Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by curi0us

A detail many have missed is that Crump relayed the girlfriends account as being that when TM left the 7-eleven he was trying to hurry home to beat the ran. Crump even has TM running for part of his journey just to get out of the rain:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...20/cnr.03.html

If you closely examine what Crump has said it is completely unworkable. The 7-eleven security cam footage showing TM in the store between 6:00 and 6:30 is just more evidence of that.

Crump's narrative also has Martin stopping and waiting out the rain. I'm not sure why this issue is such a point of obsession.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Natural Born Skeptic

Just when I though things could not exceed past silliness, they have.


Are you seriously unable to read what he said or just purposely being difficult. Here's a translation:



He just said that murder 1 would be premeditated, NOT murder 2. And that if she believes it was murder 1 but doesn't think she can prove it maybe for that reason she would go for murder 2. So again, he didn't say that planning to shoot someone is murder 2, he specifically said it would be murder 1.

In fairness, I found AlBell's post somewhat confusing.

[Dan O.]

Originally Posted by curi0us

A detail many have missed is that Crump relayed the girlfriends account as being that when TM left the 7-eleven he was trying to hurry home to beat the ran. Crump even has TM running for part of his journey just to get out of the rain:


http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...20/cnr.03.html

If you closely examine what Crump has said it is completely unworkable. The 7-eleven security cam footage showing TM in the store between 6:00 and 6:30 is just more evidence of that.

How is the clock set and maintained on that security system? What steps were taken to verify the time? I ask because I've been following another case where the police misadjusted the error on a CCTV camera and came to the conclusion that the suspect had called them after they were already on the scene. It cannot be blankety assumed that a given clock has the correct time.

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Originally Posted by Freddy

In fairness, I found AlBell's post somewhat confusing.

Than I think you're seriously over thinking it .

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Dan O.

How is the clock set and maintained on that security system? What steps were taken to verify the time? I ask because I've been following another case where the police misadjusted the error on a CCTV camera and came to the conclusion that the suspect had called them after they were already on the scene. It cannot be blankety assumed that a given clock has the correct time.

Not that any of that matters at this point. Because we haven't even been shown what time the security footage actually displayed. Just a second-hand approximation. That is now being taken as a fact, and that proves... something.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Dan O.

How is the clock set and maintained on that security system? What steps were taken to verify the time? I ask because I've been following another case where the police misadjusted the error on a CCTV camera and came to the conclusion that the suspect had called them after they were already on the scene. It cannot be blankety assumed that a given clock has the correct time.

I'm guessing the time stamp is 6:15 or so, and the manager figures it's accurate to within 15 minutes. Thus the reason he won't give an exact time.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Natural Born Skeptic

Than I think you're seriously over thinking it .

Actually, the opposite. I didn't read it carefully enough the first time.

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by Freddy

I agree that he is overstating the mens rea requirement for second degree murder.*** However, second degree murder requires more than just recklessness. The prosecutor would have to show that Zimmerman's behavior was "imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life."

The depraved mind requirement requires, for practical purposes, that the likelihood of someone dying as a result of the action in question be both very high and obvious to any normal person. Which of Zimmerman's actions meet that standard? There's a fairly strong argument that it was negligent, or even reckless, for Zimmerman to exit his vehicle and follow Martin on foot. But I don't think it can be concluded that the probability of an innocent person being killed was so great and so obvious that the act of getting out of the vehicle was so "imminently dangerous" that it "evinc[es] a depraved mind" indifferent to human life.

Hindsight is 20-20, but I would say that Martin's death, while not completely unforeseeable, was not nearly so likely that the act of getting out of the car and following demonstrate depraved indifference to human life. I don't think Zimmerman intended or expected to shoot Martin, in self defense or otherwise, as a result of following him. And I don't think one can say that any reasonable person without intent to kill would think that following a person in that situation would be highly likely to result in shooting that person. Unless there is something more, I don't even think that's a close call. Do you disagree?

***EDIT: I misunderstood AlBell's post; he did not overstate the mens rea for second degree murder. He was saying that second degree might be charged if the prosecutor had reason to believe that Zimmerman shot Martin with premeditation, but did not think she could prove the premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt. That would make sense. I'm adding this update rather than changing the post because there seems to be a dispute over this that is on the verge of becoming personal. So for the record, I found AlBell's post confusing, though now that I see what he is saying I agree.

