Anyone who has trained with me in the last few years has heard me talk about what I call “combat semantics.” Smart debaters know that many words in our language have multiple shades of meaning, and they’ll often try to tell people that one of those words meant “B” when you used it, when in fact you really meant “A”. We saw this in more ways than one in the Zimmerman case.

At a bail hearing in April of 2012, George Zimmerman told the family of the deceased Trayvon Martin that he was “sorry.” The next morning, newspapers all over the country ran headlines like “Killer Apologizes.”

We all speak English here. You apologize for having done something wrong. When you say “I’m sorry” in any number of contexts, such as this one, you’re probably trying to convey, “I’m sad for your loss, and I feel compassion for you, and I wish this bad thing had never happened.” But another connotation of “sorry” is “I apologize,” and “apologize” in turn carries the connotation of guilt. At the risk of cliché, “Self-defense is never having to say you’re sorry.”

Another example – already discussed earlier in this blog series, in one of the commentary sections – is “pursue” versus “follow.” It is clear from the evidence that for a brief period of time, Zimmerman followed Martin – indeed, he answered “Yeah” when the dispatcher asked him if he was following the other person. Those who wanted to pillory Zimmerman turned that into an imperfect synonym: “He pursued him!”

To “pursue” carries the connotation of intent to seize and control. A police pursuit is intended to end with the laying on of hands which takes the pursued into custody. Pursuit of wild game implies the intent to turn the animal into a carcass that will be butchered and devoured. Even “pursuit of happiness” implies that when you succeed, you will possess that happiness. There is absolutely nothing in evidence to indicate that Zimmerman ever did, or even ever intended to, lay hands on Martin and take control of him. But this simple choice of words – by those who indeed did “pursue” Zimmerman in their way – helped to convince much of a nation that Zimmerman’s actions were not what the evidence now shows them to be.

“Combat semantics” is a debater’s game. Trial lawyers, if you think about it, are debaters playing for much higher stakes than the high school Debate Society.

And clearly, many of those who were out to hang Zimmerman were, uh, master debaters.

1 COMMENT

  2. You’re absolutely right, Mas, and both the trial and your Zimmerman series here evidenced the fact that some people play a semantics game. Police officers don’t apologize in my area; they hand you their supervisor’s card instead, and it’s for the reason you gave: kind, compassionate words will be turned into an admission of guilt.

    It’s unfortunate that the truth won’t set you free anymore and that we have to train not only for possible tactical scenarios, but also for how to express ourselves after the event (see “I’m the complainant, officer” or the old “shoot to stop, not to kill”).

    Sad what ambulance lawyers and agenda-driven reporting have done to the very fabric of our society.

  4. This semantics error was a compounding of the choice to speak to the police immediately after the incident and without the benefit of a lawyer – IOW, violation of Ayoob Rule #1. The fight for your life does not end with being successful physically in the immediate moment.

  5. Here is the next slogan the antis will use when they campaign against the Stand Your Ground laws: “Self-defense is never having to say you’re sorry.”

  6. It’s still mind numbing to me that there are people around the Twittersphere who believe that Zimmerman “chased” Trayvon down and the “shot him in the back.”

    Chase, much like pursue, implies an active effort to close distance. I don’t believe anything in the evidence suggests that.

    From the time Zimmerman got out of his car to the time he hung up with 911, 2 minutes and 9 seconds passed according to the time stamp.

    So you tell me, how does a 5’7″ 185lb Zimmerman, “chase down” a 5’11” 158lb athlete like Martin, when Martin had a 2min+ head start?

    Logic is wasted on Martin’s supporters. They want racism, and anger and irrational rage.

  7. Well Mas,
    Again you’ve made, and backed up, an excellent point. This case to me is an example of the ever growing line in the sand between our country. Those who favor one side tend to take the facts and distort them into whatever reality they want. While those favoring the other see what really happened, not what could have happened. They discredit Zimmerman’s testimony, and hang on small events like “Zimmerman never should have left the vehicle.” When the facts of the case are that he did leave the vehicle. He didn’t commit a crime by doing that. They attack Stand Your Ground Laws by saying that Zimmerman should have ran away if he had the chance and mention nothing of the fact that Treyvon had the same opportunity and “responsibility” to run away. Its a difference in ideology and there is never going to be a both sides happy scenario. Thank God that the jury was focused on the facts and not the B.S. At least this time justice and common sense has prevailed.

