Posted on April 17, 2013 by Leo Soderman

What The Facts Didn’t Say

It was a political statement against the Newtown families that supported stronger gun control. It’s a government plot to further the plans to take away our guns. It’s an ongoing infiltration by Al Qaeda. It was because of the anniversary of Waco. Or Oklahoma City. Or Patriots’ Day.

A suspect has been identified. Or arrested. He’s a dark-skinned male.

All of it crap.

The last forty-eight hours have displayed the worst our media has to offer. From self-described “experts” to “reporters” who are no better than Twitter followers with a national outlet, the clusterfuck that we have seen has been epic in proportion.

The speculation started almost instantaneously. A pipe bomb. A steam tunnel explosion. A terrorist attack. Before a single fact was known, the theories abounded. And the fear-mongering. Because if the media can’t amp up the fear to near hysteria level, they don’t think they’re doing their job. They made sure to tell us of the lost limbs, the lost lives. They looked for the pained faces of victims and loved ones. Because pain sells.

But they didn’t have the facts. This was never more clear than this afternoon, when CNN, AP and Fox all reported that a suspect was in custody. And they were all wrong. Badly. To the point that the FBI released a statement admonishing the media for jumping the gun. But there was a much more serious consequence: hundreds of people, thinking an arrest had been made, rushed to the federal building in Boston. Suddenly, DHS vehicles rushed to building. Why? A bomb threat with hundreds outside. Hundreds who were there because CNN, AP and Fox couldn’t be bothered to actually check their sources.

This is the sad state of much of our media – and of our ADD addled society. We demand the information NOW, forget whether it’s accurate or not. There are fewer and fewer journalists and more and more “reporters” who are increasingly more like stenographers than journalists. To whom Twitter is considered a reliable source, and anonymous information is as good as gold.

What should – what must happen – is that we wait for facts. That we wait for the investigation to bring facts to light, not rampant speculation. There will be an arrest, and we will learn the motive for this heinous act. We will hear more stories of pain and heroism. But let’s curb our appetite for immediate satisfaction and wait until we know what the truth is.

Posted on February 8, 2013 by Leo Soderman

Revenge & Fear

Dorner The story garnering headlines in Southern California – other than rain and hail – is that of the former cop who has decided to go on a killing spree as revenge for his firing from the LAPD. To date, he has already killed three and injured others. He’s hellbent on exacting his revenge on the LAPD, their officers and their families. And he’s got the skills to do it.

But here’s the part that gets a little scary (from NBC4LA):

Several Facebook pages have appeared in support of Dorner, who has allegedly shot three officers, killing one. He also allegedly fatally shot the daughter of an LAPD captain and her fiancé.

The online support seems motivated by an anti-police attitude that the ex-officer espouses in his manifesto.

One Facebook page, which had garnered nearly 1,700 “likes” by midday Friday, states: “A MAN WITH MORALS AND A HERO. A REAL REBEL WITH A CAUSE! THIS MAN IS STANDING UP FOR A CAUSE HE WILL BE REMEMBERED. HES TRYING TO STOP CORRUPTION. HAVE RESPECT FOR A MAN WHO IS WILLING TO DIE FOR SOMETHING INSTEAD OF LIVING FOR NOTHING.”

While the idea of someone with Dorner’s training running around with a vendetta is frightening, the idea that people are supportive is even scarier. Sure, I myself have entertained the idea that there may be more to the story, that there are investigations that need to happen into his allegations. But in no way would I support what he is doing.

For example, why kill before going to the media? Why didn’t he go to them first? Obviously, this is related to his state of mind. But again, his story and his actions aren’t the scary part. It’s that there are people that are supportive of his actions.

Now add the growing number of anti-government, paranoids who insist they must be able to own any weapon imaginable because they have to be able to “resist tyranny”. How long until one of these guys decides he’s going to follow suit? How long until this is more than just one man’s vendetta against the LAPD? How long until innocent people lose their lives because Dorner is suddenly turned into an anti-hero?

Our society is all too fond of making heroes out of villains, of glorifying people who kill because they’re against the establishment. Whether it’s a drug dealer who gains “respect” by killing his competition, or an unbalanced former cop who is going after his former colleagues on a murderous rampage, neither deserves respect nor admiration.

