About . . . . Classes . . . . Books . . . . Vita . . . . Blog. . . . Podcast

by Peter Moskos

March 29, 2012

Show me the blood?

Video of Zimmerman entered the police station has been released. I don't see any blood. I don't see any grass stains. I don't see anybody who looks faintly like they were on the loosing end of a fight. The clothes look neat and unripped and he's walking well. I don't see how it coincides with the police report.

All that said, Zimmerman's nose is a bloody (or not) distraction. Zimmerman's condition, though interesting, is irrelevant to the actually issues which matter. Namely that Martin, who was walking home and minding his own business, was shot and killed by a man who remains free. None of those facts, best I know, have ever been disputed.

Here's a link to a Sanford government website that offers some answers to many questions.

Update, April 21: There is some blood. And no, it's not life threatening. It's also still irrelevant. And I can't help but think that perhaps Zimmerman deserved a little ass-whupping for his incorrect pursuit of Martin.


hotrod said...

Random observation (that no doubt others have made) - Shouldn't they have taken photos of the injuries, if any? At the scene, before the medics worked on him?

Given that the bureaucracies are going into selective leak mode, and the case file hasn't actually released, I suppose we just haven't seen them yet.

hotrod said...

Okay - I see that Fire Rescue worked on him in the cruiser before an investigator arrived.

Honest question to cops out there - is this something where you would expect a decent or better patrol cop to recognize that the (reported) injuries had evidenciary value and respond accordingly? Or is that not realistic, procedure, pie in the sky, whatever?

SabotageGigante said...

Next question; if he were bleeding wouldn't the officers have been wearing gloves?

Unknown said...

"Namely that Martin, who was walking home and minding his own business, was shot and killed by a man who remains free. None of those facts, best I know, have ever been disputed."

Nor are those facts anywhere near ALL of the facts. I respect you because you are usually pretty thorough. Today you left out quite a few facts.

I think the issue that matters most is: Who confronted and/or assaulted whom? Isn't that most likely the person who committed the first actual crime?

Martin's death was either self-defense of murder. Your statements imply you don't think it was self-defense. Are you privy to any evidence that it was murder?

PCM said...

But Suz, we do know that Zimmerman, against the advice of the operator, went to actively confront Martin, whom Zimmerman vocally suspected was a criminal (and we can assume Martin being black played a major role in that decision).

Zimmerman, armed, went into this situation thinking he was confronting one of "these asshole [who] always get away." Martin was, by all accounts, minding his own business. Zimmerman killed Martin. Zimmerman is free.

In terms of placing blame, I don't really care what happened between the time Zimmerman goes to aggressively confront Martin and Zimmerman shoots Martin. I think Zimmerman is to blame by taking the law into his own hands and being wrong.

I can't imagine any realistic scenario that would make me think Zimmerman shouldn't be tried for killing Martin.

Then Zimmerman would make a self-defense argument based on Stand Your Ground. I think the law is horrible in that Zimmerman actually might get away with the killing based on the law. Aggressors can place themselves in situations where lethal force becomes justified in non-lethal situations. It's crazy. But it is the law.

I agree we don't know what situation Zimmerman got himself into. But the idea that we was getting his ass kicked is certainly not supported by his condition at the police station. He didn't seem like he had just lost a fight where he was in great bodily harm and couldn't retreat. I agree this last part is conjecture. But it certainly seems like the more likely option.

Zimmerman's guilt is a matter for the court to decide. There is probable cause that he committed a homicide.

PCM said...

SabotageGigante, the officers would take off the gloves when there is no longer a risk of touching blood. So if Zimmerman stopped bleeding, they wouldn't be wearing gloves.

Hotrod, a picture of Zimmerman certainly would have made sense, but it doesn't surprise me none was taking. It would not be S.O.P. Especially if the "suspect" (by the quotes I mean Martin) is dead.

But at some point, indeed, you would think a cop would take a picture to CYA regarding not charging him. But then what's the point of taking a picture of there are no signs of injury to photograph?

Unknown said...

Also, if Stand Your Ground doesn't apply, surely self defense does? Didn't a witness see Martin on top of Zimmerman, punching him?

I've seen a ton of theories, but nothing that can disprove Zimmerman's statement or the first cop's statement.

"...Zimmerman goes to aggressively confront Martin...)

What is your source for that statement? DID Zimmerman aggressively confront Martin? Again, as of this morning, I was unaware of any evidence or statements suggesting that's what happened.

PCM said...

