Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Information Analyst]

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...on-martin.html

Trayvon Returns to the Retreat at Twin Lakes Trayvon may have entered the gated community either through a pedestrian gate at the front entrance or through an unfenced section often used by residents as a shortcut.

If you go to the third 'bullet point' it shows in the lower right corner it shows the map associated with the above bullet point.

It seems GZ may have encountered TM earlier than I thought, at least.

A very interesting new piece of information. Using this shortcut would be consistent with Martin's route back from the 7-11 (as also identified on the same page), and would put Martin on Retreat View Circle walking in the same direction as Zimmerman would have been driving towards the main entrance. This allows for a better opportunity for Zimmerman to first catch sight of Martin than if he had been coming back through the main entrance.

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by Information Analyst

A very interesting new piece of information. Using this shortcut would be consistent with Martin's route back from the 7-11 (as also identified on the same page), and would put Martin on Retreat View Circle walking in the same direction as Zimmerman would have been driving towards the main entrance. This allows for a better opportunity for Zimmerman to first catch sight of Martin than if he had been coming back through the main entrance.

It still would not have been likely that Z would have seen him come over the fence. Since there is a recreational facility of some sort in the area, it would not be unusual for someone to be walking in the direction that we can assume Martin to have been walking at that point.

That Martin was not known to Z is irrelevant, in my opinion, because it would be only remotely possible that he would know anywhere near every resident in that big an area and that many housing units. If anyone questions this, I would ask them how many of their neighbors they know over a similar area.

I cannot think of any valid reason to be so suspicious of a young person dressed appropriately for the time and the weather conditions other than that the person had some inate suspicion of the charter of any young black male whom he did not know by name.

Nothing that Z describes about Martin's behavior even seems to be probable cause to suspect him of something. It is kind of natural that, when you notice someone following you for no good reason, you would look at least a little apprehensive.

Certainly, if I were being followed, I would start looking for possible escape routes in case things got really hinky all of a sudden.

[Information Analyst]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

It still would not have been likely that Z would have seen him come over the fence. Since there is a recreational facility of some sort in the area, it would not be unusual for someone to be walking in the direction that we can assume Martin to have been walking at that point.

That Martin was not known to Z is irrelevant, in my opinion, because it would be only remotely possible that he would know anywhere near every resident in that big an area and that many housing units. If anyone questions this, I would ask them how many of their neighbors they know over a similar area.

I cannot think of any valid reason to be so suspicious of a young person dressed appropriately for the time and the weather conditions other than that the person had some inate suspicion of the charter of any young black male whom he did not know by name.

Nothing that Z describes about Martin's behavior even seems to be probable cause to suspect him of something. It is kind of natural that, when you notice someone following you for no good reason, you would look at least a little apprehensive.

Certainly, if I were being followed, I would start looking for possible escape routes in case things got really hinky all of a sudden.

I don't think it add any more justification for Zimmerman's suspicion, if it is an oft-used short-cut, but it does allow for a longer window of opportinity for Zimmerman to spot and initially follow Martin in the first place, thus making the latter more wary/apprehensive in the process.

It certainly doesn't change the fact that Zimmerman simply not knowing/recognising Martin is not a particularly valid bar to set on the scale of suspicion. In fact, given that it becoming obvious that this "gated community" is actually about as secure as a sieve, and it wouldn't surprise me if it wasn't just residents who used the newly-identified "gap" as a short-cut, as well.

[leftysergeant]

The fact that it is not such a secure area to begin with just makes Z's reactions seem that much less realistic. That so few arrests have stemmed from his wild rants makes him look more than just a little paranoid, which makes his claim of self-defense look just a little more like meadow muffins.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

The standard definition will do.

So in other words they can apply an antibiotic as a wound dressing and it would not be visible?

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by KatieG

There is no picture and no one has all the pieces. I'd like to see some facts out there but I don't want this to be trial by internet. I think there are some very serious legal issues with the SYG law and this case might a major factor in redefining these laws.

If GZ's case prevails and he doesn't go to trial, there's the answer. I'm only saying that for me, that's not the answer I want. If I'm wrong, only the people here will ever know that, most probably won't care.

Hi KatieG, as we transition from the fifth life of the thread into the sixth, it might help you to know that the status of SYG has been hotly debated in first three lives of the thread.