Dorner has already stated that he expects to not survive this. But what about that next guy?

Posted on July 7, 2012 by Leo Soderman

Tax, Fee, Penalty, Mandate, Whatever. Chances Are, You Won’t Be Paying It

(Crossposted from AngryBlackLadyChronicles.com)

Yeah, I’m probably preaching to the choir here, but after spending two weeks in a battleground state and watching the ridiculous spin put on the SCOTUS decision to uphold ACA, I figured I’d just get my two cents worth in.

All the uproar has been about the “mandate” and whether it is a tax or not. Republicans have changed tactics, and instead of referring to the ACA as Obamacare, they are now calling it ObamaTax. Yup, they want to scare folks into thinking they will be paying more in taxes because of the ACA.

News flash – most won’t.

The mandate has a very simple purpose – to ensure everyone who can afford medical insurance is getting medical insurance. That’s it. It’s designed to minimize the number of people who are using emergency rooms as their primary care facility and putting the burden of paying for that on the rest of us. It’s about personal responsibility. If you can afford it, you should be paying your way.

And the brilliant part of this is – if you have insurance already, this costs you nothing. Not a freakin’ sausage.

But wait, you say, what about the poor folks?

Continue reading →

Posted on June 11, 2012 by Leo Soderman

It’s Not A Gaffe If You Believe It

Over the weekend, Mitt Romney appeared to commit another verbal gaffe, stating that he believes we need less police, firefighters and teachers. The folks in Colorado might disagree with this, given that they are calling in firefighters from Canada to work the High Park blaze.

But the Romney campaign has doubled down on that “gaffe”, stating that the candidate did not misspeak, but that would be policy. Gaffe? Apparently not.

It’s not a gaffe when you actually believe it. Romney picked on firefighters, police and teachers because they belong to unions. And that, to Romney, is a mortal sin. So he believes we have too many cops on the street, too many firefighters saving lives and too many teachers educating our kids.

Romney comes from the conservative mindset that any money that does not flow into corporate coffers – and therefore his pockets and those of his cronies – is wasted money. They claim they want a strong defense. What they really want is lots of money flowing to defense contractors. If they really wanted a strong defense, they’d do more for active-duty military and for veterans. Instead, they make sure contractors in their home states get billions in contracts, fir which they are rewarded by fat contributions to their campaigns. They want to privatize services like law enforcement and firefighting so they can make a profit at your expense. They decry taxes, but by privatizing these services, your direct costs will go up, essentially increasing the burden on you, while allowing a private company to decide just what services you receive.

They want to privatize education, so that only those that can afford it can get a decent education. Too poor to pay for school? Sorry. Work harder.

Make no mistake, this was not a gaffe. This is exactly what Romney would deliver.

Posted on May 10, 2012 by Leo Soderman

Bullies, Bashing and the GOP

Let’s get this straight right up front: What someone does as a teen is not necessarily a reflection of how they are 50-60 years later. there may be clues, but to flat out extrapolate from one to the other is just plain silly. That’s what folks are trying to do with this latest Mitt Romney flap. As written in a Washington Post article, Romney was apparently part of a bullying incident during high school where he and others pinned down another student and cut his hair, ostensibly because they believed he was effeminate and didn’t fit in. They were going to teach him a lesson.

This behavior is, without a doubt, reprehensible. But making the case that since he did it then, he’d do the same now – or even have similar tendencies – is simply ridiculous. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a Romney fan. But fair is fair.

If you want to see how the man’s character has developed, you need to look at more than just his high school years. He protested in favor of the Vietnam War, then got himself moved to France to avoid the draft. His time at Bain Capital, where he made his money buying, then dismantling businesses, pocketing the profits while moving jobs offshore and putting Americans out of work. Or his battle with and elimination of a Massachusetts state-sponsored group that worked to educate against gay bullying. You can look at his current focus at cutting the taxes on the wealthy, while increasing them on the poor. There are plenty of things you can point to that show where his thinking has “evolved”. You don’t need to extrapolate it from his behavior as a teen.

But there is a pattern here. And in that sense, there is some value to knowing about this incident. Romney has always been couched in privilege. And from that privilege comes arrogance and a sense of entitlement. It comes with the perception that those who are different must be made to toe the line. And that getting ahead, getting your own way, takes precedence over the welfare of others. In other words, he acts like a bully.