I don't know what witnesses saw. I've heard reports about witnesses and things they may have said they've seen. I've heard nothing from any witness. So I don't know.

But what we do know is that Zimmerman did not look like a man who had been pummeled. So between what other may have said and my lying eyes (that a paraphrase of Groucho Marx)... I'm going with my eyes.

Indeed, there is no conclusive proof that Zimmerman "aggressively" confronted Martin. But we do have a Point A and a Point C, so I'm willing to make an inference about Point B.

One man doing nothing but walking home and trying to run away from Zimmerman. Another man, armed, wannebe cop, ignoring a request not to follow suspect, but griping about "these assholes" who always get away? Come on now...

There's a totality of the circumstances here that builds a strong case against Zimmerman.

Yes, there's a chance that Martin jumped Zimmerman (no good evidence of that, however). There's a far greater chance (conjecture, yes) that Zimmerman confronted Martin aggressively.

Why isn't Martin given any benefit of self-defense? He had good reason to be afraid of Zimmerman (in fact, we have good reason to believe he tried to ran away).

And if you do buy all this stand-your-ground bullshit for non-lethal situations in public places (I'm not saying do), the only mistake Martin made was bringing his fists to a gunfight.

Unknown said...

My other comment disappeared.

"we do know that Zimmerman, against the advice of the operator, went to actively confront Martin,..."

How do you know this? On the recording I listened to, Zimmerman said, "OK," when the operator told him not to chase Martin. He then stopped huffing and puffing (as if he had slowed to a walk or stopped?) then he said he lost sight of Martin. According to Zimmerman's statement, when he got back to his SUV, Martin came out from behind it (as if he had doubled back?) and confronted and attacked him.

Why are you assuming Zimmerman lied?

Unknown said...

Where is the probable cause?

PCM said...

A dead person. Lack of massive injury to Zimmerman. The fact that Zimmerman shot Martin in somebody's back yard (ie: not at his SUV). How did they get from his SUV, as you say Zimmerman said, to the backyard where he killed Martin? Seems much more likely Zimmerman went hunting for his prey.

And Zimmerman had very good reasons to lie to cover his ass.

(Also I was talking about the earlier 911 tape with regards to, "you don't need to do that." I am going to have to got through them again. But it won't be tonight.)

Zimmerman certainly went to confront Martin, though, right? I mean, he following him and got out of his car to find him. *That* we do know.

And the shooting didn't happen on the street. Martin was shot in the backyard between two buildings.

You know what else? Something consider very reluctantly. But I am starting to consider the possibility of a more conspiratorial police cover-up to protect Zimmerman. Maybe one of the cops was his friend and wanted to help him. I'm not saying I believe this, but I am starting to consider it a possibility.

Meanwhile it's almost 11PM and I'm still at school. I've got to go home.

PCM said...

And now we know that this Zimmerman family statement turned out to be a lie. So, no, I don't trust their side of the story very much. And the other side is dead.

From: http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/29/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html

Robert Zimmerman told the news station that Martin confronted his son first and pummeled his son.

"He was punched in the nose. His nose was broken," Robert Zimmerman said. "He was knocked to the concrete. Trayvon Martin got on top of him and just started beating him. In the face. In his nose, hitting his head on the concrete." That account appears to differ from the one provided by the witness, who said the tussle occurred on grass.

PCM said...

Is this true?

"George Zimmerman's father is a retired Judge Magistrate of the Supreme Court, his mother is Court Clerk."

If so, makes the father's lies about his son all the worse.

PCM said...

And judicial connections make the kids' gloves approach to Zimmerman all the more likely (and avoids more messy conspiracy theories): "Cut him some slack, right? He's a good kid. Pro-police. Besides, who knows what really happened? Could have been self-defense. That's what he says. And charging him won't bring the kid back to life..."

Unknown said...

Yes, a cover up is possible, though it would take cooperation form a lot of people, an secrets like that are hard to keep. Did Zimmerman state that he was close to the SUV when he was attacked? I'm inclined not to trust a cop wanna-be about like I'm inclined not to trust a tough-guy kid suspended from school for drugs. So I'm not entirely convinced either way. I've heard very little from the "murder" side that hasn't been refuted by the "self defense" side. Almost everything has been rumor and innuendo. Do you have reliable sources?

PCM said...

As to proximity to the SUV, I'm going by what *you* said:

"According to Zimmerman's statement, when he got back to his SUV, Martin came out from behind it (as if he had doubled back?) and confronted and attacked him." Well that makes no sense since the fight was in a backyard, between two buildings. So if Zimmerman said that, he was lying or then chased (or was chased, which isn't likely, given the fact he had a gun and was willing to use it) Martin behind the building.