Right when the charges were filed, I heard Marcia Clark on NPR saying that the depraved mind part of murder two was not the stumbling block people said it was. According to her, he exhibited this when he fired the gun. Meaning, the act of firing the gun was the depraved part. I'll try and find the link.

[Unabogie]

Here's what she said on CNN.

Quote:

MARCIA CLARK, FORMER L.A. DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY: You know, in my opinion, not as hard as people have been making it sound. The standard of depraved mind is very similar to what we have in California called conscious disregard, which means that you're acting in a manner in which you know that your actions are likely to cause serious bodily injury or death.

When you have a gun and you shoot it at someone and depending on what the forensics show, if it's a point-blank shot to the chest, I think you may very easily prove conscious disregard or depraved mind. Don't forget there are also the allegations of racial slurs that have been shown in some of the 911 tapes. The possibility that there is also a racial component to his attitude towards Trayvon Martin will help to prove that as well.

Source

[GWCarver]

Originally Posted by Mumbles

The most obvious answer is that he moved between the two houses, and stayed there. Fits all evidence.



Um, no. But when you blatantly cherry-pick a black guy's social media accounts, and scream about how he must have been a violent, drug dealing gang member, as at least one Wagist writer did (not that he's the only one - Tucker Carlson's site did this as well), then yes, you get called racist. And I've noticed that quite a few people dismiss Accusations of racism that are plainly correct (and in the US, republicans are especially good at this), but that doesn't somehow change the fact that the charges best fit the given data.

By moving between the two houses, do you mean Brandy's porch/house and the yard down the sidewalk where he was killed?

I'm not a Republican, but I've never voted for a Democrat. I don't recall any mention of TM being a gang member at Wagist, or anywhere else. But, I don't pretend to have read everything at Wagist, although I post there frequently.

Speaking of cherry-picking social media sites, has the MSM spent more time on Zimmerman's years as an alter boy or on his bar fight with an undercover cop?

I notice you mentioned that Republicans are the ones who often "dismiss accusations of racism that are plainly correct". Does that mean you don't notice the Democrats who are racists? Is that because they are having success in their attempt to change the definition of racism to effectively exclude themselves? I'm on to them, you know.

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Well good old Martha sure seems up on things. Nice to see she's still going with the "racial slurs" angle. I respect her opinion on this about as much as I respected her performance in the OJ trial.

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Actually, the opposite. I didn't read it carefully enough the first time.

I edited my post to rand fan and apologize to him if he's reading as I now believe he was genuine in his questioning. Honestly, Al's statement just seemed so straightforward and simple to me that I didn't see how it was open to much interpretation. Probably doesn't matter, I think rand fan has me on ignore any how.

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by GWCarver

By moving between the two houses, do you mean Brandy's porch/house and the yard down the sidewalk where he was killed?

I'm not a Republican, but I've never voted for a Democrat. I don't recall any mention of TM being a gang member at Wagist, or anywhere else. But, I don't pretend to have read everything at Wagist, although I post there frequently.

Speaking of cherry-picking social media sites, has the MSM spent more time on Zimmerman's years as an alter boy or on his bar fight with an undercover cop?

I notice you mentioned that Republicans are the ones who often "dismiss accusations of racism that are plainly correct". Does that mean you don't notice the Democrats who are racists? Is that because they are having success in their attempt to change the definition of racism to effectively exclude themselves? I'm on to them, you know.

I see. You're one of those "independents" who identifies with the "Tea Party" and you never vote Democratic, but often vote Republican, but really you're a libertarian and Democrats are the real racists, not the people who post pictures of Trayvon with gold teeth as if that was a big "aha, got you gang banger!"

Glad you're on to those racist Democrats.

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

I see. You're one of those "independents" who identifies with the "Tea Party" and you never vote Democratic, but often vote Republican, but really you're a libertarian and Democrats are the real racists, not the people who post pictures of Trayvon with gold teeth as if that was a big "aha, got you gang banger!"

Glad you're on to those racist Democrats.

Welcome to the world of debating with uniboogie GWCarver ! Sadly (NOT), he has me on ignore . Notice how he managed to infer several things about you that he couldn't possibly know all in a few short sentences? He even knows you're a "tea partier".

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by GWCarver

Speaking of cherry-picking social media sites, has the MSM spent more time on Zimmerman's years as an alter boy or on his bar fight with an undercover cop?