Today, that bullying is in the form of money. He will spend as much as it takes to get himself the nomination, and if he can, the Presidency. It doesn’t matter how awful things in his past might be, nor what the consequence to the average person is. This isn’t about class warfare, because Romney doesn’t recognize a different class. You can tell by his speeches, his statements – he truly believes that he is average, that everyone has the same opportunities he did. So he believes he is doing the best. And anyone who doesn’t have what he has is just lazy, doesn’t need help. Remember his statement about not being worried about the very poor? He thinks they’re ok. He thinks the fact that they have fallen into a safety net shows that the system works. Never mind the fact that they need a safety net is a prime example that the system isn’t working, and that he is supportive of removing that safety net and letting them fall. Same attitude as “Let Detroit Fail”. If it doesn’t affect him or his cronies directly, he really doesn’t care. But take away a penny of their income in taxes, and they scream of lost freedoms and war on the rich.

It’s the entitlement of bullies. They’ll bash everything around them if they are allowed. It gives them a sense of power, a sense of control. It’s the GOP brand. Case in point – today’s vote in the House on a Republican measure to restore military funding that they gave up in the debt ceiling deal. You’ll remember that in the deal, Republicans agreed that if a debt reduction deal was not passed by November of last year, there would be automatic cuts to the military. They agreed to that because Democrats agreed to cuts on the programs they favor as well.

Now, however, Republicans want to renege. They want to turn back the clock and not cut a penny out of the military. Instead, they want to make further cuts to social programs, like school lunches, health care subsidies, child tax credits and food stamps, on top of the cuts already agreed to. Typical bully behavior. Make the deal, then try to bash your way out of it when it starts going south.

Of course, this deal has no chance in the Senate, and even if it did, it would not get past the President. They made a deal, and they’re going to have to stick to it. But the reality is, they don’t care. How could they? Politically, in an election year, do you really want to pit the poor, children and the elderly against military spending? Do you want to remind folks that you made a deal, in an effort to reduce spending, and that you don’t want to keep your word?

Bullies don’t care.

Again, this isn’t about class warfare. This is about entitlement. They have the money, they want to keep it, and they don’t intend to give any of it away. So they’ll beat up whoever they have to toward that end.

So, no, Romney’s high school activities aren’t indicative of what he would do today. But they are a piece of a puzzle that shows that his sense of entitlement, his willingness to bully those he doesn’t agree with, has a clear progression from then until now.

Posted on May 3, 2012 by Leo Soderman

I Finally Get ‘Personal Responsibility’

The GOP mantra, the conservative rallying cry for “personal freedoms” is one that seems to be particularly hypocritical at first blush. When they demand to legislate what happens in a woman’s body or extend the right of free speech beyond the individual and onto a corporation with the same rights, it just seems all out of whack.

And then I figured it out.

It’s not about “personal freedoms”. It’s about “personal” freedoms. What’s the difference? Everything, actually.

Most people, when they talk about “personal freedoms”, are talking about those rights that should be afforded and protected for individuals. We might actually call them “civil freedoms”. Those things to which we believe every man woman and child should generally be granted,, and protected from usurpation. Makes sense, right?

But that’s not how today’s GOP with their inexorable move to the right mean it. No, they believe in “personal” freedoms. As in, whatever works for them personally is ok, and anything that doesn’t is not ok. When you look at their positions in this context, it all starts to make sense.

Why, for example, do they want to control a woman’s right to decide what she can and cannot do with her body? In this new context, it’s very simple – the control. With that control, they can do whatever they want, and a woman must accede to it. A concrete example is that of Newt Gingrich. Conservatives rail about family values, want to legislate it. So why no real problem with Newt? Because, it’s his “personal” freedom to blow through marriages. He was adulterous and unfaithful. And yet, when he chose to go after Clinton in the 90′s, it was somehow a huge problem. Again, Newt could do that because it was his “personal” freedom to be unfaithful. And in the mind of these folks on the right, whatever you choose to do for yourself is fine, but if someone else does it, bring on the brimstone and hellfire.

Look at Mitt Romney. I believe he genuinely has no idea how disconnected he is with the average American. Why? Because he’s acted on his “personal” freedoms. He likes the idea of being able to “fire” people, because doing so is to his benefit. Cutting taxes on the wealthy while increasing them on the poor is fine, because it works for him “personally”.