While teh media and possibly GZ's lawyer have mentioned the SYG and it may have influenced the proffering of charges, it may not be that likely to enter into the defense of GZ, if there is a trial.

basically and in non-legal terms, SYG means that an individual does not have to attempt to flee before using lethal force. So, in some states a claim of self defense may require that the individual was cornered and had no means of egress before using lethal force. And a jury can decide that it was not self defense because the individual chose to fire rather than retreating. In FL the law states that this is not a requirement for self defense.

In Oklahoma there was a woman who fired upon people trying to break into her house after threatening her. She killed them and no charges were offered because there was evidence that she was engaging in the use of lethal force to defend her life. The SYG law basicaly extends this sort of idea.

And welcome to the fray.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by RandFan

To begin with I don't see an acknowledgment of what I've claimed. My position is two fold and provisional. If you are going to ask me questions it might be helpful if you could acknowledge my positions.

1. To start with, I'm not as dogmatic on this point as you seem to claim. I've not seen an expert authorized to testify in court on video voice print analysis provide contradictory evidence. There is almost always contradictory "expert" testimony. I've seen it countless times.
2. No. When it comes to a legal matter I put myself into a real world scenario. At the end of the day that's what counts, right? So, from an arrest/charge/arraignment/indictment/held over point of view I adopt the Preponderance of evidence standard (as that is the real world standard).
3. You've now moved from the legal realm into the scientific. But I'm happy to oblige. I take each scientific claim on a case by case basis. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Faster than light is an extraordinary claim. I've not seen extraordinary evidence and there is no real world need to make a preponderance of evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt standard decision. My gut reaction was wait and see. Relativity and quantum mechanics are very counter-intuitive. While I expect science to provide further counter-intuitive discoveries ala J. B. S. Haldane I'm more guarded for those claims.

Summary, I don't need to form an opinion about GZ but I have and I've stated that opinion countless times. I'm sure I'll be asked over and over again what my position is. That's fine. If compelling evidence comes forward to push me off of either position then I'm open to changing them both.

In what real world is 'preponderance of the evidence' a rational standard for criminal cases?

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by RandFan

This issue is within the legal realm. The questions have to do with legal standards. That we are not sitting on a jury is just a fatuous point that will not advance the discussion. The questions still have legal relevance. Badgering me to see the case as not a legal one is pointless. If you cannot get it that preponderance of evidence standard (in the case of an arrest/charge/indictment) and reasonable doubt standard (needed for conviction) will be the only standards used in this case then there is nothing more I can do for you. There is no point to the discussion. You don't seem to get that we are talking about legal matters. Not simply scientific. Not gut feelings. Not absolute certainty. Not mathematical proofs.

Legal. Just legal. If you just can't grasp that then I don't see the point of a discussion. I'm here not to win a debate but to have a discussion. I don't mind a spirited discussion but I expect those I discuss the issues with can at least grasp the context of the discussion. If you can't accept my opinion from a legal POV and discuss it from a legal POV then I won't bother responding to you anymore.

If that's the case then all the best.

So in what 'legal realm' is preponderance of the evidence the standard for a jury/burden of proof in criminal cases?

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

So in what 'legal realm' is preponderance of the evidence the standard for a jury/burden of proof in criminal cases?

Well it's enough to go to trial with, but not enough to convict technically.

[Matthew Best]

I think Randfan is saying that the preponderance of evidence is all he needs to make up his mind about what he thinks happened, but it would not be enough for a court of law. That is why he states that he thinks Zimmerman is in the wrong, but would not feel able to vote "guilty" if he were on the jury.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

I think Randfan is saying that the preponderance of evidence is all he needs to make up his mind about what he thinks happened, but it would not be enough for a court of law. That is why he states that he thinks Zimmerman is in the wrong, but would not feel able to vote "guilty" if he were on the jury.

My point exactly. Calling personal opinions 'legal... just legal' doesn't make them anything of the sort.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

I think Randfan is saying that the preponderance of evidence is all he needs to make up his mind about what he thinks happened, but it would not be enough for a court of law. That is why he states that he thinks Zimmerman is in the wrong, but would not feel able to vote "guilty" if he were on the jury [without hearing the rebuttal case].

ftfy

RandFan makes perfect sense with this position. For me, enough of the rebuttal case has been revealed but I would consider evidence might exist we have not seen.

[Tricky]

The Bicker Quotient in this thread is approaching actionable levels. Please cut out the sniping and personalization or the mods will be forced to stand their ground.