Everything that would defend Zimmerman seems to end up being false. And all we *know* about Martin (black, minding his own business, walking home, and killed Zimmerman) seem to indicate he did nothing wrong.

I'm so skeptical of cover ups because of the reasons you state. But that is very different that somebody saying, "Cut him loose. He got nothing. He was Standing His Ground."

As to Martin being a tough-guy kid, I don't think it matters. It could be true, but I'm not willing to concede that point yet. It's certainly not something in the known category.

[And what the hell is an "empty bag of marijuana"?]

Todd said...


There is a witness that says Martin was on top of Zimmerman and that Zimmerman was shouting for help. Police documented in the report that Zimmerman was injured and had grass on him. The 911 tape shows that Zimmerman stopped following Martin.

These are all things we know based on the evidence. Zimmerman may have acted stupidly when he followed Martin but does that mean he should allow Martin to beat his head in as penance?

Check out this site. It has a pretty decent write up of what is known so far:


I agree that this should go before a grand jury due to there being a man dead but it is by no means an open and shut case of murder.

PCM said...

I've said from the beginning the law may be on Zimmerman's side. I've said it's a horrible law.

I'm skeptical of that police. And if Zimmerman shot Martin off of him, why wasn't the blood on Zimmerman?

And yeah, I think Martin (doing nothing wrong) was much more justified in beating Zimmerman than vice versa. And even if Zimmerman was hit, we know that his head was not "beaten." So why say that?

And that link you gave... it just states Zimmerman's story. I don't believe it. I don't like the way it implies Martin was up to no good (which it does, and which we have no reason to suspect). If that's your idea of "what we know," you're a one-sided sucker.

I don't believe Zimmerman was beaten up. I don't believe Zimmerman didn't know where he was. Get serious. This guy was a one-man neighborhood safety patrol and had been at it for years. There are only about 50 buildings in the whole complex. I'm sure Zimmerman "always know his 20."

And this just in: Zimmerman was fired from his job as a security guard for being too aggressive.

And this too may matter:

"In another twist, the Daily News learned that a key witness whose account has been used to back Zimmerman’s story saw less than has been attributed to him.

Police have said that Austin Brown, 13, who went out to walk his dog near where Trayvon was shot, saw Zimmerman lying in the grass crying for help just before the slaying.

But Austin’s mom, Cheryl Brown, told The News that when cops interviewed her son eight days after Trayvon’s death, he told them he saw only one person lying in the grass and he couldn’t tell who it was because it was too dark."

A new witness interviewed on CNN cast doubt on Zimmerman’s story, saying that he looked out his window, glimpsed two men scuffling in the dark, heard “an excruciating kind of yell” and saw what he thought was Zimmerman on top of Trayvon.

“After the larger man got off, then there was a boy, obviously now dead, on the ground, facing down,” the witness told CNN.

“After the shot, one man got up,” the man said. “He was walking towards where I was watching and I could see him a little bit clearer, and see that he was a Hispanic man and he was, you know, he didn’t appear hurt or anything else, he just seemed very worried.”


I agree it may not be an open and shut case. But very few cases are.

PCM said...

And I mean may not be open and shut case legally, in terms of convicting in a court of law

Morally, it's pretty open and shut. Zimmerman was wrong. Trayvon is dead.

Why the campaign to slander the dead guy? Because he smokes weed? A lot of people smoke weed. My brother smokes weed. Because there's a picture of him holding money? I have pictures of me holding money (quite a lot, in fact, trying to look maniacal while doing it).

Something about this whole debate is just ugly. (And yes, racist.) There's really nothing going in Zimmerman's favor. Not character. Not history. Not 911 tapes. Not actions.

He didn't want the "asshole" to get away. And he was a man of his word.

Meanwhile Martin is followed by an armed man who thinks he's suspicious because he's black. Sure there's a chance some new info that will come out that will change this picture. And when it does, let me know.

Legally, what happened right before Martin was shot may matter, in terms of Florida's dumb Stand Your Ground law. Morally, none of it does.

Todd said...

"And yeah, I think Martin (doing nothing wrong) was much more justified in beating Zimmerman than vice versa."

So Martin was justified in confronting Zimmerman AFTER Zimmerman had stopped following him and walked back to his car? You really need to learn to control your white guilt.