Perhaps that’s the easiest way to translate the right’s obsession with “personal” freedoms. Just think of it as “it’s all about me”. If it helps them, “personally”, then it’s ok. To them, anything that helps others is pointless, unless they garner some benefit to themselves. Altruism does not fit into their views. They don’t see the point, because it doesn’t benefit them. Once you have that concept in your mind, it’s much easier to understand how they think. It’s also much easier to understand why they get supporters.

On the surface, everyone says they want to help others. But more and more, people pay lip service to this idea. They’re willing to help, unless it requires some sacrifice on their part. To be sure, the economy and hardships folks have faced have hardened them and forced them to think about their own situations first. But there has also been a steady move toward the idea that one takes care of themselves first. And as that moves farther, you add “and to Hell with everyone else.”

I think we saw this movement really start in the 80′s. I distinctly remember the movie “Wall St.”, and abhorring the Gordon Gekko character. His mantra “Greed is good; greed works” was particularly offensive to me. But the sad reality is, the second half of that mantra is correct: Greed does work. And I know far too many who to this day still see Gekko not as the villian, but a hero, a role model.

Gekko was right in that greed motivates. And once you get something, you naturally want more. And how dare anyone deny it to you. But we can’t all be Wall St. tycoons. That’s where the simplicity of greed meets the American Dream. Everyone wants to believe they can be the tycoon, the multimillionaire. So, instead of acting on their best interests in reality, they fall prey to the dreams and fantasies of the rich. They’ll vote against their own interests to preserve the chance that someday, maybe, they might be there too.

“Personal” freedoms that they will never see.

And all the while, those with the money and the power will feed them that glimmer of hope, like the slot machine that pays out just enough to keep you pulling the handle. The odds are stacked against you the minute you walk into the casino, but you still drop the cash into the machine. And in the same way, the folks on the right keep feeding those dreams, while taking their livelihood. They’ll let you dream of keeping those taxes if you make it rich, while shipping your jobs overseas. They’ll give what you do pay to oil companies, then write the laws so those companies pay a fraction of what they should. Because it’s all in their personal interest. If they can get you to vote in their interests instead of yours, they win, and they won’t shed a tear for you.

Everything the right does is designed to help themselves, not anyone else. And the damnedest thing is, they tell people right up front – they want to be “personally free”, they want “personal responsibility”. All this time, you thought they were trying to tell you that you were irresponsible. What they were really telling you is that they don’t give a damn about you, they’re being “personally responsible” for themselves and no one else.

Posted on May 2, 2012 by Leo Soderman

From Desperate To Ridiculous

The past week has been particularly tough for Mitt Romney. It seems every step of the way, he has found another pothole to trip over. His statements about bin Laden, his faux pizza delivery, caving to the hard right and firing his gay spokesperson – none of these paints the picture of a guy who can win the Presidency.

And Republicans see this. It’s why they’ve never liked Romney to begin with. But, they’re stuck with him, so now they’re getting desperate, looking for something, anything they can use to try to put a negative spin on the President.

The latest act of desperation? Trying to connect the Obama campaign’s use of the word “Forward” to Marxists and Nazis. Really.

That’s how ridiculous this whole thing has gotten. We can’t use common every day words, because they might have some sinister, nefarious meaning. Never mind that the Wisconsin state motto is “Forward” – the state must have been founded by those evil Marxists, right? And that bastion of Marxism, George W. Bush when he proposed “the way forward” in Iraq in 2006.

This is how ridiculous the conversation is getting. Anything is a “dog whistle” or has some dark, evil purpose. But I think there’s a very valid reason why the Republicans and the right think that way – it’s how they operate. It’s part of their make-up. While the average American thinks of words like “forward” as simply statements of direction of movement, the folks on the right have to find another meaning. It’s because when they use words like “Patriot”, they don’t mean someone who loves their country and fights for it. They mean someone who thinks just like them. When they say “food stamp President”, what they mean is “lazy, dark-skinned thief stealing my money”. Of late, they’ve been even less transparent, calling the President a “tar baby” and “boy”. There’s no shortage of phrases and messages that the right uses to get their base fired up. They are always looking for that “secret” meaning because they’re always including a secret meaning.