Posted By:Tricky

[TheL8Elvis]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

My only claim regarding the video is that it shows Zimmerman's wounds are not severe enough to require bandages.

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Define wound dressing.

Originally Posted by Dancing David

So in other words they can apply an antibiotic as a wound dressing and it would not be visible?

I don't agree with JK, but he did say bandage, not dressing.

[Almo]

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

Really ?? Are you starting some sort of witch hunt against the neighbor now ?

Did you see my link about what Frank said on CNN? The guy has serious problems.

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

My point exactly.

No, no, that was my point. You can't just wander in and steal my point and say it was yours all along.

[TheL8Elvis]

Originally Posted by Almo

Did you see my link about what Frank said on CNN? The guy has serious problems.

I did watch the video, and it didn't prompt me to go digging into who Frank was and what he may or may not have done in the past.

I'm not sure what serious problems he has that are relevant.

[TheL8Elvis]

Originally Posted by bynmdsue

Keep plucking that chicken NBC!
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/...210020839.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...5jtS_blog.html

NBC has completed its investigation into the mishandling of the police dispatcher’s conversation with George Zimmerman in the Trayvon Martin case. And the process ends with a finding of error, plus an apology. Here is the statement just issued by the network:

During our investigation it became evident that there was an error made in the production process that we deeply regret. We will be taking the necessary steps to prevent this from happening in the future and apologize to our viewers.

Of course, it's prominently displayed in the corrections section by nbc...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3891881/#.T3xb46trMQI
A March 21 story about the Trayvon Martin shooting in Sanford, Fla., initially truncated a transcription of George Zimmerman's conversation with a police dispatcher. The truncated quote made it seem that Zimmerman, acting as a neighborhood watch, brought up the race of the Miami teenager he was following in his neighborhood. Martin was later shot during a confrontation with Zimmerman. During the conversation, the police dispatcher asked Zimmerman specifically about the teen’s race and he answered.

[Almo]

Maybe you guys should all save yourselves the effort, and realize this will just be another Amanda Knox quagmire. Did anyone consider her as a suspect in this case?

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

I did watch the video, and it didn't prompt me to go digging into who Frank was and what he may or may not have done in the past.

I'm not sure what serious problems he has that are relevant.

Well, it seems the head of the neighborhood watch is pretty seriously racist, and it seems reasonable by extension that racial profiling used by Zimmerman. Sure, it doesn't prove anything. But I don't think Frank's performace helped Zimmerman at all.

[sgtbaker]

Originally Posted by Almo

Maybe you guys should all save yourselves the effort, and realize this will just be another Amanda Knox quagmire. Did anyone consider her as a suspect in this case?



Well, it seems the head of the neighborhood watch is pretty seriously racist, and it seems reasonable by extension that racial profiling used by Zimmerman. Sure, it doesn't prove anything. But I don't think Frank's performace helped Zimmerman at all.

I think he made sense, it was the self satisfied reporter that was trying to mince his words. His point was, yes, there was a heightened sense of alert to young black males lurking about the neighborhood because they loosely fit the description of the people commiting the robberies but he didn't only take note of young black males. At least two of his calls were about suspicious women who's race is undisclosed.

The italics were mine. He didn't say that.

[Dan O.]

Originally Posted by Almo

Maybe you guys should all save yourselves the effort, and realize this will just be another Amanda Knox quagmire. Did anyone consider her as a suspect in this case?

While the Amanda Knox case was active, the JREF thread consistently maintained a high ranking in google searches concerning the case. The thread attracted many new members on both sides of the issue and the neutral moderation of this board allowed all issues to be fully discussed.

By contrast, this thread seems to be more like a bunch of people yelling past each other with little regard to what the others are saying.

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

I did watch the video, and it didn't prompt me to go digging into who Frank was and what he may or may not have done in the past.

I'm not sure what serious problems he has that are relevant.

He has a history of arrests for violating a domestic violence no-contact order. The slimeball has no place on Neighborhood Watch. He has manhood and control issues. He is not even fit to comment on whether Z's actions were proper. His comments that Martin should have been polite to the sick bastard chasing him for no good reason are utterly wrong and uncalled for.

Taaffe is one of the kinds of people you do not want running around your neighborhood if you have any sense.

That the homeowner's association let those two play Neighborhood Watch will probably come around to bite them in the butt when the law suits start.

