. And that’s the entire point of this misdirection because you cannot have a lawsuit until Trayvon becomes the Beta male. The 911 call and limited evidence allowed them to do this because it was ambiguous enough to allow it.

                  That’s why Chad could make up the bs story about Trayvon going to the store during 711 halftime. They didn’t have the 711 video

                  That’s why DeeDee was allowed to exist, he didn’t consider the possibility of them blowing that cover or the technological ramifications. He is not sophisticated enough to consider these things can blow up in his face. Let alone the fact that, with the track record of black bullies in the BGI getting what they want ,and being friends with the lady who brought on Angela Corey (Pam Bondi) – he didn’t HAVE to worry about it.

                  Always remember to look in the opposite direction when the criminals tell you where to look because, when you look right, the person with the billy club is coming from the other direction.

                  If only George knew this – unlike the gullible public and US media.

                  • Oh, and Tray would do as his cousin does, which is to ‘duck crackas’ – and lord knows his texts talk about worldstar (world star hip hop aka, home of the knockout kings game videos)

                    The term ‘duckin’
                    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=duckin%27

                    (you can also search that term without the apostrophe)

                    http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/07/03/73-george-zimmerman-case-open-discussion-thread/#comment-152181

                    (Hat tip Diwataman, obviously)

                    And this is why Trayvon became cleo huxtable or urkel. That’s the entire god damn point. If you really dig deep you realize Tracy was the kind of dude who was, well, not the strictest of parents and best influence. But that’s another story for another time.

                    It’s so g.d obvious what Tray was doing and what happened that it is heart breaking 99% of the public will not get it or, worse, care.

                    • Fyi, I theoretically could have kept it away from Ricky’s reply chain, it is not to question them/directed at them, just to add to the discussion of him moving out of the truck/etc. It just created the need for the spur of the moment post, that’s all.

        • How did Martin suddenly appear if he was running towards the back entrance. George was neither stupid nor reckless, he was trying to make sure the police had the exact information they needed to make note, keep an eye, catch and question the guy, anything to prevent something worse from happening to his neighbors.

          • Sorry if I worded my post badly. I should have said that Zimmerman told the dispatcher that Martin was running towards the back entrance as he was leaving his truck. Thus he had answered the dispatcher’s question before he headed up the cut through to RVC, ignoring the dispatcher’s implied suggestion that he return to his truck.
            2:10:24 – Uh [grunts while exiting truck] down towards the other entrance of the neighborhood [door
            closes].
            2:14:33 – Okay and which entrance is that he’s heading towards?
            2:17:17 – The back entrance [splashes through puddled water in gutter/wind noise]. F*cking punks! [or
            ‘pud’ls’].
            2:22:79 – Are you following him?
            2:24:98 – Yeah.
            2:25:20 – Okay, we don’t need you to do that.
            2:27:75 – Okay.

            • “ignoring the dispatcher’s implied suggestion that he return to his truck.”

              I really don’t understand where you get that, AT ALL. Implying that he should stop “following”? Yeah. Anything more? Nope. In fact, based on Sean’s tone, and the fact that he and George just calmly talk for the next two minutes, I don’t believe Sean is even THINKING about suggesting that George go back to his truck. He seems perfectly fine with George going wherever he wants to go.

              • If you go up thread a ways, you will see where I quoted Zimmerman agreeing with Serino that the implication was to get back to his car, but he explained he didn’t comply right away because he felt obligated to give the dispatcher an address.

                • Nope. If the transcript is accurate, what George was “agreeing with” was the part about “following”. Notice at first Serino says nothing about going back to his car.

                  Serino: OK, at the point where he said, are you following him, and he said, we don’t need you to do that, what went through your mind?

                  Zimmerman: He’s right.

                  (In other words, George thinks Sean was “right” to suggest not to follow. So far, neither George nor Serino have mentioned going back to the car.)

                  Serino: So you shoulda stopped and went back to your vehicle.

                  Zimmerman: I still wanted to give him an address.

                  (So Serino is not claiming Sean thought he “shoulda stopped and went back to your vehicle”. While it’s true that Sean suggested the “stop” part, he did NOT suggest the “go back to vehicle” part. Never even implied it. It was SERINO who did that. And George didn’t agree or disagree with him. But either way, it wasn’t about what Sean said, or what George thought he was suggesting beyond “don’t follow”.)