Yes, that is quite a mystery there. Since so very few people ever attend church or become altar boys, clearly we can take this activity he engaged in as a child as a testament to Zimmerman's character.

On the other hand, I'm not even sure why it should be mentioned that in adulthood, Zimmerman assaulted a police officer. I mean, who hasn't assaulted a police officer at least once or twice? It's such a commonplace and innocuous occurrence, I'm surprised it's even against the law.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

Right when the charges were filed, I heard Marcia Clark on NPR saying that the depraved mind part of murder two was not the stumbling block people said it was. According to her, he exhibited this when he fired the gun. Meaning, the act of firing the gun was the depraved part. I'll try and find the link.

If the prosecution has evidence that Zimmerman did not in fact fear for his life, even subjectively, then that's correct. If he did fear for his life, but the fear was unreasonable, that would be manslaughter, not murder.

I'm not sure how they expect to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn't fear death or serious injury. The jury would have to be sure beyond a reasonable doubt not only that Zimmerman didn't reasonably fear death or serious injury, but that he did not in fact fear death or serious injury, even unreasonably. That sounds like a pretty big stumbling block when there's a witness who who says Zimmerman was on the bottom of the scuffle when he fired the gun. Unless the prosecution is sitting on a "smoking gun" that proves Zimmerman wasn't in danger but shot Martin anyway, then I don't see how they can get a murder conviction.

[Dan O.]

Originally Posted by WildCat

I'm guessing the time stamp is 6:15 or so, and the manager figures it's accurate to within 15 minutes. Thus the reason he won't give an exact time.

I take it that between the time that the video was taken and someone deciding to check if anything was recorded, there was a power failure or a UFO flew by and reset the clock thus making it impossible to check the clock's accuracy.

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by Freddy

If the prosecution has evidence that Zimmerman did not in fact fear for his life, even subjectively, then that's correct. If he did fear for his life, but the fear was unreasonable, that would be manslaughter, not murder.

I'm not sure how they expect to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn't fear death or serious injury. The jury would have to be sure beyond a reasonable doubt not only that Zimmerman didn't reasonably fear death or serious injury, but that he did not in fact fear death or serious injury, even unreasonably. That sounds like a pretty big stumbling block when there's a witness who who says Zimmerman was on the bottom of the scuffle when he fired the gun. Unless the prosecution is sitting on a "smoking gun" that proves Zimmerman wasn't in danger but shot Martin anyway, then I don't see how they can get a murder conviction.

My *guess* is that Zimmerman said some things that cast doubt on his truthfulness (we've seen some things on our own, like at his bond hearing regarding the money in his bank account). I think they plan to argue that Zimmerman wasn't in fear for his life because Zimmerman is a liar. And he lied about facts in his story, and therefore the jury should discount his story and consider that he killed Martin for no good reason or because he was mad.

My theory is that he was mad that Trayvon got the better of him in a fight and lost his cool. In my scenario, murder 2 seems like the right charge. I don't believe Zimmerman's version of events at all.

[curi0us]

Originally Posted by Dan O.

How is the clock set and maintained on that security system? What steps were taken to verify the time? I ask because I've been following another case where the police misadjusted the error on a CCTV camera and came to the conclusion that the suspect had called them after they were already on the scene. It cannot be blankety assumed that a given clock has the correct time.

True. For those who didn't follow the Amanda Knox case there was a security camera that was ten minutes slow and then the police confused themselves and thought it was ten minutes fast causing the police to skew some critical events by twenty minutes.

I don't know how the 7-eleven's cameras are time calibrated at all. I thought the ten minute error in the Knox case was pretty bad, I would hope that large of an error in a security cam is rare but I really don't know. Perhaps the 7-eleven spokesperson gave a thirty minute window just be on the safe side for any errors in the clock.

I agree that it can't be absolutely assumed the clock is right, or even that the reported story is true, at this point. However, 7-eleven has no reason to lie and I'm inclined to believe the report, so working out the ramifications of it makes sense to me. It's also something that even if the spokesperson's time given was ten minutes off it wouldn't change the situation much.

[GWCarver]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

I see. You're one of those "independents" who identifies with the "Tea Party" and you never vote Democratic, but often vote Republican, but really you're a libertarian and Democrats are the real racists, not the people who post pictures of Trayvon with gold teeth as if that was a big "aha, got you gang banger!"

Glad you're on to those racist Democrats.

