Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

csziggy

(34,189 posts)
68. 18 seconds after he got out of the car he agreed with the operator
Sat Jun 29, 2013, 03:19 PM
Jun 2013

On his non emergency call to Sanford PD to not follow Martin. Last year I created a timeline of Zimmerman's call. I haven't updated with additional information, but it is still useful:

The underlined times are from the police call log, the other times are accumulated time from my notes on the recorded call - and come at the end of the comment/event logged. If you add those times to the beginning time logged as the connection to the Sanford PD non emergency system, you get the actual time.

19:09:34 CALL CONNECTED

<SNIP>

02:06:65 Shit he's running.
Dispatcher: He's running? Which way is he running?
02:09:47 (seat belt alarm)
Zimmerman: Down towards the other entrance to the
neighborhood. (car door slam)
02:14:18
Dispatcher: Which entrance is that that he's heading towards?
Zimmerman: The back entrance…fucking (unintelligible)
02:22:36
19:11:59 SUBJ NOW RUNNING TOWARDS BACK ENTRANCE OF COMPLEX
Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah (wind noises)
02:25:20
Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.
Zimmerman: Ok

<SNIP>

02:38:14
(Wind noises stop some time in here)

<SNIP>

04:11:00 (recording of call ends)
19:13:41 COMPL NEW REQ LEO 1045 BEFORE 1056
19:16:00 Time approximate - call with girlfriend ends after she hears
interchange with Trayvon and unknown follower (cell company on logs calls by the minute - this call could have ended any time from 19:15:01 to 19:16:00)
19:17:00 Officer Ricardo Ayalla dispatched/arrived
19:17:11 Officer Timothy Smith arrived. As he arrived notified by dispatch
of shots fired.


At 19:11:48 Zimmerman slams his car door. The dispatcher hears that and wind noises, asks if Zimmerman is following. At 19:12:12 Zimmerman says OK when told he doesn't need to follow. A minute and forty three second later, Zimmerman's call ends at 19:13:45.

During his video taped walk through the day after the shooting, Zimmerman claims he stayed on the phone while walking across the block to look for a street number (and claims that is because the dispatcher asked him for one which was a lie) and while he was walking back Martin jumped him. The timing does NOT work.

This distance from Zimmerman's truck, across that block then back to where he claims Martin jumped him is 330, average walking speed would cover that in 75 seconds. Zimmerman would have been jumped before he got off the phone with Sanford PD and minutes before the 911 calls began and the shot was heard.

Here's what works for me for the timing:

Martin's path was the shortest route to get back to where he was staying. If he took a shortcut between townhouses to get off the main road, then walked to the mail boxes next to the club house he would have passed Zimmerman just as Zimmerman told the operator "He's coming to check me out." at 19:10:50. Martin told his friend that he was taking shelter - probably under the mailbox structure - then talked to her about the "creepy ass cracker" watching him. He told her he was going to run and their call dropped before 19:12. Zimmerman said "He's running" at 19:11:40.

The distance from the mailboxes to the sidewalk T is a little over 400 feet, the distance from the T to where Martin was staying is about the same. It would take about 90 seconds to cover each distance at a walk. Martin could have been home by 19:15 if all he had done was walk - but after their last call connected at 19:12 he told his friend he'd lost the guy and he was almost home, then said the guy was following again. There is no timeline for the friend's narrative - she did not hold a stop watch as they were talking and did not realize how deadly serious the situation was.

I think Zimmerman either walked or drove to the end of the block and Martin saw him and turned back up the path to get away from his stalker. Zimmerman then doubled back to intercept Martin at the other end of the block. If the extra distance and time (400 feet and 90 seconds) is added to when Zimmerman said Martin ran from the mailboxes, that puts the two of them back at the T at just after 19:16 - the same time Martin's last call was disconnected, right when the first 911 call about the yelling begins and the right timing for the shot to be fired and Officer Smith to be notified of a shot fired at 19:17:11.

One of the constant refrains has been "Why didn't Martin just go home?" This scenario explains it - he was trying to just go straight home, but Zimmerman was stalking him and Martin doubled back to try to avoid the "creepy ass cracker".