It doesn't matter if Zimmerman followed him or not. That was over and done with when Martin reinitiated contact. Martin became the aggressor.

Zimmerman had injuries and was treated by EMS. There is one picture that shows he had a laceration to the back of his head. Don't you think he may have cleaned the blood off him while being seen to by EMS?

I saw Cheryl Brown on CNN a few days ago (being interviewed by race baiter Al Sharpton) and she had very strong feelings about this case. There is no doubt in my mind that she has influenced her son's change of story.

I'm much more inclined to believe a witness who came forward that night and gave a statement than I am some who waited through a month of this medis circus before coming forward. You have to ask what the motivations are for talking now.

PCM said...

Except I don't believe Zimmerman, based on his background and character and the statements given.

And yes, I believe an innocent man being followed and chased and hunted by a stranger has a pretty good right to confront the person.

I suspect you would too, if I were the innocent person being hunted.

Can you paste a link to the 911 call that shows Zimmerman called off his search and walked back to his car? I can't find it, but I assume it's out there since everybody keeps mentioning it. I haven't heard it.

As to the injuries, I treated many a beaten up people both before and after they were cleaned up. Zimmmerman was not on the receiving end of a beat down. Have you not noticed beaten up people look, well, beaten up? (Even after the blood is wiped away.) And head injuries in particular bleed like hell. He would have been a bloody mess.

Also, Trayvon has no signs of injury to his hands which he would have, had he administered such a glorious beatdown.

Anyway, at some time we'll have the paramedic reports, I assume. They might help.

A wrestling match? Maybe. but it's not the same thing.

As to witnesses, I'm not much inclined to trust any of them. Even the ones who *think* they are telling the truth.

Jeff N said...

Just to throw a monkey wrench in your stereotypes.

I'm a conservative white guy who thinks that Zimmerman looks guilty as hell in this.

A police procedure question for you.

When there is a dead guy on the scene, and a shooter, who makes the call on whether to arrest/charge him? Does it get discussed all the way up the chain on the police side and they decide? Do the DAs get involved right at the questioning and say to let him go or keep him?

PCM said...

There are many of conservative whites who think Zimmerman is guilty as hell. (I've just never seen anyone doubt it who *isn't* conservative and while.)

In my world, you just arrest the guy. There's no debate. Whoever is nearest would put the cuffs on. The primary officer (usually 1st on scene and closet) would probably get credit for the arrest. The officer makes the arrest report and the State's Attorney (or DA) takes over from there.

Stand Your Ground certain complicates things. It would be great if a cop from a Stand-Your-Ground state could comment if that comes into account.

Now if it were a clear case of self defense (which I never dealt with), you would pass that up the chain of command and somebody would talk to a law-school grad before cutting that person free.

But the assumption is always that you would arrest a shooter.

todd said...

Well let me ask you this...IF and ONLY IF Zimmerman's story is the truth, do you think he had the right to defend himself? Or do you think he needed to just take a beatdown and hope that Martin didn't seriously injure him?

I think the evidence will prove or disprove this fairly soon but if you don't think he should have defended himself, I guess the evidence doesn't matter either way.

PCM said...

If Zimmerman's story is true, I still do *not* think he had the right to use lethal force in non-lethal situation. There are other ways to defend yourself. And if the situation had been lethal (and then a matter of justified self-defense), I would still hold Zimmerman morally culpable for starting the hold mess.

And I fail to see why it matters so much that Martin confronted Zimmerman since we know Zimmerman was trying to find Martin. Does it really matter who says "hello" first? Zimmerman was the one who crated the scene. Martin was minding his own business. Hence Zimmerman was the aggressor.

Even Zimmerman's apologists say (at least in most versions) that there was a verbal confrontation before things got physical. Why would matter if Zimmerman was surprised? He was trying to find to find Martin. Does the fact that he failed in that quest suddenly make Martin the aggressor?

What if I put it this way. What if the two men had confronted each other at 10 paces. "Why are you following me?" And "What are doing here?" And then they both agree: "Let's duel!" So seconds hand out pistols and two start blasting it out. Who would we root for, if the universe were just? I think the good Lord would see to it that Martin would be the luckier shot and walk home alive.

I guess I can't get over the whole "who started this mess?"

Todd said...

"If Zimmerman's story is true, I still do *not* think he had the right to use lethal force in non-lethal situation."

"And if the situation had been lethal (and then a matter of justified self-defense), I would still hold Zimmerman morally culpable for starting the hold mess."