You might want to consider the pictures of Trayvon with gold teeth were a far more accurate depiction of his visage contemporaneous to his death than those of the 12 year old kid that were making the rounds for so long. They still are, for that matter. You actually think posting a picture of TM wearing his grill is racist? Was the individual who took the picture racist, too? Is TM a racist if he took the picture himself? What if DeeDee took it, was she a racist for taking it? If a white friend took the picture, is he or she a racist?

Oh, I'm not a Libertarian or a Tea Party goer, and you forgot to answer my question about the two houses.

[OnlyTellsTruths]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

We've reached a point where we are no longer weighing evidence to determine what happened. We are now simply starting from the point that Zimmerman was justified in killing Martin and working backwards to confirm that conclusion. "What took Martin so long to get back from the store? He was probably up to no good." "Why didn't Martin just go straight home? Probably because he was lying in ambush."

Anything that reflects poorly on Martin - screwdrivers, school suspensions... whatever - is to be incorporated into the body of evidence. Anything that reflects poorly on Zimmerman - violent past, poor judgment, inconsistent injuries - is to be dismissed or mitigated. Instead of scrutinizing the killer and his story - as we should be - we're scrutinizing the victim.

Great post.

I agree that that accurately describes many posters on this thread.

Some of them are in denial, or will say that they are only doing it because M supporters are doing the opposite.

People doing the same thing, except for M, is not an excuse to do it for Z.

I believe their posts stand on their own.

[curi0us]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Crump's narrative also has Martin stopping and waiting out the rain.

Crump's narrative has TM waiting out the rain for just a "few minutes" not the twenty minutes plus that would be needed to explain the time discrepancy. Crump's narrative also has GZ following TM already at 6:54, fifteen minutes before GZ calls not911. 6:54 doesn't make any sense for a lot of reasons but with the 7-eleven cam time and the rest of Crump's narrative basically GZ was watching TM in one spot for fifteen minutes and could NOT have been following him because TM wasn't moving according to Crump at that time.

It's impossible to make what Crump has make any sense with the facts we know. You've put tremendous energy into attacking GZ's credibility via his lawyers statements about his injuries so why don't you see the significance of Crump's statements about the prosecutions most important witness?

Quote:

I'm not sure why this issue is such a point of obsession.

I'm just pointing out an obviously central figure to this story that you are refusing to examine the statements of. You seem obsessed with talking about the case but not examine the facts.

GZ actually has a totally plausible description of events so far. The police may have some info that calls that into question but they actually haven't told the public what it is yet.

The Crump/GF version is just obviously not true. One can easily come up with a scenario where TM might be guilty but you can't match it to the Crump/GF version.

[TheL8Elvis]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

Glad you're on to those racist Democrats.

Like Zimmerman ?

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by curi0us

I'm just pointing out an obviously central figure to this story that you are refusing to examine the statements of. You seem obsessed with talking about the case but not examine the facts.

Crump has no facts to offer. Crump wasn't there. All Crump can do is speculate based on scraps of information, the same as any of us. So I'm not sure why his statements warrant any special consideration.

The only person whose statements need to be scrutinized is George Zimmerman. He's the guy who killed somone and claims it was self-defense. And he's the only surviving witness to what transpired.

But keep hammering away at this "lost" twenty or so minutes. I'm sure if you solve that mystery it will crack the case.

[Dan O.]

Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths

Originally Posted by johnny karate

We've reached a point where we are no longer weighing evidence to determine what happened. We are now simply starting from the point that Zimmerman was justified in killing Martin and working backwards to confirm that conclusion. "What took Martin so long to get back from the store? He was probably up to no good." "Why didn't Martin just go straight home? Probably because he was lying in ambush."

Great post.

I agree that that accurately describes many posters on this thread.

If Martin was waiting to ambush George, he would have lost the opportunity if George had simply returned to his truck as he claimed he was doing. But George didn't simply return to his truck. He stopped in the open area by the tee and stayed there well after he hung up with the police.

How long did George stand there while Trayvon was hiding? Have we got an estimate on the time between the end of George's call and the beginning of the altercation? Why is George lying about this and claiming he was returning to his truck when the timing so clearly shows that he was not.

[TheL8Elvis]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

You are overlooking the fact that Zimmerman assaulted this particular police officer. So it's not the word of a police officer over some random person. Its the word of a police officer over the criminal who assaulted him.