                  • For reasons I have detailed here previously, wanting to give the dispatcher an address is an unprecedented absurdity. I can’t see any difference in Zimmerman’s actions if the dispatcher had said nothing. I don’t think he would have headed down the dogpath without a working flashlight.

              • Why are we still speculating about what George thought? Who can know that aside from George?

                Why, are we still splitting hairs over that NEN call when the jury may not ever hear it. However, even if they do, does everyone here really believe that they will split hairs like we have done?

                We have had over a year to digest that call and I bet some of our “opinions” have been later influenced and maybe even changed by putting things into a perspective we gained AFTER hearing more details.

                The jury will NOT have the benefit of what we have all heard nor will they have 15 months to think about it.

                I am not sure what we are accomplishing by continuing to go on and on except to disagree with each other and get riled up over differences in perspectives and those are NOT likely to be altered.

                I almost forget the subject of the thread. Where is the 25 grand now? Does it have legitimate status?

                If anyone gives the defense that much money at one time, I think we will hear about it.

                Where the hell is the NRA? Did they run out of money to help indigent gun owners like George who are being prosecuted by the state’s finest? Isn’t his case worthy of financial support? I know that they have helped others in the past even if it was not made public so what is different this time?

                • I was getting ready to answer your question about why we keep debating stuff… but then you answered it yourself: “I almost forget the subject of the thread.” That’s it. You’re right that generally there’s not much point in rehashing all this. But I figured that on the chance Analyst is serious about his offer, it would be wrong of me to not at least TRY to explain to him everything I’ve learned over this past year. And based on some of his comments, I think maybe I (and others) have got him to reconsider his views, at least a little. Whether that’s enough for him to give the $$ to the Defense, is for Analyst to decide. He seems to agree with the rest of us, that George is being horribly persecuted… so really I don’t understand why he doesn’t just say HERE YA GO, GEORGE. But that’s just me, I guess. I said months ago that if I hit the lottery, George’s entire defense and living expenses would have instantly been covered… and I absolutely meant that (as does my wife).

                  • Do you know how many blogs have been consumed by this, including multiple threads? Stately Manor, DMan and Nettles all have featured analyst. If he has not changed his mind by now, should we keep giving him space?

                    I think he was well liked and respected until he brought money into the conversation. Some of us got caught up in this because we wanted the damn money in the fund. WRONG reason to debate.

                    Oh, well, he got a helluva lot more than 15 minutes of fame even if it was not his intention.

                    • Thanks, I guess I needed that… kinda a friendly slap in the face to wake me up. Yep, I’m done now. If what I’ve said to Analyst hasn’t been enough to help him decide, well, nothing more I can do

                      Seriously… thanks, Jordan..

    • The main point to me is that there is no evidence at all that Zimmerman ventured south of the T in the sidewalk. There is evidence that Martin did. In order for the two to meet Martin had to return to the T. He caused his own death. He was between Zimmerman and the safety of BG house. He made a decision to return. He knew where Zimmerman was. Zimmerman did not know where Martin was. There is evidence of this. Objective evidence.

      • People are trying to infer too much from one single statement without looking at the whole. For instance, if the “ok, we don’t need you to do that” was more than that a precaution then why would he continue the conversation as Sean did. At not point did Sean make any other indication to make either GZ think that his actions were wrong.

        “Alright George we do have them on the way. Do you want to meet with the officer when they get out there?”

        In fact, Sean downplayed the incident so much that he even asked GZ if he still wanted to meet with the police, if I may infer at this point it seems that Sean thought as GZ that TM had run out the back entrance. So it seems that Sean thought that the police would do a drive around the complex and that would be all.

        Which brings me to my final point, GZ’s actions are immaterial until TM decided to assault GZ,

        • “Which brings me to my final point, GZ’s actions are immaterial until TM decided to assault GZ,”
          I agree.
          Not only do I agree, it appears the State of Florida has as well, being they had to file all those motions in limine to stop any talk about any behavior prior to the confrontation during opening. It kinda defeats the whole probable cause information now does it not?

          • The issue now, how is the prosecution going to prove malice for the charge? Reich, basically he has become the State’s Whole case. If you believe him, then GZ is a murderer, who shot TM while he was begging for GZ to stop. Case closed.

            Basically the State is using MOM’s defense, where as MOM is saying that GZ could not retreat, BDLR is saying that TM tried to retreat or disengage but was not allowed by GZ.