Wow. Just wow. You are so dug in on your opinion that you don't even acknowledge Zimmerman's right to defend himself.

Zimmerman was walking away and Martin confronted him. That makes Martin the aggressor. Zimmerman = walking away. Martin = approaching Zimmerman.

If you can't see that and you don't really care anyway, then there's no point debating it with someone so dug into their opinion.

However this link shows you the blood you asked about in the title of this post:


PCM said...

Where's that link to that 911 tape I want to hear? The one where Zimmerman calls it off (like Martin is supposed to know the hunt is no longer on).

Maybe Zimmerman was about to come to the location where Martin was hiding. So Martin jumped out. *If* that were the case, would Martin still be the aggressor?

What's interesting (useful info on the link. Thanks) is that Zimmerman was not going in a straight line between E and C, implying he hadn't stopped his hunt. Zimmerman was not in retreat mode.

And please do correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no actual account of the start of the physical encounter between the two, right? All we have is Zimmerman's account, right. And so little of his story holds together.

As to the gash on the head. Yeah, looks like it could be a gash. Still strange he has no blood on him. From that gash, from his nose, or from Martin.

PCM said...

Todd, we're going to disagree on the aggressor issue *if* Martin approached Zimmerman. I think a man hunting another man doesn't automatically stop being the aggressor the second *he* decides to call it off. The prey needs to know he's no longer being hunted, too! And Zimmerman did not head straight back to the his truck. We know that because of the location of the shooting. So the evidence we do have indicates he was still on the prowl.

Given the location of the shooting, Zimmerman had to go out of his way to confront Martin. He could have retreated. He did not. Hence it could be argued Stand Your Ground does not apply and he's a murderer.

PCM said...

I've stated my position pretty clearly. So why don't you please give me a possible scenario where Zimmerman would actually be guilty of murder. Because I suspect you've worked so hard to twist everything in Zimmerman's favor that such a concept is simply impossible.

Or, to put it another way: Wow. Just wow. You are so dug in on your opinion that you don't even acknowledge Martin's right to be alive or defend himself.

PCM said...

Here's the thing. We know Zimmerman was initially the aggressor. We know Martin initially took off running. And we have strong evidence (the location of the shooting) that Zimmerman continued to be the aggressor right up to and including what became a fight.

Now a separate issue is that even if all the above is true (as I suspect it is), even then aggressor Zimmerman could use a stand your ground defense (which would be a moral outrage).

So while I think one could defend Zimmerman from a purely legal perspective, to say, given what we know, that Zimmerman was at any point minding his own business and was an innocent victim of an aggressor stretches the imagination beyond what most sane people would consider reasonable.

to say Zimmerman's actions were reprehensible but perhaps legally covered by Stand Your Ground is one thing. It is the attempt to twist everything we know in order to defend Zimmerman at a moral level that bothers me greatly.

Unknown said...


At around 00:50, Zimmerman says, "He's staring at me." At 1:00 "coming towards me" followed by "something in his waistband" followed by "something in his hand." Zimmerman was not chasing him at 1:42 when he said, "These assholes. They always get away." At 2:08, he says,"He's running." At 2:24, dispatch says, "OK, we don't need you to do that." Zimmerman answers, "OK," and his breathing is normal by around 2:50.

So if Martin started to approach a truck that was following him at night, doesn't it make sense that he might come back and confront the driver outside of the truck - when he can see that the driver is small enough to be vulnerable?

As I said before, I'm not entirely convinced either way, but Martin's behavior is every bit as suspect as Zimmerman's. I haven't heard too many people who are willing to admit that BOTH of them have some "issues" with their reputations. It appears that neither of them restrained themselves when both of them should have. It sounds like a pissing match that got out of hand, because an arrogant kid didn't have the sense to walk away from an arrogant man, who happened to be armed.

PCM said...

Thanks for the link and the signposting, Suz. I'll give it a listen.


Zimmerman is clearly going to go out looking for Martin and is not going back to his truck. He declines to meet the cops by the mailboxes and instead says, "can you have them call me and I'll tell them where I'm at." He's clearly going to find that S.O.B.!

And why do I keep hearing something to the effect of Martin jumped out and attacked/confronted Zimmerman's at or near his truck,? We know that is not true.

PCM said...

So where's the tape that shows Zimmerman calling off his search? That one clearly implies the opposite.

And if that tape does not exist, why why does everybody keep basing anything on the idea that Zimmerman was going back to his truck when Martin attacked him?