And because of that, they will always look for messages that don’t exist. Messages that no ordinary American will ever see. And of course, when we point that out, the argument is that we “just don’t understand”, or we’re blind, or don’t love our country.

You want to raise the level of discourse in this country? Try saying what you mean, and not looking for or using those “dog whistles”. Chances of that happening? Next to zero. And as we get closer to the election, and as Romney continues to bury himself in his own inanity, watch for the desperate to become even more ridiculous.

Posted on April 2, 2012 by Leo Soderman

Remember, They Are Worried About Voter Fraud

Republicans have been yammering about voter fraud for the last few years, working to pass legislation to address this “menace”. Of course, they’re the ones getting caught in the fraud. And today we see yet another example of it in Wisconsin:

The state Republican party says it plans to run fake Democrats in four upcoming recall elections targeting GOP state senators.

Party spokesman Stephan Thompson says the move guarantees that a Democratic primary has to be held. He says that ensures one clear date for the primary and a separate one for the general election, thereby limiting any scheduling control for Democrats.

Republicans used the same tactic last year in recall elections targeting six other GOP state senators. The move gave the incumbents more time to campaign and raise money.

The incidence of actual voter fraud has been so low as to be laughable. Instead, the Republicans will waste time and money on running fake candidates just to play a political game. This isn’t about putting forward a solid agenda, or about doing what’s best for constituents. No, this is about doing whatever it takes to win, regardless of the moral or ethical considerations.

But this right out of their playbook. Create straw man problems, then tell everyone how terrible those non-existent problems are. And when that’s not working, go ahead and actually do what they have been railing against. Is it illegal to run fake candidates? Unfortunately, no. But if they are willing to do that, what else are they willing to do? And how can they be trusted if they are voted into office.

We need pols in office who actually have some ethical backbone remaining. And every day, the Republicans show that they are not the party to display that backbone.

Posted on April 1, 2012 by Leo Soderman

Zimmerman’s Whereabouts Unknown, Per Lawyer – Update 6

As each day goes by, another piece of evidence pops up that tears into George Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense in the killing of Trayvon Martin. As we have already detailed, Zimmerman has already failed the test of “self-defense”, even if you believe every word of his story.

But this morning (what is it with Sundays), another troll comes into the fray to claim that none of the evidence that is mounting against Zimmerman’s story is true, that it is all made up. So, I thought it might be prudent to put it all together in one place.

UPDATE 4/10/12 2:11 pm: Zimmerman’s lawyer’s have withdrawn themselves from representing him. More importantly, they have not had contact with Zimmerman in days, and never, at any time, did they meet Zimmerman. Any conversations they had were strictly remote conversations, either by phone, email, or text.

Another disturbing fact from their withdrawal is that they say Zimmerman is not in Florida. This differs from their previous statements that Zimmerman had never left Florida. They also state that Zimmerman had communication with Fox’s Sean Hannity, but they he would not tell them what was discussed.

As to the website Zimmerman has launched for contributions to his defense, they say that Zimmerman’s father was putting up such a website when they found out Zimmerman had already done so himself. This does beg the question: If he has no current legal representation, where are those funds going?

911 Call From Zimmerman

In his 911 call from his truck, Zimmerman, describes Trayvon Martin as suspicious, possibly on drugs. He says he walks toward him, then away, then runs. Zimmerman states in his 911 call “These assholes. They always get away.” When asked if he is pursuing, he says he is. 911 dispatcher tells me they don’t need him to do that. Zimmerman says he lost sight of Martin. Zimmerman ends the call, telling police to call him when they arrive.

The Scene

To give some context to the incident, it is important to see the scene:

Neighborhood where Trayvon Martin was staying. There are exactly three streets.

The first important thing to note is that in the neighborhood where Zimmerman was acting as a “neighborhood watch captain”, there are exactly three streets. And only three. There are two entrances, one to the north, and one on the east. These facts come into play when reviewing the information that Zimmerman has given regarding the incident.

The first to note is that by the description Zimmerman gives of where Martin was and which direction he was going, there is only one possible path Martin could have traveled. He would have come in from the north traveled past the clubhouse (there is no sidewalk here), crossed the street, and headed between the houses to where he was eventually killed.