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Zimmerman, when he got out of his car. Possibly when he was stalking Martin from his car. nt rrneck Jun 2013 #1
I Agree, but..... Caroline-Vivienne Jun 2013 #3
I really haven't followed it all that closely rrneck Jun 2013 #7
But Since it's an Affirmative Defense for Self Defense and not Stand Your Ground... Caroline-Vivienne Jun 2013 #10
"Zimmerman HAS TO PROVE it was self defense" B2G Jun 2013 #14
Then I'm misunderstanding the burden of proof here... Caroline-Vivienne Jun 2013 #15
To prove 2nd degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt B2G Jun 2013 #20
no, the defense has to prove self-defense TorchTheWitch Jun 2013 #49
I would love to see a link that supports that. B2G Jun 2013 #58
there's plenty of them in threads right here TorchTheWitch Jun 2013 #75
There is subtle nuance at play here Kennah Jun 2013 #79
I'm fairly certain the term Jenoch Jun 2013 #82
This post was helpful to me. dkf Jun 2013 #108
Is there a reasonable doubt about who killed Martin? Is there a reasonable doubt that he would Threedifferentones Jun 2013 #88
Well, naaman fletcher Jun 2013 #89
lol. this is the kind of stupid shit white folks are willing Solomon Jun 2013 #92
What do you mean? naaman fletcher Jun 2013 #93
So Zimmerman's story is: Threedifferentones Jun 2013 #95
Nope naaman fletcher Jun 2013 #98
in Rachel's testimony from her phone call, Voice for Peace Jun 2013 #103
I thought he used Jenoch Jun 2013 #109
I agree that's what he says he was doing pokerfan Jun 2013 #104
If are judicial system was built on guilty until proved innocent. joeglow3 Jun 2013 #33
It is the prosecution Jenoch Jun 2013 #83
Not true. Once the state proves or he conceiveds he killed someone... Deep13 Jun 2013 #105
This post helped me... dkf Jun 2013 #107
even if Trayvon threw the first punch, there is little evidence to justify the use of the gun. Voice for Peace Jun 2013 #26
I think you are totally wrong on that. naaman fletcher Jun 2013 #90
By the extent of his injuries, and the testimony of people who saw Zimmerman on top Voice for Peace Jun 2013 #100
Does it have to be a punch? What if Zimmerman grabbed Martin to keep him from walking away? arcane1 Jun 2013 #56
I think so....any physical contact....My God, why didn't that idiot just identify himself! Caroline-Vivienne Jun 2013 #62
I think because he was hunting a black man. That's the opinion I get of Zimmerman. Maraya1969 Jun 2013 #73
Agreed. Zimmerman began following Martin, armed, in a threatening manner... HooptieWagon Jun 2013 #46
Kick! hedgehog Jun 2013 #2
I don't know what that means. Caroline-Vivienne Jun 2013 #4
A reply bumps a thread up to the top of the page again. That's called a "Kick". Recursion Jun 2013 #6
Oh, ok!!! Well tyvm!!!! Caroline-Vivienne Jun 2013 #8
Nobody saw. That's a problem for the prosecution. Recursion Jun 2013 #5
It is actually a much bigger problem for the defense Bjorn Against Jun 2013 #38
And a preponderance of the evidence just means "it's more likely I'm telling the truth than lying" Recursion Jun 2013 #39
When he was the one who initiated the conflict Bjorn Against Jun 2013 #42
We don't know who initiated the conflict Recursion Jun 2013 #43
We KNOW Zimmerman initiated the conflict Bjorn Against Jun 2013 #44
"Who touched who" is who initiated the conflict. Z had a right to do what he did up until the moment Recursion Jun 2013 #45
No. He had no legal right to follow Martin. HooptieWagon Jun 2013 #47
Yes, he did. He had every right to be on that sidewalk too, even though he's a douchebag Recursion Jun 2013 #48
Yes, but he cannot stalk... HooptieWagon Jun 2013 #51
Interesting legal theory Recursion Jun 2013 #52
My conclusion as well. And there are lots of them, and just about everyone is a gun lover. Hoyt Jun 2013 #102
doubtful TorchTheWitch Jun 2013 #59
Thanks.....I really have no idea which way that will go so far.... Caroline-Vivienne Jun 2013 #61
From my point of view the altercation began long before the first punch etherealtruth Jun 2013 #9
I agree. But that doesn't seem to be the legal view. It seems to be the fist fight. Caroline-Vivienne Jun 2013 #11
How does that work? joeglow3 Jun 2013 #34