  8. I absolutely agree that words have consequences. Communication and journalism schools stress building a narrative above all else. Thus, words are chosen to appeal to one’s emotions rather than logic. The narrative was that Mr. Martin died because of a gun nut, white supremacist, wannabe cop pursued him and shot him down because he was black and wore a hoodie. Thus, for Zimmerman’s expression of sorrow to fit the narrative, Zimmerman had to be apologizing for his criminal actions of racially profiling and then hunting Martin down. As someone who has to read media sources on a regular basis for my job on a field that I know pretty well, I have to be amused about the reporting because so much of it is bad. Consistently, I have seen reporters fall back to using a narrative to fill in the story on appellate court rulings. This happens because they simply do not understand the issues involved or that they are purposefully misleading the public using words that are intended to inflame rather than inform.

  9. When I first started reading you in the 80’s I thought you were getting carried away. Now, after almost 30 years living in a large college town, I see your work as prophetic. We are now dealing with a population that is so self centered, that logic matters little, but the ends justifies the means.

  12. Fantastic FACT based discussion of this controversial case. When it comes down to it and with as much of the deck stacked against Mr. Zimmerman, the outcome should be vindication of the rule of law with only the unknown reaction by the Justice Department being a possible area of risk to the freedom to defend oneself.

  13. I won’t be surprised if the Justice Department prosecutes Zimmerman on civil rights charges. Especially since Obama needs a diversion to draw attention away from Benghazi, the IRS scandal, and the increased unemployment rate. And there would be a lot of political pressure on a jury the second time around. In the second (federal) so-called “Rodney King beating trial,” the jury seemed to see their duty as averting another riot, instead of rendering a fair verdict based on the evidence.

  14. My job occasionally involves dealing people when we’ve got it wrong, or at least they think we’ve got it wrong, and we were saying “Sorry” in to demonstarte empathy is good, but be careful not to sound like apologising, as Mas said, like you’re admitting guilt.

    Hmmm . . . two statements about the Zimmerman case.

    A man with a gun shot dead a an unarmed black child.

    A man with a gun shot dead a seventeen year old when he was in fear of his life, ‘cos said seventeen year old was pounding his head into the ground at the time the fatal shot was fired, and all available evidence supports this.

    The first is true, but it’s also misleading.

    This second statement is also true, but far more accurate than the first.

    Mas – Jokes about “master debators” really belong in High School than in serious articles about serious subjects . . . errr . . . but I did grin when I read it. -blush-

    Thank for summing up the Zimmerman case and explaining with the facts and how they are interpreted. And also while defending Zimmerman, because he was a man who acted in justified self-defence, you also acknowledged the grief of the Martin family in loosing a son.

  15. Attorney Crump also kept repeating hundreds of times that Zimmerman “killed an unarmed kid” who was just walking home with candy and ice tea, he also captivated the country displaying his 12 year old picture misleading all of us.

    This is Crumps game book he did the same thing in 2004 when Martin Lee Anderson died of sickle cell after running 1.3 miles he got 5 prison guards at a juvenile detention facility fired demanded then Gov. Bush do a criminal investigation kept repeating that they killed “the family baby” hundreds of times and won 5 million from the state of Florida and the prison guards were all cleared of criminal charges but lost their jobs. He also showed the news a photo which he was much younger all the same game he plays for profit.
    Does this all sound familiar???

  16. Also we could not get any of the mass media except FOX news to report fair on this, they were all against Zimmerman. Then we had the race baiters, that was disgusting they made it seem like it was 1950 in Mississippi the way they were talking.

    Now we have the race baiters who have any gun they want, some heavily armed body guards demanding the “Stand Your Ground Law” be appealed. We have the AG Holder saying we need to look at it. We have the President of this country saying we need to look at it while he has heavily armed body guards for life. Talk is cheap but when you are responsible for the family and your own personal safety many of us take it very seriously.

