tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post5647612094854019247..comments2024-03-28T16:44:34.887-04:00Comments on the daily howler: Was Zimmerman told to stay in his car?<b>bob somerby</b>http://www.blogger.com/profile/02963464534685954436noreply@blogger.comBlogger118125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-75287039286197802932013-07-21T17:56:42.397-04:002013-07-21T17:56:42.397-04:00This article accuses a majority for getting it wro...This article accuses a majority for getting it wrong to begin with but is just as misleading. There is nothing in your article that makes Zimmerman any more innocent. When refutes that George was not told to stay in the car boils down to nothing more than semantics relative to George listening to what he was told. So George wasn't told to stay in his car BUT he was told, "We don't need you to do that after pursuing Trayvon Martin. He responded "OK" but remained in the area confused and looking to get his bearings in order to meet up with police in that communty? It was a small gated community he patrolled regularly. He knew where he was and probably continued to pursue Trayvon Martin, who last told his girlfriend he was going to walk fast after she urged him to run. Martin wasn't obviously looking to confront his pursuer or jump Zimmerman on the way back to his SUV. melrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09928449357905869836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-62792464323722106402013-07-18T22:00:40.154-04:002013-07-18T22:00:40.154-04:00MC,
No, when M hit Z, it became an assault if the...MC,<br /><br />No, when M hit Z, it became an assault if the blow was unprovoked. If Z threatened M, and M felt reasonably afraid, M didn't have to wait to strike. What you're saying very clearly follows the evidence, but that doesn't make it anything but a reasonable narrative. There are other reasonable narratives.<br /><br />I'm not making any point about the trial. At trial, the reasonable narrative that exonerates the defendant is the one the jury is supposed to go with. It's called reasonable doubt as to the prosecutions's case for unlawful behavior.<br /><br />The point I'm making is about narrative. If your believe that M was a violent thug, then you tell a story where M's blow was an assault. If think that Z was a predator, then M's blow was self-defense. We know which story has to operate in court, but not which one is the truth.deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-84166023555108118482013-07-18T10:31:42.448-04:002013-07-18T10:31:42.448-04:00"The evidence shows that Martin hit Zimmerman..."The evidence shows that Martin hit Zimmerman after Zimmerman says he returned to his car. Shortly thereafter Zimmerman shot Martin."<br /><br />That is exactly right. The lethal contact happened near the car. Zimmerman had returned to the car after following Martin and somehow Martin followed him there. Sure Martin had a right to follow Zimmerman, because as you say it's a public spot. But when he hit Zimmerman it became an assault. I really don't get your problem with what I am saying. It very clearly follows the evidence.<br />What you forget is this was Zimmerman's trial. The burden is on the prosecution to disprove Zimmerman's story and they failed utterly. If there are gaps in the story the benefit of the doubt goes to the defendant. There is no evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin until the fatal gunshot.M Carpenternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-41836260547757489912013-07-18T09:28:48.422-04:002013-07-18T09:28:48.422-04:00Finally some recognition!!