Why do the street names matter? Because Zimmerman, the “neighborhood watch captain”, says he had gotten out of his truck to look at a street sign to see where he was, and that Trayvon Martin attacked him from behind. Which begs the question – if there are only three streets, and the street he was on does not change names, why was he looking at a sign? If you have been neighborhood watch captain in this neighborhood for any period of time, would you not know what street you were on, especially since there are only three streets?

Let’s take a closer look.

Closer look at the area of the incident

This is a closer look at where the incident took place. The red arrow indicates the direction Martin was walking, again from the description on the 911 call. The green area is where Zimmerman’s truck would have been parked. We do not have an exact location, but again, we can determine this from Zimmerman’s description of events in his 911 call. The small red circle is the area where Trayvon Martin lay dead.

Zimmerman’s first information to 911 is that he lost sight of Martin. This would make sense if Martin went around the homes to walk down the central path, headed back to the house where his father and brother waited. Here is where Zimmerman’s testimony gets confused. He says he was returning to his car, to look at a street sign when he was “jumped”. The street sign would have necessarily been on the street. Again, why would he need to look at the sign? But let’s assume he did. If he lost sight of Martin, it would mean that Martin would have had to go around the corner, then come back. But that would have put the altercation to the north of the row of houses, not between the two rows. For Zimmerman’s story to fit, he would have had to been between the two rows of houses.

But where would Martin have been hidden? This is a wide open area. How did he hide from Zimmerman enough that he could not be seen, yet be able to sneak up on him? The description of the events does not match the lay of the land. To believe the story, you would have to believe that Martin turned the corner (after running around it, per the 911 call), then lay in wait until Zimmerman came around the corner, then waited until Zimmerman turned around to leave, before springing out to attack.

UPDATE 4/3/12 9:01 PM: Zimmerman’s father went on the Sean Hannity show along with lawyers to give yet another version of the story…

This version of the story needs a little more detail. Zimmerman’s father says his son exited his truck (#1) while on the 911 call. and had been following Martin when he disappeared around the corner. He continued along the east/west path but had lost sight of Martin and headed down the path to get a street number as a location (#2). He then turned around and was approached by Martin at the intersection of the paths (#3). from there, they scuffled, and the story goes on with his head being bashed into the ground. Zimmerman’s father says they scuffled for about 40 seconds (this can be heard on the 911 tapes).

As with the previous story, the timeline is a problem. From the time Zimmerman hangs up with 911, to the time we know Trayvon Martin was shot, it’s only 2 minutes. 120 seconds. Per this new story, the last 40 seconds of that were spent fighting. That leaves a scant 80 seconds for Zimmerman to have left his vehicle, walked all the way down the path, returned and been confronted by Martin. As we have previously noted, the distance from the car to the place where Martin was left dead was about 200 ft. To add the additional walking distance as described by Zimmerman’s father would have been another 100 ft. That’s a good distance to go. But it also ignores a detail – that in this version, Zimmerman would have walked past that path intersection twice. How did he not see a 6’1″ tall Martin, dressed in a light colored hoodie, not once, but twice? To believe this story, we have to believe that somehow, Trayvon Martin disappeared from view and then returned just to confront Martin. Where did he hide? The area between the homes is about 50 feet wide, with few areas to hide in.

UPDATE 4/5/12 4:18 PM - Adding a new image by Dave Weigel, who writes for Slate and MSNBC:

Scene of Trayvon Martin's Death - Image Dave Weigel

This is the area between the homes where Trayvon Martin was shot. The intersection of the two paths near the right of the picture is the one described by Zimmerman’s father.

In the most recent version of the story, Zimmerman was at this intersection twice. The first time after he lost sight of Trayvon Martin, and continued on to the right of this picture to get a house number. The second time is allegedly when Trayvon Marton approached him and the scuffle began – Zimmerman would have been traveling from right to left.

For his story to flesh out, Martin would have to have been hiding his 6’1″ frame somewhere here in such a way that Zimmerman missed him not once, but twice, and that he would not have seen Martin approach him from the nearest possible hiding spot. To come out from hiding, and go near the intersection would have exposed him for at least a few seconds. But if the new story is to be believed, the scuffle would have had to move all the way back to this location from the intersection of the paths. Two houses down. Again, given the timeline, that the fight was only 40 seconds long, and that it started up near the intersection of paths, this seems implausible.