He shoved him. Realistically, GZ is only 'the criminal who assaulted him' because he was an officer. But assaulted sounds much worse,doesn't it.

Originally Posted by johnny karate

And by injecting this doubt into the scenario it allows you to dismiss the claim that Zimmerman was both aware that the man he assaulted was a police officer and that he lied about it on his police academy application, despite evidence to the contrary.

Evidence to the contrary ? Again, the only 'evidence' is the officers claim that he told GZ he was an officer. Where is the skepticism about his claim ?

GZ is labeled a liar based on the evidence of the officers word.
The officer is not labeled a liar based on the evidence of GZ word.

I was pointing out that discrepancy.

I wasn't there and I don't know what happened.

I'd ask you to quote where I said I thought the officer was lying or Zimmerman wasn't guilty in that incident ... but you can't because I claimed neither of those things.

Originally Posted by johnny karate

And by the way, the officer at Martin's school isn't above lying either. Should we treat what he says with an equal measure of dismissal?

I didn't dismiss anything. It should be treated with an equal measure of skepticism.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Freddy

I agree that he is overstating the mens rea requirement for second degree murder.*** However, second degree murder requires more than just recklessness. The prosecutor would have to show that Zimmerman's behavior was "imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life."

The depraved mind requirement requires, for practical purposes, that the likelihood of someone dying as a result of the action in question be both very high and obvious to any normal person. Which of Zimmerman's actions meet that standard? There's a fairly strong argument that it was negligent, or even reckless, for Zimmerman to exit his vehicle and follow Martin on foot. But I don't think it can be concluded that the probability of an innocent person being killed was so great and so obvious that the act of getting out of the vehicle was so "imminently dangerous" that it "evinc[es] a depraved mind" indifferent to human life.

Hindsight is 20-20, but I would say that Martin's death, while not completely unforeseeable, was not nearly so likely that the act of getting out of the car and following demonstrate depraved indifference to human life. I don't think Zimmerman intended or expected to shoot Martin, in self defense or otherwise, as a result of following him. And I don't think one can say that any reasonable person without intent to kill would think that following a person in that situation would be highly likely to result in shooting that person. Unless there is something more, I don't even think that's a close call. Do you disagree?

***EDIT: I misunderstood AlBell's post; he did not overstate the mens rea for second degree murder. He was saying that second degree might be charged if the prosecutor had reason to believe that Zimmerman shot Martin with premeditation, but did not think she could prove the premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt. That would make sense. I'm adding this update rather than changing the post because there seems to be a dispute over this that is on the verge of becoming personal. So for the record, I found AlBell's post confusing, though now that I see what he is saying I agree.

Okay. I wasn't alone in my confusion.

[Noztradamus]

Originally Posted by GWCarver

~~~~~
Now, what is this all about? Who knows? But if you read the article, the Sentinel goes on to include the "circling" into the "911" transcript So, now we have this:

"Zimmerman spotted Trayvon, called a nonemergency police number and began describing the teenager. While he was doing that, Trayvon came toward his vehicle and began to circle it.

"Zimmerman, though, never described that to the dispatcher."

So, TM is circling Zimmerman's truck, scaring Zimmerman so much that he rolls up the window, but it is just more proof that Zimmerman is guilty!

Simple. Martin never circled Zimmerman's truck. If Z later said it happened, he's lying. If he never said that, the reporter is misreporting.

Here to help.

[TheL8Elvis]

Originally Posted by curi0us

Maybe you are right but many more places besides huffpo told the same NBA half-time story as well. Here is the Miami Herald from March 8th:

Martin’s father said the teen went out in a light drizzle around 7 p.m. that Sunday during the NBA All-Star Game halftime to get snacks from a nearby 7-Eleven. He purchased Skittles candies and an Arizona iced tea for his 13-year-old stepbrother.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/0...dade-teen.html

While lots of the reporting has been poor that's bizarre detail for a reporter to make up and it seems likely to me the Miami herald was just truthfully reporting what Martin's father actually said, especially since many other places reported the same 7-eleven story. Some examples:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_1...ag=mncol;lst;1
http://www.thenation.com/blog/166934...rayvon-martins
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/3120...-zimmerman.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46796991...-monday-march/
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/03...ews-story.html

Hmm. I didn't realize that it was quite so widespread. If I were conspiracy minded, I would call that evidence of the media conspiracy to tell a certain type of story.

BTW, Chad wasn't his stepbrother, either. But I guess that makes for a better story as well.

[Noztradamus]

Originally Posted by GWCarver