And from the one guy ...Finally some recognition!! <br /><br />And from the one guy here who actually seems to understand narrative. I am flattered, honestly. <br /><br />The internets being what they are, let me show you I'm not being sarcastic by saying that your 1:00 AM(!) post today in reply to M Carpenter (which quite rightly ended that little sub-thread), was quite convincing. <br /><br />It is most appreciated (by me anyway) that you have been one of the few commenters here to appreciate the value of Somerby's work and at the same time understand that "both sides" have been too easily drawn into narratives of their own choosing to "fill in the gaps." <br /><br />That you've been able to do this so even-handedly, mostly without vitriol, I frankly envy. I agree fully with you, but as you've seen, I'm often unable to prevent myself lapsing into mockery and parody of others. It's a fault.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-7217081112034036732013-07-18T09:16:15.687-04:002013-07-18T09:16:15.687-04:00"he's probobaly largely correct"
He..."he's probobaly largely correct"<br /><br />He is. So your comments really are as stupid as they were first judged.<br /><br />Good of you to (almost) admit that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-7786317718984641842013-07-18T01:00:27.218-04:002013-07-18T01:00:27.218-04:00MC,
The evidence shows that Martin hit Zimmerman ...MC,<br /><br />The evidence shows that Martin hit Zimmerman after Zimmerman says he returned to his car. Shortly thereafter Zimmerman shot Martin. See how that works?<br /><br />Zimmerman presumably didn't invite Martin back to his car, but then Martin was in the same public place as Zimmerman with the same right to be there. Just as Zimmerman had every right to query Martin about Martin's presence, Martin had every right to query Zimmerman about being followed. <br /><br />What happened when the two met face to face? I have no idea, or rather I have several ideas. Perhaps Martin sucker punched Zimmerman without a word. Perhaps a surprised Zimmerman took a swing at Martin, missed, and Martin then punched him in the face. Perhaps Zimmerman said "I've got a gun and I'll use it." reached for his cell phone, and Martin attacked. For every prejudgment, there's a narrative to fill in the gaps until the moment Zimmerman pulls the trigger.<br /><br />If you believe that Zimmerman stalked Martin like a predator determined to bring down a prey animal, you fill in the blanks so Zimmerman is the aggressor. If you believe Martin was drugged out, would-be burglar punk, you fill in the blanks differently.<br /><br />TDH will tell you that we humans love to fashion a story. If the facts can't span the gaps in what we know, we'll fill those gaps with narrative to make a seamless and pleasing tale. If the result is pleasing enough, we may even shape the facts and slant the language in the re-telling to make the story a better fit.deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-6659883168586849912013-07-17T23:00:19.361-04:002013-07-17T23:00:19.361-04:00SYG was covered in the jury instructions, even tho...SYG was covered in the jury instructions, even though it wasn't the basis for the defense, so it was covered in the trial, in writing to the jurors.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-85051228777075296262013-07-17T22:13:30.454-04:002013-07-17T22:13:30.454-04:00The evidence shows that Martin assaulted Zimmerman...The evidence shows that Martin assaulted Zimmerman after Zimmerman returned to his car. Martin had to have followed him there and attacked him. That is clear. Sure Zimmerman followed Martin first, but Martin definitely turned the tables on him. How can you say otherwise? Zimmerman did not invite Martin back to his car. M Carpenternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-69062582957293949252013-07-17T19:59:14.783-04:002013-07-17T19:59:14.783-04:00MC,
Thanks for you support but no thanks. The ev...MC,<br /><br />Thanks for you support but no thanks. The evidence doesn't show that Martin stalked Zimmerman any more than the other way around. That's <i>your</i> narrative.<br />deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-2694770679785986952013-07-17T19:53:48.597-04:002013-07-17T19:53:48.597-04:00til,
I'm not the one who misunderstands the m...til,<br /><br />I'm not the one who misunderstands the meaning of a word. Not the vernacular, not the legal term. Let's be clear: if you want to use the vernacular because you know the legal term doesn't apply, you're stuck with the connotations of the word. Not the ones I dictate, but the ones usage does. Don't pretend that your use of "stalking" doesn't imply the stealthy approach of a predator to its prey. That's your narrative: the predator Z stalked his prey M, and as predators are wont to do, killed him deliberately. Own it.