[Noztradamus]

Originally Posted by Information Analyst

A very interesting new piece of information. Using this shortcut would be consistent with Martin's route back from the 7-11 (as also identified on the same page), and would put Martin on Retreat View Circle walking in the same direction as Zimmerman would have been driving towards the main entrance. This allows for a better opportunity for Zimmerman to first catch sight of Martin than if he had been coming back through the main entrance.

It would also raise Martin's Anxiety Index, because there is no reason for anyone driving on Retreat View Circle to turn onto Twin Trees Lane unless they are following someone.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

I don't agree with JK, but he did say bandage, not dressing.

This is the post I responded to initially:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=4934

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Originally Posted by WildCat

You do realize that the evidence of wounds will not be that surveillance video, don't you? I can't imagine a more foolish thing to argue about than that stupid low-res video, it is of little or no value wrt evidence in this case.

But hey, if that's all you got argue away!

You do realize that Zimmerman is not shown with any kind of bandage or wound dressing for an injury supposedly severe enough to require stitches, don't you?

Maybe you can be the first person to account for that.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Almo

Maybe you guys should all save yourselves the effort, and realize this will just be another Amanda Knox quagmire. Did anyone consider her as a suspect in this case?

I disagree, the standards or evidence will be different, as will the whole process.

[TheL8Elvis]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

This is the post I responded to initially:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=4934

I missed that

[davefoc]

First I'd like to take a moment to acknowledge the fact that I went off with an emotional opinion based on only a very limited understanding of the facts surrounding the case in an earlier post. Sometimes it's good to be a semi-anonymous poster on the internet where people won't remember what you've said in a few minutes anyway. This was one of those moments for me.

Originally Posted by crimresearch

In what real world is 'preponderance of the evidence' a rational standard [preponderance of the evidence] for criminal cases?

I'd like to answer this even though it was addressed to Randfan since RandFan's approach here seems similar to mine. RandFan didn't say that the preponderance of evidence standard had any significance to the case beyond using that as a way of giving an estimate as to what his rough judgment of the probable situation was with regard to the guilt of Zimmerman. That's the kind of thinking that I apply in a situation where the available facts don't allow for a strong conclusion. I think he's just saying to himself, "OK, based on what we know now, what do I think probably happened". And this seems like a pretty reasonable process for making a guess about a lot of real world events where the evidence just isn't available to make a strong conclusion, to me.

And a comment on this thread:
My assumption was that it was unlikely that significant evidence would be available that would allow the truth to be sorted in this case. I've changed my mind a bit after following this thread. It seems like there might be quite a bit of evidence available eventually that will allow at least improved guessing as to what went on. But until that evidence is analyzed and released it doesn't seem like there is much basis to improve the quality of the guessing as to what went on, so I'm a little surprised this thread hasn't died down a bit at least until there are some more official releases about the evidence in this case.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

So in other words they can apply an antibiotic as a wound dressing and it would not be visible?

Sure, if you want to believe the EMTs decided to give a serious head wound in need of stitches a squirt of Bactine instead.

Or maybe they just kissed Zimmerman's boo-boo to make it all better.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Natural Born Skeptic

I don't think so, but I do admire the way you avoided having to respond with that response. But feel free to clean up my faulty premises for me, I'm sure you will.

Your premises implicitly assume the conclusion.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Natural Born Skeptic

I notice you start some posts with "I don't mean to be condescending" and also mention ego in your sig. Do you find those to be things people in your life frequently accuse you of having issues with? If so, I can't imagine why. And thank you for explaining all of that. I'll spend some time pondering those things. Perhaps next time around you can explain some other deep concepts, maybe even enlighten us all that the earth is round (well, sort of round, anyway).

Your post is non-responsive.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

I think Randfan is saying that the preponderance of evidence is all he needs to make up his mind about what he thinks happened, but it would not be enough for a court of law. That is why he states that he thinks Zimmerman is in the wrong, but would not feel able to vote "guilty" if he were on the jury.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by davefoc

I'd like to answer this even though it was addressed to Randfan since RandFan's approach here seems similar to mine. RandFan didn't say that the preponderance of evidence standard had any significance to the case beyond using that as a way of giving an estimate as to what his rough judgment of the probable situation was with regard to the guilt of Zimmerman. That's the kind of thinking that I apply in a situation where the available facts don't allow for a strong conclusion. I think he's just saying to himself, "OK, based on what we know now, what do I think probably happened". And this seems like a pretty reasonable process for making a guess about a lot of real world events where the evidence just isn't available to make a strong conclusion, to me.