All we know for sure about Martin is that he noticed a man following him and ran away. And then got shot into a tussle and was shot by that man. And we can assume a few things based on his girlfriend's account of their conversation.

Unknown said...

He did say, "OK" to the operator and within about 20 seconds he was no longer out of breath. (If he was breathing hard after just a few seconds, it would have been audible had he continued the chase.) His acquiescence indicates that his temper was likely not out of control. He may or may not have gone back to his truck, but he clearly stopped the chase when the operator told him to.

Zimmerman started to follow Martin, Martin started to approach Zimmerman. They both showed aggression and then stopped, at least temporarily. I'm sure we'll never know who approached whom after that 911 call, so there's only conjecture. Either one of them could have been the one to re-engage. Once the fight was on, the guy with the gun "won."

Unless more evidence turns up (rather unlikely at this stage) I don't see how anyone can assume that Zimmerman is the bad guy. Armed or unarmed, if I were a neighborhood watch captain, I would follow a stranger in my neighborhood, especially after the occurrence of a few burglaries. If he ran off, I might even get out of my car to see where he went. Indeed if I were armed, I probably WOULD feel safe enough to leave my car. Up until the end of that phone call, Zimmerman's actions were reasonable. Even if he fully intended to keep looking for Martin, what indication is there that he intended to catch him instead of just watch where he went so the police could catch him, especially when they were already on the way?

The only "indication" I'm aware of is his reputation. Martin has one of those too. It seems to me all of the speculation on both sides is based purely on emotion and bias.

Unknown said...

Also, I think the "he came out from behind the SUV," was in his statement to the police. It doesn't mean he was next to his SUV. He could have been anywhere that he could still see it, and Martin would have come from "behind the SUV" to approach him. Again, there's noting to suggest that Zimmerman was doing anything but trying to locate Martin. If Martin, having "escaped," came back to the SUV, it was likely to confront Zimmerman.

Zimmerman's story is perfectly reasonable, and the only people who have anything to gain from this debacle are the folks throwing the race card around. And Martin's mom, if it's true that she copyrighted his name.

You know full well that if Zimmerman were unarmed, he'd have been badly beaten by an unidentified black man (who nobody knows was a football player.) The handful of people who learned about it would feel bad for Zimmerman, and tell him he should be more careful about his enthusiasm for his neighborhood watch duties.

hotrod said...

"Indeed if I were armed, I probably WOULD feel safe enough to leave my car." -

Suz, I'm hardly a crusty old vet, and I'm not a cop, but I am speaking as someone who has run around in the dark in dangerous situations with loaded weapons. I knew I would be held accountable if I really screwed up. I was infinately better trained than Zimmerman. For all that, in retrospect, I wish I had been much better trained still.

Suz, if you're not well trained and prepared to be held accountable - don't run around in the dark with a gun in pursuit of someone else on other peoples property. Leave the damn gun in the car.

Unknown said...

@ hotrod:
Agreed, except for the last sentence. I'm old school; to me, being "armed" means being trained, as well as possessing a weapon. I wouldn't carry without training. If I had to leave the gun in the car, I wouldn't leave the car.

Todd said...

"You know full well that if Zimmerman were unarmed, he'd have been badly beaten by an unidentified black man (who nobody knows was a football player.)"

Some people seem to think Zimmerman should have taken that beating to atone for having the nerve of suspecting a black person of being a possible thief. How dare he!

PCM said...

Suz, best I can tell, the shooting did not happen within sight of the SUV. Nor could the cop from the street see Zimmerman and Martin's body. So we can be pretty sure that line was part of Zimmerman's fiction. That you choose to belief Zimmerman's statement to police rather than the evidence is an unfortunate sign of a bias.

Tood, I'm not against Zimmerman taking a beating for atonement (might I defend flogging?)... but you're wrong about the reason.

1) Zimmerman wrongly suspected, changed, and confronted a person of being a thief. The key is he was wrong. That Martin was black matters in that Zimmerman never would have been suspicious of Martin if Martin had been white.

2) The cops were called and on their way. Zimmerman should have stood done, as requested, and left this situation in the hands of Sanford's finest -- who, for all their apparent faults, probably would not have killed Martin.

Unknown said...

PCM, where can I find the reports of what happened and where? Most of what I read is speculation.

Is there evidence that Zimmerman ever confronted Martin, rather than trying to keep an eye on him?

PCM said...

The police reports combined with google maps give some details about where (backyard of building) and (by inference) line of sight.

Unknown said...

Thanks, Peter.