<br /><br />I have shown that there are other narratives, ones that fit the evidence every bit as much as your favorite one. In response to a challenge by you, come to think of it. The difference between us is that I realize that these are just-so stories. That they're equally as credible as yours says nothing about their truth and everything about just-so stories. I'm not trying to "shove them" on other people. I don't believe my narratives any more than I believe yours. They're just an illustration that you've picked a narrative you like and you're sticking to it. Own that too. Don't put your choice on me.<br /><br />And you can stop reading my mind at any time. That's another story you tell yourself (and commenters here), this time about me instead of Z and M.<br />deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-73653083191957033642013-07-17T17:58:45.250-04:002013-07-17T17:58:45.250-04:00Not true that stand your ground wasn't mention...Not true that stand your ground wasn't mentioned in the trial. Zimmerman's Crim Law (?) teacher said he covered it extensively. To impeach Zimmerman's Hannity interview where he denied knowing about SYG.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-4820378587797297272013-07-17T16:32:14.276-04:002013-07-17T16:32:14.276-04:00deadrat's entire argument consists of misunder...deadrat's entire argument consists of misunderstanding the meaning of a word, even when confronted with dictionary evidence, then claiming everyone who points out he's wrong is simply following a "narrative," (unlike him, who, presumably, is a slave to the evidence -- except he has revealed he doesn't know basic facts about what happened). In fact, what he's done is actually create narratives and tried to shove them on other people, in the name of fighting "narratives." He's become Bob. Probably, he thinks that's a compliment. tilhttp://til.tknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-916051355818299032013-07-17T15:20:05.180-04:002013-07-17T15:20:05.180-04:00And thank goodness for that, mm. And thank goodness for that, mm. CeceliaMchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16017255006204800193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-20956474701478566832013-07-17T15:18:30.106-04:002013-07-17T15:18:30.106-04:00You're right. Because of due process and the ...You're right. Because of due process and the presumption of innocence, defendants need only prove reasonable doubt.<br /><br />CeceliaMchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16017255006204800193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-27771066854923190222013-07-17T15:11:10.738-04:002013-07-17T15:11:10.738-04:00Seems as though Martin was doing what he thought w...Seems as though Martin was doing what he thought was some Gay Bashing and it cost him his life.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-33934998721806355202013-07-17T15:06:39.063-04:002013-07-17T15:06:39.063-04:00CeceliaMc:
No one - NOBODY, not you, not me - can...CeceliaMc:<br /><br />No one - NOBODY, not you, not me - can "prove" he stopped or he didn't stop. I never claimed that I could "prove" anything. Got it??? I said there was evidence presented that can be reasonably argued shows that he did not stop. You choose to believe Zimmerman's self-serving claim that he stopped. Good for you.mmnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-32751635895580639582013-07-17T14:06:46.723-04:002013-07-17T14:06:46.723-04:00Reteading this post, forget the lily gilding on &q...Reteading this post, forget the lily gilding on "told to stay in his car", the whole thing is a collection of sloppily built straw men, the kind you get when Bob phones it in. Too bad, in that he's probobaly largely correct.Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288008924419574934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-5483618983723743502013-07-17T13:52:57.669-04:002013-07-17T13:52:57.669-04:00What shaky bluff. Bob has never been known to shy ...What shaky bluff. Bob has never been known to shy away from naming names, and endlessly repeating said names. I've watched my far share of this circus, though I don't watch MSNBC, I've noticed the selective facts used by both sides, and I have yet to hear anybody claim Zimmerman was told to stay in his car. So examples please, Bobobots.Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288008924419574934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-43669151791136855982013-07-17T13:38:48.921-04:002013-07-17T13:38:48.921-04:00The problem is, mm, is that you've argued noth...The problem is, mm, is that you've argued nothing that proves this man did not stop following Martin after he was told "we don't need you to that". <br /><br />And now you've impugned Serino, whose testimony you're using as the basis of your conjecture that Zimmerman continued to follow Martin after the point where Zimmerman claims to have stopped. <br /><br />You've even gone as far as to impugn the whole police dept now!<br /><br />Whose next? The jurors?