            Who was the initial aggressor, who was on top, who was getting beaten does not matter. If TM was trying to retreat and GZ shot him, that is their case.

        • Sean downplayed the incident so much that he even asked GZ if he still wanted to meet with the police

          Zimmerman said that a few times in his statements. If you listen to the NEN recording, you will find i isn’t true.

            • Do blockquotes not show on your browser? Or maybe the typo is confusing you. The ‘i’ was supposed to be ‘it’.

              The dispatcher only asked Zimmerman once if he wanted to meet the police, and he didn’t say ‘still’.

              NEN Call, 2:52

              • This was an inference, just as “ok, we don’t need you to that”. Sean also asked the question after the famous statement. It is an easy inference to make, as none of Sean subsequent statements demonstrated any concern, neither did Sean attempt to stay on the line until the police arrived as is procedure in dangerous situations.

  33. howie I would have to see the sentence to see what they were attempting to say.
    Maybe they meant ” inferred suggestion” ? The speaker does the implying, and the listener does the inferring.

  34. For the Trayvon supporters who see George as a vigilante, a wannabe cop, and as Serino put it, he had a hero comples or something, I invite you to key into your search engine-

    The Feminization of the American Male

    You will be rewarded with article after article of how our educational system, particularly grade school with an overwhelming number of female teachers, has created what we used to refer to decades ago by boys and girls alike as “sissies.”

    • Are you saying western males are “pussy whipped,” Minpin? I agree!

      And to add a few points, we have questioned the whole “hero” notion of western males, and left them apologizing for the slightest desire to help and protect others. How idiotic is that?

      Its difficult for young men like George, who grow up with the slightest dignity or honor from their culture or religion, to come out in the world and not be thrashed for their humanity.

      Yet, note how quickly white females long to be in the arms of the surly, masculine, chauvinist, misogynist types growed up in the black American culture or the Muslim culture. And how many pussified males in the west can no longer handle the feminist expectations for western females, and long for the submissive and coquettish Asian females.

  35. If there was any “immoral” behavior on Zimmerman’s part it wasn’t in leaving his truck. It was in later fibbing to investigators about his reasons for doing so. My theory is that he couldn’t face up to the fact he made a booboo and admit it to them. Do I think this compares to the immorality shown by Tracy Martin, Ben Crump, Sybrina Fulton and some others or what politicians do and say every day? I think you know the answer.

    • Another example of human behavior out of fear (as I stated above) instead of out of malice. Something that, in today’s liberal world of “it’s either A OR B ONLY. And you must agree with ME!!”, leads to many people overlooking human nature and falling for a bs narrative and overlooking simple g.d common sense. Absolutely terrifying.

    • We all know gz has a slight problem with veracity–for a number of reasons as outlined by MOM before the 2nd bail hearing. RZ just backs up the story.
      IMHO, he should just come clean and state that he was suspicious of trayvon, with very good reason it turns out, and he didn’t want to lose him. It’s as simple as that.
      Stop the deal about following Sean’s instructions and all of that garbage that no one is going to believe. Just be truthful!

      • but should he be facing a 2nd degree murder charge for naivete? hardly. Perhaps sundance is on to something when he claims the lynching of gz has begun. I still have hope though.

        • This is racial karma payback – our President has made his career literally based on race. From his activism in Harvard to now, this is a dream for them. They are going to get their conviction. The question is if it then dies down and then he gets off on appeal and then moves on with his life.

          Oh, the days of integrity and accountability are long gone. White libs are gutless scumbags and would happily keep themselves away from the ruckus and save their hides then do something honorable and save a man from a horrible fate.

          No, he’s cooked. The fix is in. That’s why the case exists. That’s the point. The case wouldn’t come unless it was assured they can find a legal means to avoid all evidence to get a conviction. Everything will be a hurdle for Omara and this is all a dog and pony show. The only thing that would save him is a god damn fluke or miracle or a technicality that even cousin shit, I mean cousin it, cannot ignore. Or a hydrogen bomb, whatever works for you.

      • We all know gz has a slight problem with veracity

        Many people claim not to know that. At TalkLeft, forum or blog, your remark would have a good shot at deletion.

        • What is your evidence for “We all know gz has a slight problem with veracity.”

          This is to both Stevie G and nomatter, since you are agreeing on this.