Thank you. For those arguing semantics looking for a gotcha.

Originally Posted by wiki

source Arrest/charge/indict To arrest someone you need probable cause. The best-known definition of probable cause is "a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime". Another common definition is "a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true".

Preponderance of evidence = probably true.

[Almo]

Originally Posted by Dan O.

While the Amanda Knox case was active, the JREF thread consistently maintained a high ranking in google searches concerning the case. The thread attracted many new members on both sides of the issue and the neutral moderation of this board allowed all issues to be fully discussed.

That wasn't what the Knox threads looked like to me.

Quote:

By contrast, this thread seems to be more like a bunch of people yelling past each other with little regard to what the others are saying.

This is what the Knox threads looked like to me. But I didn't hang around in there long, because that's what they looked like. Perhaps I'm wrong, or you're being sarcastic.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by davefoc

First I'd like to take a moment to acknowledge the fact that I went off with an emotional opinion based on only a very limited understanding of the facts surrounding the case in an earlier post. Sometimes it's good to be a semi-anonymous poster on the internet where people won't remember what you've said in a few minutes anyway. This was one of those moments for me.



I'd like to answer this even though it was addressed to Randfan since RandFan's approach here seems similar to mine. RandFan didn't say that the preponderance of evidence standard had any significance to the case beyond using that as a way of giving an estimate as to what his rough judgment of the probable situation was with regard to the guilt of Zimmerman. That's the kind of thinking that I apply in a situation where the available facts don't allow for a strong conclusion. I think he's just saying to himself, "OK, based on what we know now, what do I think probably happened". And this seems like a pretty reasonable process for making a guess about a lot of real world events where the evidence just isn't available to make a strong conclusion, to me.

And a comment on this thread:
My assumption was that it was unlikely that significant evidence would be available that would allow the truth to be sorted in this case. I've changed my mind a bit after following this thread. It seems like there might be quite a bit of evidence available eventually that will allow at least improved guessing as to what went on. But until that evidence is analyzed and released it doesn't seem like there is much basis to improve the quality of the guessing as to what went on, so I'm a little surprised this thread hasn't died down a bit at least until there are some more official releases about the evidence in this case.

It contributes nothing to the dialectic to continually and deliberately trot out fine sounding legal terms in order to argue against the opinions of others via appeals to false authority... even less useful to flip-flop and claim to have only been expressing a lay opinion when called on incorrect legal facts.

The difference between probable cause and proof beyond a reasonable doubt at different stages of the process is relevant to this thread.

Declamations about 'preponderance of the evidence' OTOH, obscure rather than enlighten.

This thread contains a lot of useful information, honest speculation, good questions and answers...

And a signal to noise ratio of about 5 to 1. (IMO)

[AlBell]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

It's impossible to keep up.

Indeed.

Quote:

It's not impossible to know what was going through Martin's mind. He was terrified and calling for help.

Speculate all you want; others are, and have been doing so. I've seen nothing convincing that would put that in the 'evidence' column.

[AlBell]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

Not unless he can jury shop all the way to Texas...

I'd guess Texas to be a bad choice. Maybe in a New England state.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

I missed that

No problem Mr Post 5106

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Sure, if you want to believe the EMTs decided to give a serious head wound in need of stitches a squirt of Bactine instead.

Or maybe they just kissed Zimmerman's boo-boo to make it all better.

The stitches quote is from the lawyer outside of the court room right?

I don't recall the term serious head wound either.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

The stitches quote is from the lawyer outside of the court room right?

Yes... and? It's information about the events of that evening we are receiving from the man Zimmerman paid to be his advocate. That information is contradicted by what we see on the video tape (i.e. the lack of a bandage for a laceration we were told required stitches). That puts Zimmerman's entire narrative in question.

Originally Posted by Dancing David

I don't recall the term serious head wound either.

Zimmerman's lawyer described the wound as "serious enough" to need stitches. Obviously, the wound is on his head. But if you object to the term "serious head wound", I'll retract it and no longer use it.

Regardless, the description given regarding the nature of Zimmerman's supposed scalp laceration is not in any way substantiated by what we see on the video.

[Montag451]

George zimmerman's attorneys on CNN right now. Piers Morgan (a man who usually I don't rate) is actually doing a really good job on challenging them. Lots of usual trying to avoid answering the question, changing the subject etc. Not making them look good at all.

Way to go PM