~~~

Speaking of cherry-picking social media sites, has the MSM spent more time on Zimmerman's years as an alter boy or on his bar fight with an undercover cop?
~~~~

That's the way of the world: you **** one goat...

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

He shoved him. Realistically, GZ is only 'the criminal who assaulted him' because he was an officer. But assaulted sounds much worse,doesn't it.

Just like "burglary tool" sounds much worse than "screwdriver".

Of course, in this case it's verifiably true. Zimmerman did assault a police officer. That is a fact. No matter how much you may wish to mitigate it.

Quote:

Evidence to the contrary ? Again, the only 'evidence' is the officers claim that he told GZ he was an officer. Where is the skepticism about his claim ?

A police officer's sworn affidavit is considered evidence in a court of law. That you may disagree is irrelevant.

And exactly how much skepticism are you looking for? On average, how often do you think it's reasonable to give the statements of a police officer and a criminal equal credence?

And speaking of skepticism... where's the skepticism regarding the officer at Martin's school?

Quote:

GZ is labeled a liar based on the evidence of the officers word.
The officer is not labeled a liar based on the evidence of GZ word.

I was pointing out that discrepancy.

Again, why should a criminal's word be given equal weight to that of a police officer?

Quote:

I wasn't there and I don't know what happened.

You also weren't there when Martin was supposedly caught with the screwdriver and the jewelry. You seem pretty confident about what happened in that situation.

Quote:

I'd ask you to quote where I said I thought the officer was lying or Zimmerman wasn't guilty in that incident ... but you can't because I claimed neither of those things.

And I'm not claiming you made those assertions. I'm claiming you made those suggestions.

Quote:

I didn't dismiss anything. It should be treated with an equal measure of skepticism.

Great.

Then these should be easy questions to answer:

Do you believe Martin was a thief and/or burglar? Yes or no.

Do you believe Zimmerman was aware that the man he assaulted was a police officer, and therefore lied about it on his police academy application? Yes or no.

[curi0us]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Crump has no facts to offer. Crump wasn't there. All Crump can do is speculate based on scraps of information, the same as any of us. So I'm not sure why his statements warrant any special consideration.

I was quoting from a linked transcript from Crump's press conference about the information given to him by TM's girlfriend. If your position today is that Crump was just speculating and had "no facts" then it's an admission that Crump's press conference was intentionally dishonest.

Quote:

The only person whose statements need to be scrutinized is George Zimmerman. He's the guy who killed somone and claims it was self-defense. And he's the only surviving witness to what transpired.

Excuse me, you bitch and moan about people only wanting to demonize TM to avoid discussing the case and then you claim that scrutinizing witness statements is something that can only be done with GZ? I am discussing the case and every witness should be scrutinized and you've invented some twisted rationale where somehow it's unfair to question anything but GZ. TM's girlfriend and "John" are absolutely critical witnesses that should be scrutinized and there are bunch of other lesser witnesses to scrutinize as well.

Quote:

But keep hammering away at this "lost" twenty or so minutes. I'm sure if you solve that mystery it will crack the case.

Keep hammering away about a case that you don't give a **** about actually understanding while implying everyone who disagrees with you is racist because I'm sure that will make the world a better place.

[GWCarver]

Originally Posted by Noztradamus

Simple. Martin never circled Zimmerman's truck. If Z later said it happened, he's lying. If he never said that, the reporter is misreporting.

Here to help.

Actually, I think the police and/or prosecutors leaked a few selected bits of information in order to make it appear Zimmerman is lying, inconsistent, guilty, etc. However, their case is so weak the reporter looked rather foolish trying to use what little they game him/her to show Zimmerman is indeed guilty of murder, all the while conceding Zimmerman's statements to the various organizations investigating the shooting were not inconsistent.

Because lack of corroborative evidence for the struggle to gain control of the gun is not evidence, and not telling non-emergency response that Martin walked up to or around the truck does not constitute an inconsistent statement to police, the article would have been more accurately titled, "Inconsistencies in Zimmerman's Statements Not Inconsistent".

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by curi0us

I was quoting from a linked transcript from Crump's press conference about the information given to him by TM's girlfriend. If your position today is that Crump was just speculating and had "no facts" then it's an admission that Crump's press conference was intentionally dishonest.

Of course Crump is just speculating. He wasn't there. He can take what the girlfriend told him and offer a theory, but that in no way should be treated as factual. And if his theory is incorrect, and you want to call that "intentionally dishonest", you go right ahead. I don't see how it matters in the slightest.