The “Fight”

The time between 911 calls, from the time Zimmerman hangs up to the 911 calls that capture the gunshot, are very compressed. Zimmerman’s initial call to 911 ended at 7:15 pm. Cell phone records confirm that Martin was on the phone with his girlfriend, and by her account, he said he was being pursued. She says she heard an exchange between the two, and the phone went dead at 7:16 pm. By the time police arrived at 7:17pm, Martin was dead. So, if Zimmerman’s story is to be believed, he lost sight of Martin, hung up his phone, and in the next 120 seconds, Martin – while on the phone with his girlfriend – made the choice to turn around and head back to approach Zimmerman, hitting him, knocking him down, getting on top of him, struggling for Zimmerman’s gun, and ending with being shot.

But again, let’s look at the lay of the land. Zimmerman, by his own testimony, was parked near “the mailboxes”. If you look closely at the image, you’ll see the location of those mailboxes were at least 2-3 houses from the bend in the road. In other words, in the short time span between 7:15 and 7:17, Zimmerman somehow went from his truck, 2-3 houses down, north to the end of the row, around the corner, around a second corner, and was contacted by Martin after turning around to go back to his truck. And in the fight that ensued, had his head bashed on concrete, struggled for a gun, and shot Martin. All in 120 seconds.

From where the truck was parked to the location of the shooting is approximately 200 ft. of walking distance. Bear with me while a get a bit nerdy…

Average walking speed is about 3 MPH. That’s about 15,840 ft. per hour. Or 264 ft. per minute. So, at an average walking speed, it would have taken almost half of those 120 seconds for Zimmerman to reach the location of the shooting. This means the whole altercation, including not seeing Martin, turning around to go back to his truck, being “jumped” or attacked, the fight, everything, happened in a space of 60 seconds.

Unless – Zimmerman wasn’t walking. But then, this changes the dynamic. If you’re a young kid, walking home, and a guy starts following you, perhaps even running to catch you, aren’t you the one who has the right to stand your ground?

But perhaps the most important element of the timing is the whole discussion of whether Zimmerman had ended his pursuit. And this timing shows that if Zimmerman had ended his pursuit, it happened less than a minute before Martin was shot dead. So even if Zimmerman considers he had ended the pursuit, it’s possible Martin did not feel that was the case and confronted him. But if he had ended the pursuit earlier, the altercation would not have happened where it did, and would more likely have been at the end of the row of houses, or nearer the street.

The Injuries… Or Lack Thereof…

According to Zimmerman’s story, Martin had gotten the upper hand in their altercation and was on top of him, beating his head into the concrete. Zimmerman’s father, a former VA magistrate, says he was severely beaten, with a broken nose and gash to the head. Zimmerman’s attorney says that his client had a gash big enough that it nearly needed stitches. And his brother says that he fired his gun before he lost consciousness from one more blow to the head.

Sounds pretty serious, except these stories also do not fit what we have seen released. In particular, a full video showing Zimmerman arriving at the Sanford Police Department, exiting the police cruiser and walking to an interview room. In none of these shots, is there any visible evidence of a broken nose. No bruising, no blood. There is also no visible evidence of a gash sufficient to require stitches. In fact, no evidence of any real injury at all.

UPDATE 4/2/12 11:52 am – ABC News has released an “enhanced” version of the surveillance video that shows marks on the back of Zimmerman’s head. It is unclear what the marks are, but may be cuts. But there is still no evidence of a broken nose and no visible blood anywhere.

UPDATE 4/2/12 5:54 pm – ABC News now reporting that they have asked a medical expert to analyze the enhanced video, and the there are no signs of significant injury or a broken nose that would be consistent with Zimmerman’s claims.

The fact that there does not appear to be blood on his clothing is significant. Remember his story - Zimmerman says Martin was on top of him, they fought for Zimmerman’s gun, Zimmerman pulled the trigger and shot Martin in the chest. The law of gravity says that blood would fall from the wound. And if not, that same law of gravity says that someone, leaning forward to bash your head into concrete, when shot would fall onto you. This would cause transfer, even if just a little, to your clothing. But Martin was found dead on the grass, face down, with his hands beneath him. Again, the story doesn’t make sense. At least one eyewitness has come forward to state that they saw the altercation, and that he saw the two of them on the grass, not the concrete, and that the “larger man” – Zimmerman – was on top.