    I pray that this is all politics and they are blowing smoke trying to appease the masses and nothing comes of the stand your ground law.

  17. Ahh me thinks Taravon’s’s past would be brought out for all the country to see if the Feds file charges. This would be another thing they wouldn’t want to deal with. If I am wrong I will stand corrected. What is the law in that case?

  18. Another word used by the anti Zimmerman lynch mob to stir up the masses was the consistent use of “stalking”. To my mind this word is even worse than “pursue”.

  19. I attended college with radicals at the U. of Colorado, a left leaning public school, in the 1980’s. Now, these same leftist radicals are the ones holding the reigns of today’s media and the Administration. Make no mistake- that is exactly what they are- radicals. They have no interest in compromise, and view the world through a warped lens- a lens that sees a klansman behind every tree, and constantly looks for prejudice and injustice where none exists.

    The Zimmerman case had nothing to do with “Stand Your Ground” and was not defended or prosecuted as such. Either Zimmerman attacked Martin, and the law doesn’t apply, or Martin had Zimmerman confined to the ground, where he could not retreat, and the law still does not apply. Only the radical, leftist media pushed that agenda.

    So what can you do? Boycott! Don’t watch channels that promote race baiting. Don’t buy products their advertisers sell. And don’t buy, rent or watch movies from anti-Second Amendment studios and actors. Don’t be another sheep. Sure, it may mean you have to make some adjustments, and maybe even give up some things you love, but it is THAT IMPORTANT.

    And don’t waste your time writing email to executives at CNN or NBC. They mindlessly follow the agenda they “feel” they need to. But MAILED letters to their advertisers, telling their CEO you will no longer buy their products because they support such unfair reporting, will. And for God’s sake, register to vote and VOTE.

  20. As usual Massad has hit the nail squarely on the head. We need to consider an equal response to this miss-characterization of armed citizen reports.
    We have a mountain to climb. The media in all but a few outlets,is very much anti gun and will ignore any reports of even black armed citizens defending themselves.

    In the UK where i was a cop for 21 years it is even worse. I subscribe to two English newspapers. The Telegraph and the mail. I noted that both were scathing in their attacks on Zimmerman. calling him a self styled vigilante and ignoring his injuries or any reference to justifiable self defense. In part this is because the concept does not exist in the UK at present. Since the gun ban over there violent crime has risen sharply. Another fact ignored by the media on bot sides of the Atlantic.

    Steve Challis (Author, debarred the Use of Arms)

    stevechallis.vpweb.net

  21. The rest of the world’s opinion is not worth considering, even for a laugh. I lived overseas when the Rodney King story broke out and we were woefully misinformed there. You felt like a little kid being told what to think by his ignorant parents. I had no idea how much to the left the media were stateside, and how much propaganda was used by the media, entertainment and education systems.

    I otherwise doubt that the feds will come after Zimmerman. They’re keeping mum now because they’d rather let the emotions (that they helped stir up) subside, but they’ve been looking into this since the beginning and would be all over him if they had even a chance. What I’m still waiting for is serious blowback (firings, countersuits, etc.) for all the liars and agitators.

  22. Excellent point, and having listened to your lectures, the say nothing principal is STRONGLY re-enforced.

  23. Mas, it was my terminology in what I said was an “imperfect parallel” comparing Zimmerman’s profiling of Martin as a potential threat to his community, trying to do the right thing by keeping up with him and following the mantra “if you see something, say something”, to a police pursuit.

    I used as an example a law enforcement officer doing exactly the same thing; if a motorist seems suspicious, or if he is responding to a BOLO report, etc. In LEO parlance he is “in pursuit”, even if he is just trying to keep up and maintain eyeball contact. If the subject attempts to elude, the cop’s supervisor decides based on the circumstances whether or not actual apprehension will be attempted, or if there is not enough information to justify the inherent risk, and orders discontinuing the pursuit.

    And in my mind, that is exactly what occurred in this case; Martin’s actions and appearance fit every definition of suspicious, and Zimmerman’s concern for his neighborhood and his predilection for helping and protecting others caused him to try to maintain eyeball contact and make the 911 call.

