Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[RandyN]

Originally Posted by curi0us

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.

Plus dont forget that Martin was a known thug and juvenile delinquent kicked out of school for the third time at the time of his attack on Zimmerman. He just didnt realize the man was armed and he got a cap popped into him...
Zimmerman was screaming for help...he was blood covered...he took the appropriate action....end of story.

[OnlyTellsTruths]

Originally Posted by RandyN

Plus dont forget that Martin was a known thug and juvenile delinquent kicked out of school for the third time at the time of his attack on Zimmerman.

I can't tell if that is sarcasm or not....

[Amazer]

Originally Posted by curi0us

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.

The high lighted bit baffles me.... GZ supposedly is the neighborhood watch captain. I'd kind of expect him to at least be familiar with his neighborhood to such an extent that he knows the layout and the street names.

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by GWCarver

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.

The funny part about the pictures of Martin with gold fronts, is that he looks pretty young in those pictures. Somehow, we're supposed to believe that the photo of him as a kid that the media passed along is proof of a conspiracy, but the picture of him as a kid with gold fronts is proof that he's a vicious killer. And never mind that the most popular photo of Martin was the more recent black and white photo of him in a hoodie. Just like evidence that he listened to rap music supposedly makes him a violent thug, despite the fact that rap has been a popular style of music since before Martin was born.

Sorry, if all you have is a years-old photo of Martin with some cheap jewelry (and gold fronts are notoriously cheap) giving the finger to a webcam, then you've got nothing.

ETA: I am amused at Zimmerman's defenders, though. Wearing gold fronts in a webcam photo on twitter? This makes you a thug (if you're black, at least). Rushing out of your car to tail a random pedestrian at night? No, that's totally innocent, and not at all threatening.

[Freddy]

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.

I think you are right that the prosecution's case will be based on trying to discredit Zimmerman. However, without any hard evidence, and with a witness testifying that Martin was on top of Zimmerman just before the shot was fired, and with powder burns on Martin's hoodie indicating that the shot was fired at very close range, I don't see how there isn't at least reasonable doubt. Not really believing Zimmerman is not the same as being sure beyond a reasonable doubt that he killed Martin despite not even feeling seriously threatened (since if he unreasonably but genuinely felt threatened, that isn't second degree murder).

I suppose it depends on the particulars of any inconsistency the prosecution can point to, but I just don't see a murder conviction happening unless Zimmerman has an epic meltdown on the stand.

[Cylinder]

Originally Posted by Mumbles

The funny part about the pictures of Martin with gold fronts, is that he looks pretty young in those pictures. Somehow, we're supposed to believe that the photo of him as a kid that the media passed along is proof of a conspiracy, but the picture of him as a kid with gold fronts is proof that he's a vicious killer.

As much as you want to whistle past this particular graveyard, there's no rational way to argue that the media acted anything near responsibly in coverage of this story.

When the media began coverage of this story, Zimmerman was painted as white. I agree that the police reports described Zimmerman as a white male, but they continued with this narrative long after Zimmerman's ethnicity became apparent. Worse even, Zimmerman's ethnicity had no real bearing on the actual events, but the media as whole introduced it as one. They chose this narrative and continued it even after it became very apparent that it was in error. The template was set.

The fact that most began my interest in this case was the photographic depection of Martin. His apparent age and physical depection led me to believe that there could be no reasonable cause for justification for a grown man to shoot an unarmed preteen - which was how the photos depicted Martin. Once again, the template for the media was a white guy shot an unarmed black preteen. Of course, we now know that particualr facet of this media template was first in error (the Martin family only released the younger pictures) but that wasn't harmless error. The apparent physical disparity goes to the heart of the case. They should have never ran those misleading pictures and if they decided to, they should have been heavily captioned and explained in the article itself.

The media presupposed police misconduct in this case. One can argue that the police acted without due diligence but again, they lewft out any other explanation for police actions. It was not until the SPD cited the statutory limitation against arrest theat they even deemed it worth mentioning. They did not mention until much later that Zimmerman volunteered statements, that he was in police custody, that the gun was seized as evidence, etc... Instead, they chose to inflame the white man shooting a yound black kid while the police turned a blind eye.

They misrepresented the injuries to Zimmerman, they chose to hide the claim that Zimmerman was the one pleading for help, etc....