We also see that the clothes Zimmerman was wearing, including a jacket, came down over his waistband. So, for Martin to have seen the concealed weapon, the jacket would have to have gone up, the pants shifted down the shirt exposed the waistband, and the holster shifted into view. And somehow, Martin would have to have been able to draw the weapon from the holster. We talked about the timeline above. There’s just a whole lot that needs to have happened in a very short period of time for this story to hold true.

Zimmerman’s gun was confiscated and is locked up in an evidence locker at Sanford PD, but he has not had any action against his license to carry, meaning he can buy another gun or if has another in his possession legally, he may carry it without restriction. Given that he has not been charged, this is within the law.

UPDATE 4/6/12 5:56 PM: On CBS’ This Morning program, one of Zimmerman’s lawyers introduced the idea that “Shaken Baby Syndrome” can kill an infant, and that a person can die from repeated blows to the skull. This line of defense is consistent with the description of the fight thus far, and is being used to explain why there was little visible evidence of his heat being beaten. But again, this shows how the story is changing to fit evidence as it comes out. The original story was that his head was beaten severely and that there was a significant gash. Video has been released that calls that story into question. Now, Zimmerman’s defense is using Shaken Baby Syndrome as a means of saying that the lack of visible injury doesn’t matter.

Of course, this doesn’t affect the true issue of this case. If Zimmerman approached Martin, and Martin felt threatened, there3 is no self-defense claim available.

The Audio Analysis

New analysis of the 911 tapes from Zimmerman and from others that captured someone screaming help have come under more scrutiny over the last few days. Zimmerman claims the screaming was him, calling for help. Others who heard the screaming have said the voice sounded more like the younger Martin. But the contradictions make deciphering this part of the story difficult.

In response, the Orlando Sentinel contacted two forensic experts who specialize in audio analysis. Both use significantly different techniques, one through personal observation of the characteristics of the recordings and the other through sophisticated software analysis. In both cases, the analysts agree on two things: First, that they cannot positively identify the screaming voice as that of Treyvon Martin. With no sample of his voice, they have no way to make a determination on that. But more importantly, both said that the voice was not that of George Zimmerman. The analysts both state that the recordings of the screams and of Zimmerman’s 911 call are of an excellent quality for analysis, and are both certain that Zimmerman is not the one calling for help.

So, What Really Happened?

That’s really the question we all want answered. So a caveat: The following theory is based on what is public evidence, as well as some inference from that evidence. However, based on what is publicly known, I believe it is an explanation that fits what we do know.

Zimmerman was parked on the north/south section of Twin Trees Rd., south of the crosswalk. He is far enough north to see Trayvon Martini leave the shelter of the clubhouse building and walk toward the corner. In his 911 call, Zimmerman says “These assholes. they always get away”. He says Martin walks “toward” him, looks at him, then walks away. He says Martin begins to run.

From Martin’s point of view, he’s walking home. It’s is raining so he walks along the front of the clubhouse to shelter himself. He’s talking to his girlfriend. From there, he walks toward the crosswalk to cross the street. He looks down the street and sees Zimmerman exiting his vehicle. Away from shelter he runs across the street and sees Zimmerman following him.

Zimmerman tells dispatchers he is following Martin. By the time he hangs up, he is near the crosswalk and continues to follow Martin, who tells his girlfriend he is being followed. Zimmerman is not going to let this one get away, and having temporarily lost him when Martin went down the walk, he picks up the pace to catch up to him.

Zimmerman has called the police, and wants to detain Martin until the police arrive. He tries to stop Martin. Martin, who has no idea why he is being followed, challenges Zimmerman. They fight. Zimmerman pulls his gun to end the fight, killing Martin.

Can this be proven? Not yet. But it fits the evidence so far more cleanly than Zimmerman’s contradiction-riddled story.

There is one more thing of note. I have not brought the issue of race into this, and the decision not to is deliberate. Race is only an issue in this matter after the determination that Zimmerman did not act in self-defense. Self-defense is the key to Zimmerman’s story. In looking at all the evidence thus far, there is very little to suggest that Zimmerman “broke off the pursuit” and far more to suggest that he got his man – and then devised a story to move the blame away from himself and onto the victim.