    I agree that definitions of terms can be twisted, depending on what the twister wants to convey. But the idea that the word “pursue” is synonymous with “capture” is absurd on the face of it and just plain wrong. Hell, if the twisters of the world are allowed to restrict our speech based on what they insist words mean, we won’t be able to argue our points at all, as they will find hidden meaning in everything we say and they will have successfully and preemptively limited the free expression of our case. And if we pursue this train of thought, “pursue” does mean follow, but nuanced by urgency or intent.

    Zimmerman correctly profiled Martin as a potential threat. He followed him, but when Martin noticed and attempted to elude, it became a pursuit. Not to apprehend or restrain him, but just to maintain eyeball contact and convey that information to law enforcement…all good up until this point. But based upon the information he had at the time, that Martin did fit a profile of a potential threat but was not actively committing any crime, at that point, whether due to the advice of the 911 contact or based on his own standard of what his role should be, he should have discontinued pursuit, or following, or surveillance, whatever you may call it. Because he did not have enough information to justify the risk to himself and his neighbors to get close enough for a physical confrontation to occur.

    Once he was attacked by Martin, Zimmerman did exactly what he should have done, and what I or any reasonable person -including those jurors- would do; he stopped a potentially deadly attack with the deadly force at his disposal. And that is what this case was deciding; was Zimmerman justified in taking the life of someone who was intent on taking his? Hell. Fucking. Yes.

    But were his actions prior to that advisable, and in any case should they be held up as exemplary behavior in advancing the cause of self-dependency and self-defense? Hell. Fucking. No. Far from a case study and example of how to justifiably defend oneself utilizing the hard-won legal right to invoke an even harder-won Constitutional right to defense of life and liberty, it should instead be a case study and example of how we might avoid invoking that right, thereby preserving our right go about our daily business of the pursuit of happiness that is also guaranteed in that document. Certainly Zimmerman has by default lost that right; should we canonize him and follow his example, or learn from his mistakes?

    George Zimmerman did what he had to do in the circumstances he was in, and I will defend him to all comers, regardless of race-baiting, rabble-rousing, self-aggrandizing politicians, media apologists, and professional protestors and rioters. But I’d like not to have to any more than absolutely necessary, and I believe the “circumstances he was in” could have been avoided, and should be avoided by all who study his case.

  24. “And clearly, many of those who were out to hang Zimmerman were, uh, master debaters.”

    Yes, and some were, uh, cunning linguists.

  25. JTC, just a few things.

    I know you are new here, but the folks who own Backwoods Home like to keep it family friendly, so we need to dispense with the F-bombs.

    I think you & I will have to disagree as to the connotation of “pursuit” vis-a-vis “follow.”

    No one here is saying Zimmerman handled it perfectly in the tactical sense. All I’m responsible for is what I’M saying, which is that imperfect tactics don’t make you criminally (or for that matter, civilly) culpable for wrongdoing.

  26. Thank you Mas, your last para says succinctly what I’ve said at length, with my primary concern being that all the attaboys could lead others into similarly flawed tactical reasoning and responses in similar circumstances.

    It is your stature in the field that made it important to me that you publicly recognize those imperfect tactics that if critiqued instructively, might save other good people the life-altering ordeal to which Mr. Zimmerman has been -and is being- subjected.

    And my apologies to you and your hosts here for the foul linguistic emphasis.

  27. Mark Levin has a proposal to kill the never ending march to socialism that the progressives are pushing. He takes advantage of a clause in the constitution that allows the state to organize a constitutional convention bypassing the federal government.

    Here is the first chapter:
    http://citadelcc.vo.llnwd.net/o29/network/Levin/hosted_files/LibertyAmendmentsCh1.pdf

    This is the clause in the Constitution that governs amendments to the Constitution. Notice that it allows 2/3’s of the states to create a convention that can propose constitutional amendments to the states. This bypasses the Federal government and offers the possibility of saving the country from the Progressive Fascists who are bent on it’s “fundamental transformation”.

    Quote:
    The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress . . .

  28. Think about the word “cracker” , in the context that Travon used it. For the non Floridians the original use of the word describe the old Florida animal team drivers who cracked whips of the team. To day the black racists use it to mean backwoods white redneck. When the 911 operator asked Zimmerman to describe Travon he’d did not even mention color. The first word Travon used to describe Zimmerman was a racist derogatory put down. Who was the racist in this encounter?

  31. Well said Mas , I learned long time ago that your words in a debate or speech or Sermon can be twisted into something you never did or said.

  32. Here’s an off-topic comment inspired by ConradCA.

    I’m trying to figure out a way to empower “we the people” against our government. If I rented an apartment, and requested the supervisor to fix something, and he didn’t do it in a reasonable amount of time, I would withhold rent money, until the repair was made. Tax money is the lifeblood of poliTICKS. If we could get enought business owners and individuals to say to the federal government, “We will withhold our tax money until you close the borders, recognize the Second Amendment, and indeed the whole Constitution, et cetera.” If we could stop the flow of money to D.C., we might be able to change things. It would take some courageous business owners, because they pay the income tax which is taken out of our paychecks before we ever see them. Problem is, many business owners are probably spineless and will become crony capitalists.

    I’m just trying to figure out how to solve our soft tyrannical government problem peacefully. Any ideas?

  34. @death wish Dave, they would continue to borrow money from China and other sources who do not support freedom.

  35. @ Death Wish Dave: what you’re advocating is stealing from a thief. You can’t withhold your rent payments even in the middle of a dispute with your landlord – you still have to keep your end of the bargain (rental contract) and get redress via other means. In a democracy, if we disagree on how our taxes are spent, we vote for people who will do what we want.

    Now the problem we have is that democracy isn’t working anymore and that no candidate works for who elected them but for private interests that funded their campaign. To make things worse, the media conspire in preventing us from keeping our eyes on the ball and candidates are only in it for themselves and their ‘friends’… and I don’t have a solution for that, but it’s not what you proposed, unfortunately.

  36. Thank you JeremyR and Alonzo Gomez. You are right, Alonzo, “…democracy isn’t working anymore…” Our government can only function smoothly if voters inform themselves and take their voting job seriously. Lazy citizens, government schools and Marxist Media keep the facts from the voters.

    It would be great if we could sue the government for not following its own rules in the Constitution. Secession may be the answer. I don’t want to live with liberals and their rules any more. I try to dream up solutions because I am FRUSTRATED!

  37. One thing I forgot to mention; I do not think secession would necessarily result in a civil war, like it did last time. The Fabian Socialists (liberals) in this country are very happy trying to fool the people, and they have been successful. They have no stomach for fighting, I believe. Actually, I believe most Americans realize that a civil war would upset our comfortable lives, and that is not desirable. War is just too ugly, especially with modern weapons and fighting against people who used to be fellow citizens.

    I also believe liberals are sensitive to the fact that Communism has a bad reputation due to the bullies who have tried to make it work. I wonder what Obama and Hillary and others will do if they can’t bring about their utopia through peaceful means. Will they resort to harsh measures, like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro and Ho Chi Minh did?

    Sorry to get so off-topic, Mas. I can’t help it, but I’ll try to stop it now. These “what if?” scenarios are important to me, but maybe the time has come to not mention such things on the insecure Internet. Hey, it’s just “what if?” Kind of like coming up with ideas for movies!

  38. I hear your frustration, Death Wish Dave, but between the castration of the 2nd amendment and the natural inertia of the public (as long as we have reality shows and Big Macs, right?), I don’t believe we’ll see another civil war. I sure hope I won’t. What I believe in is the fact that many inside the military and LE, federal or not, are true Americans who wouldn’t let the constitution be trampled for long, especially using them to get there. The only fly in that optimistic ointment is Katrina. But we’re way off-topic, my friend.

    What’s relevant here is that language, as George Carlin once said, is by and large a tool for concealing the truth. So it’s not suprising that, from nazi and stalinist propagandists to a certain prosecution team and our lovely media, wordplay has always been the first step towards manipulation, imprisonment and elimination.
    It’s up to us to think clearly and keep our eyes on the ball instead of being fooled by the professional rethoricians (liars).