But that is not what happened in this case Bjorn Against Jun 2013 #40
Of course it would need to be proven (or admitted) that the person was STALKING him etherealtruth Jun 2013 #53
There is a specific defintion of stalking and it is not as you think it is. It is also not Bluenorthwest Jun 2013 #66
Of course it as a specific legal meaning etherealtruth Jun 2013 #69
Then the law does apply joeglow3 Jun 2013 #70
What in the world are you babbling about? etherealtruth Jun 2013 #71
Nice change of tactic. joeglow3 Jun 2013 #97
This is a change of tactic etherealtruth Jun 2013 #106
Double down, huh? joeglow3 Jun 2013 #110
No, not at all etherealtruth Jun 2013 #111
I read through much of it joeglow3 Jun 2013 #112
I agree. HooptieWagon Jun 2013 #50
I get the impression that the defense is aiming for "reasonable doubt" Adsos Letter Jun 2013 #12
So they are just trying to muddy the water....or show that the water is unfailingly muddied. Caroline-Vivienne Jun 2013 #17
That's how I see it. I don't think the defense is really trying to prove Zimmerman's actions Adsos Letter Jun 2013 #24
The defense doesn't have to try to muddy the waters. adric mutelovic Jun 2013 #67
Z claims TM caught him by surprise and clocked him first magellan Jun 2013 #13
I don't think a defendant's word alone can be accepted as proof without additional evidence/backup. Caroline-Vivienne Jun 2013 #19
I agree magellan Jun 2013 #21
What? Caroline-Vivienne Jun 2013 #30
What other way would u have it? joeglow3 Jun 2013 #35
If the jury is swayed to believe he was possibly in fear for his life, yes magellan Jun 2013 #36
Was Z's blood on the gun? Caroline-Vivienne Jun 2013 #57
I think it was. n/t magellan Jun 2013 #76
This message was self-deleted by its author magellan Jun 2013 #76
This message was self-deleted by its author magellan Jun 2013 #21
Z hasn't claimed anything yet under oath. WinkyDink Jun 2013 #25
I don't think the jury will buy a self-defense defense. It just isn't clean enough. Voice for Peace Jun 2013 #27
"She may have come across in many ways, but not as a liar." Jenoch Jun 2013 #84
I think that's going to be a problem YarnAddict Jun 2013 #87
did you think she was lying about her conversation with Trayvon? Voice for Peace Jun 2013 #99
I didn't see that testimony. Jenoch Jun 2013 #101
Zimmerman, when he got out of his car and ignored dispatcher. grasswire Jun 2013 #16
This is not what Zimmerman maintains. HiddenAgenda63 Jun 2013 #31
18 seconds after he got out of the car he agreed with the operator csziggy Jun 2013 #68
THat's my problem with this MNBrewer Jun 2013 #18
That's a blind spot in the case. nyquil_man Jun 2013 #23
and what the medical examiner will tell us Voice for Peace Jun 2013 #28
Indeed. nt nyquil_man Jun 2013 #54
How important is knowing the initiator in terms of reasonable doubt? HiddenAgenda63 Jun 2013 #29
I thought being the initiator eliminated self defense. Caroline-Vivienne Jun 2013 #32
Your analogy sounds strange to me. HiddenAgenda63 Jun 2013 #41
Yes and no. X_Digger Jun 2013 #72
Not the way the laws are written. Which is the problem. DirkGently Jun 2013 #37
Thanks for the clarification. HiddenAgenda63 Jun 2013 #55
If you walk away from a fight...without stitches...or a trip to the hospital.....come on..... Caroline-Vivienne Jun 2013 #60
I understand. HiddenAgenda63 Jun 2013 #63
The idead behind defending yourself naaman fletcher Jun 2013 #91
Which one of them was the one that was looking for trouble? hobbit709 Jun 2013 #64
Easy. Zimmerman when he left the car and approached Martin. on point Jun 2013 #65
It is impossible to know. Anyone who claims otherwise is simply engaging in conjecture. cherokeeprogressive Jun 2013 #74
Zimmerman by playing amateur cop. Starry Messenger Jun 2013 #78
It's obvious. Zimmerman. backscatter712 Jun 2013 #80
Message auto-removed Name removed Jun 2013 #85
No. FS 776 doesn't raise that. flvegan Jun 2013 #81
The chances of conviction are based on the jury. ZombieHorde Jun 2013 #86
keep heaven05 Jun 2013 #94
I'll admit I'm not following this as closely as some.... tarheelsunc Jun 2013 #96
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»But Who STARTED The Alter...»Reply #68