<br /><br /><br />CeceliaMchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16017255006204800193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-6200363675227386372013-07-17T13:27:51.157-04:002013-07-17T13:27:51.157-04:00Yeah, exactly, from Zimmerman who happened to be o...Yeah, exactly, from Zimmerman who happened to be on the phone to a police dispatcher answering her questions in real time. He reported Martin behaving erratically as though he were on drugs. This might be false but the burden is on the prosecution to prove otherwise and it failed utterly to do so. In fact, it just happens to turn out that Zimmerman's story is the only story that has held up. His story might be false but it's pretty amazing that there is no evidence to show that. All of the media got it wrong. My point is that all the narratives you have been using to convict Zimmerman are unproven and have not held up to a closer scrutiny of the facts. Zimmerman's story has not been disproven.<br />The evidence shows that Martin stalked and attacked Zimmerman, and that is what got him killed.<br /> M Carpenternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-81349442202294902892013-07-17T13:24:40.301-04:002013-07-17T13:24:40.301-04:00CeceliaMc:
It's useless to respond to you any...CeceliaMc:<br /><br />It's useless to respond to you any further. You're all over the place jumping from one conjecture to another. Its useless to respond to your scattershot butchering of facts and the pleasing narrative that you've constructed in your mind. <br /><br />I was specifically pointing out to DinC that he is wrong to keep repeating that there's "no evidence at all that he did keep pursuing M." That's all.<br /><br />There was evidence presented at the trial. Z's statement to Serino was just one piece.<br /><br />Martin lost all chance of justice that night. The cream puff interview by Serino where he wasn't so much grilling a murder suspect as helping develop an acceptable and coherent narrative for Zimmerman. The sloppy almost cavalier collection of evidence. Not a single neighbor even trying to help. But hey, you know, it was just a black kid killed. He wasn't going to amount to much anyway. It's not like he was going to cure cancer some day.<br /><br />mmnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-10244962119684943172013-07-17T13:03:21.932-04:002013-07-17T13:03:21.932-04:00Let me add too, mm, that the questions the dispatc...Let me add too, mm, that the questions the dispatcher asked about what Martin was doing and where he was running are certainly capable of causing Martin to go and seek up to the minute answers.<br /><br />That is not an unreasonable conjecture at all especially as compared to the charge that Martin stalked TM in order to kill him while talking to the police.CeceliaMchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16017255006204800193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-71073212382260409002013-07-17T12:47:16.285-04:002013-07-17T12:47:16.285-04:00Anonymous on 7/17/13 @ 11:58P,
Great idea for a s...Anonymous on 7/17/13 @ 11:58P,<br /><br />Great idea for a script! Perhaps Mamet would be interested. If not, you could shop it around. Call it <i>Pussy Cracker's Got His Gun</i>.<br /><br />You're welcome.deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-63715438070689096332013-07-17T12:45:15.781-04:002013-07-17T12:45:15.781-04:00How does that timeline bungle any of the facts?
Z...How does that timeline bungle any of the facts?<br /><br />Zimmerman would know that the police weren't keen on him following Martin based upon the dispatcher's words ( words said after the dispatcher had asked him details about TM).<br /><br />While the dispatcher was asking Zimmerman the details of Martin's actions and whereabouts it would be entirely rational for GZ'S to answer "yes" to then being asked "are you following him", and to later to term it as going in Martin's direction (in order to answer the dispatcher with real time info) when quizzed by Serino.<br /><br />You want to give a man years in jail over this sort of back-and-forth?CeceliaMchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16017255006204800193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-7367638120767963442013-07-17T12:32:21.120-04:002013-07-17T12:32:21.120-04:00CeceliaMc:
I can read too.
1. You really are ...CeceliaMc:<br /><br />I can read too. <br /><br />1. You really are bungling a bunch of facts. This interview with Serino occurred on Feb. 26, the night he murdered Martin. It wasn't "later, when the following Martin aspect became the gist of the charges of personal animus on GZ's part". It was that very friggin night. And he already knew that he shouldn't have been following Martin.<br /><br />2. None of those questions the dispatcher asked on the phone implied he wanted Z to follow M. In fact the dispatcher testified that by policy they cannot tell a citizen to do anything. <br /><br /><br />Finally, you seem to have missed the key part. Serino also said that he believed Zimmerman continued to follow based on his observation of the scene.<br /><br />There is additional evidence that would support a reasonable inference that Z did indeed continue to follow, but what does it matter? If they had a video of Z continuing to follow would it change your opinion?<br /><br />mmnoreply@blogger.com