Quote:

Excuse me, you bitch and moan about people only wanting to demonize TM to avoid discussing the case and then you claim that scrutinizing witness statements is something that can only be done with GZ? I am discussing the case and every witness should be scrutinized and you've invented some twisted rationale where somehow it's unfair to question anything but GZ. TM's girlfriend and "John" are absolutely critical witnesses that should be scrutinized and there are bunch of other lesser witnesses to scrutinize as well.

And when you have actual legal testimony from these witnesses, you go right ahead and scrutinize what they have to say. Until then, you're just going off the media-filtered versions of their unofficial statements.

Quote:

Keep hammering away about a case that you don't give a **** about actually understanding while implying everyone who disagrees with you is racist because I'm sure that will make the world a better place.

No, actually what will make the world a better place and most likely crack this case wide open is if we can just figure out what took Trayvon Martin so long to get home from the store.

Clearly, that's the key to this whole thing, and possibly to greater truths about humanity.

Keep up the good work.

[curi0us]

Originally Posted by Dan O.

If Martin was waiting to ambush George, he would have lost the opportunity if George had simply returned to his truck as he claimed he was doing. But George didn't simply return to his truck. He stopped in the open area by the tee and stayed there well after he hung up with the police.

How long did George stand there while Trayvon was hiding? Have we got an estimate on the time between the end of George's call and the beginning of the altercation? Why is George lying about this and claiming he was returning to his truck when the timing so clearly shows that he was not.

There are two and half minutes between the end of GZ's call and the very first 911 call about the yelling/fighting of GZ and TM. I don't think there has ever been any information available on how quickly that first caller dialed 911, and I don't think we have clarity on when in the altercation the yells for help started, so there are some unknown variables but I think there are least 90 seconds of mystery time GZ has to account for.

I'm unclear on the specifics of GZ's movements at that time. One possibility is that GZ has been lying about what happened and he thought TM had hidden nearby and was searching for TM. Another possibility is that GZ is basically telling the truth and maybe walked further east to see what the address was on the other side of the cut through and then unexpectedly came across TM on his westward walk back.

The police had GZ do a detailed reenactment of what had happened and the publics never seem it. Hopefully GZ's full statement and that reenactment will clarify things.

[OnlyTellsTruths]

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

He shoved him. Realistically, GZ is only 'the criminal who assaulted him' because he was an officer. But assaulted sounds much worse,doesn't it.

I'm confused by that statement. Are you saying that it is legal to shove a person unless they are a police officer?

Or that it is somehow different if it is a police officer you shove versus a civilian you shove?

Plus, as far as I know we do not have any evidence as to how severe the shove was. A shove could be anywhere from playful to extremely violent.

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths

Plus, as far as I know we do not have any evidence as to how severe the shove was. A shove could be anywhere from playful to extremely violent.

I hear the shove was between spicy medium and spicy hot, but never in danger of being spicy fire. If it had been a spicy fire shove he'd have never gotten off without jail time.

[RandyN]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

My *guess* is that Zimmerman said some things that cast doubt on his truthfulness (we've seen some things on our own, like at his bond hearing regarding the money in his bank account). I think they plan to argue that Zimmerman wasn't in fear for his life because Zimmerman is a liar. And he lied about facts in his story, and therefore the jury should discount his story and consider that he killed Martin for no good reason or because he was mad.

My theory is that he was mad that Trayvon got the better of him in a fight and lost his cool. In my scenario, murder 2 seems like the right charge. I don't believe Zimmerman's version of events at all.

My theory is that you suffer from media bias. Notice how you call one by his first name...Tayvon and another by his last name... Zimmerman. Glad your not on my jury.

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by GWCarver

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

An amateur vigilante shot and killed someone. I still don't get the humour.

Almost 32,000 posts and still trolling? That may be a record.

Your 29 posts make me wanna have a sex change.

[OnlyTellsTruths]

Originally Posted by Natural Born Skeptic

I hear the shove was between spicy medium and spicy hot, but never in danger of being spicy fire. If it had been a spicy fire shove he'd have never gotten off without jail time.

Did I say shove or sauce?