            • Tell me, how accurate is YOUR perception of distances, of times, of sequences of events… how perfect is YOUR memory of exact words? Pretty good? Oh wait, I don’t mean on an ordinary day. I mean in the hours just after:

              You were threatened by an unknown person.

              You were then surprised out of the darkness by the person.

              You were punched in the face, causing you to be temporarily blinded, staggered, dizzy, and in intense pain.

              You were knocked down, pinned to the ground, with you head being repeatedly pushed into the ground.

              You were barely able to breath at times, thanks to the blood in your nose, and this person holding his hand over your mouth trying to shut you up.

              You screamed for help, screamed in pain and terror for a full minute, but no one came to your aid.

              You were eventually forced to shoot the person attacking you.

              And then, it all hits you: Now the fear and pain is secondary to the realization that you’ve just KILLED another human being. You now have to explain all this to your family. You now have to explain all this to the police. You may be in SERIOUS trouble.

              And now, over the next 24 hours, you are repeatedly questioned by the police, sometimes in a hostile manner… without a lawyer.

              So back to my initial question:

              Under THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, how accurate would YOUR perception of distances, of times, of sequences of events be… how perfect would YOUR memory of exact words be?

                • Yep, goes to George’s naivete in not asking for a lawyer right away. Also goes to show just how innocent he was/is, but still… it’s too bad he didn’t just say “Sorry guys, I better get a lawyer first.” But anyway, his minor “inconsistencies” are not enough to seriously hurt him, since they can be pretty easily explained, and the rest of the evidence is so solidly in his favor.

                  • We do not know that any evidence that shows any “inconsistencies” are even going to be allowed. What did you have in mind that they can actually bring into that court room?

                    If I recall, as long as MOM knows his stuff, only one of his statements, if any, will be allowed since they are “substantially” the same. There have been several legal discussions about that including the latest hearsay factor.

                    • “If I recall, as long as MOM knows his stuff, only one of his statements, if any, will be allowed since they are “substantially” the same.”

                      Ah, I had forgot about that. If that’s the case, then yeah… it’ll simplify things. Really, I’m having lots and lots of trouble seeing how the State can put on enough evidence to even get past their part of the trial. You know… the asking for a verdict as soon as the State rests, without the Defense having to even put on their case. That’s how it SHOULD go, and the only way it wouldn’t is if Nelson just absolutely goes full Nazi on us once it begins. As Howie would say… ah dunno.

                    • Seriously.. my friend.. exactly what is the state’s case? How much can Bernie legally say in his opening statement that would take more than two minutes?

                      Think about what witnesses he could call and how long their testimony would take. Would that take more than an hour? If O’Mara never made an objection, we could be out of that courtroom at lunch time.

                      Yeah, I believe that O’Mara can end the case as soon as Bernie sits down and stops waving.

          • To be clear, I don’t agree with ‘We all know’, and I said so. I’m well aware that there are people who disagree.

  36. Maybe he was afraid of being racist. Who knows. But what a silly reason that would be. Kudos to the black community and media for their tremendous behavior in probably one of the only guilty before innocent verdict trials and scams I have ever seen in my life.

    The best part about all of this – is that even if he had a swastika and 4 guns, if he went back to his car – if he did – Trayvon is responsible for his death. He could have gone home, he went up to the car first. He knew what he was doing.

    George wanted a career and a family. Trayvon wanted loose ass pussy and illegal guns. Only in America so we pick the scumbag to be the victim and debate why george should or should not exit a g.d truck.

    “He should not have done this”. People who think that are the people I wish would deal with Trayvons of the world. You think you are safe with them? Good. I honestly hope you encounter at least 4 of them in your lifetime when you are alone. I’ll gladly walk the streets with a Zimmerman instead of streets with that creep. A creep even a mother did not want to live with. Time to move onto another challenge…

    None of this happens if Trayvon was raised right. None of it. Literally. And, as usual, the black community ignores a parental failing, as does the media, and gets no blame. Ever. George lived there. Trayvon didn’t. Why he was there is why he is dead. End of damn story. One great way to keep a kid alive is to not have him bus it 100’s of miles out or have your ‘side piece’ pick him up, have him want illegal guns, get kicked out of his mother’s house, out of school and aim for pot and ‘fire ass lean’. That would have saved his damn life, even if george had 44 guns and 3 kkk gangs on speed dial. And the refusal to acknowledge this is why 1,000 more Trayvons will die in the next 5 years and 999 of them will not get a mention for reasons we already know.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s