There has been three employees of NBC fired for three seperate instances of editing recordings of Zimmerman's call to police. In each instance, they cut out intervening comments and placed Zimmerman's claims of suspicious behavior next to a description of Martin's apparent ethnicity.

For my own part, I have been very reticent to cast aspersions on Martin's conduct prior to the night of the shooting, even after every little wart from Zimmerman has been recited ad naseum here. You cannot, in good faith, contend that Zimmerman's past is relevant to his propensity to overreact that night and pretend that Martin's prior conduct is off-limits. It's one way or another.

[Cylinder]

Originally Posted by Freddy

I think you are right that the prosecution's case will be based on trying to discredit Zimmerman. However, without any hard evidence, and with a witness testifying that Martin was on top of Zimmerman just before the shot was fired, and with powder burns on Martin's hoodie indicating that the shot was fired at very close range, I don't see how there isn't at least reasonable doubt.

The head wounds are reasonable doubt. The prosecution will create the narrative where Martin was somehow justified in inflicting those wounds. Since the charge is Murder 2, they can't really claim that Zimmerman over-reacted to the assault - that's manslaughter. They have to prove that Zimmerman acted in a manner that demonstrated "ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent."

That's the problem with the probable cause affidavit. Throughout its argumentative and unattributed narrative, it does nothing to present even a prima facie claim to support that element.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Cylinder

The head wounds are reasonable doubt. The prosecution will create the narrative where Martin was somehow justified in inflicting those wounds. Since the charge is Murder 2, they can't really claim that Zimmerman over-reacted to the assault - that's manslaughter. They have to prove that Zimmerman acted in a manner that demonstrated "ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent."

That's the problem with the probable cause affidavit. Throughout its argumentative and unattributed narrative, it does nothing to present even a prima facie claim to support that element.

I agree. It isn't enough to cast doubt on Zimmerman's credibility unless the prosecution can present a credible narrative in which Zimmerman kills Martin despite having no reason to fear serious injury or death. That will be very difficult. For a murder conviction, the jury would have to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was in so little danger when he fired that even an unreasonable but sincere over-estimate of the threat cannot reasonably explain the decision to use deadly force. A credible case could probably be made for manslaughter, but I don't see even a remote chance of a murder conviction.

[Cylinder]

Originally Posted by Freddy

I agree. It isn't enough to cast doubt on Zimmerman's credibility unless the prosecution can present a credible narrative in which Zimmerman kills Martin despite having no reason to fear serious injury or death. That will be very difficult.

One problem that comes to mind in that regard is an inadvertant result of the media's rush to judgement. Cable news programs were more than happy to put on whatever witnesses that would be inclined to present a favorable narrative for the state. Presumably, many of these had already given a statement to police weeks before and will have to testify at trial at some future date. SPD has already called Cutcher out on giving one statement to police and then spinning her tale in quite a differnet manner on AC360. In the same program, the anonymous eyewitness gave testimony that contradicted itself, finally admitting that he was speculating about some parts due to darkness.

[TheL8Elvis]

Originally Posted by Amazer

The high lighted bit baffles me.... GZ supposedly is the neighborhood watch captain. I'd kind of expect him to at least be familiar with his neighborhood to such an extent that he knows the layout and the street names.

He should have the addresses memorized as well ?

Do you find this to be an indication that GZ was lying to the police because he actually knew the address, therefor had no reason to check ?

Does this also mean that as watch captain he knew all the people in the neighborhood, and was able to determine TM was a stranger, therefor suspicious ?

[Dancing David]

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.

Man ain't that the truth!

You would think that my schools district would make all the buildings set their clocks to the network time on our intranet, but the building vary by often up to five minutes. (Not that network time and work stations isn't a whole bunch of fun as well)

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Amazer

The high lighted bit baffles me.... GZ supposedly is the neighborhood watch captain. I'd kind of expect him to at least be familiar with his neighborhood to such an extent that he knows the layout and the street names.

He wasn't on the street, he was on the sidewalk cut-through.

[Dancing David]

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.

I think that this will be important in the trial:

IF GZ made a series of different statements at different times about this; it will possibly figure prominently in the prosecutions case.

We have a number of sources it appears for this statement, IF the statement was changed or recanted that will not go well for GZ. IF the statement was consistent by him, than it is not a detriment.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Mumbles

The funny part about the pictures of Martin with gold fronts, is that he looks pretty young in those pictures. Somehow, we're supposed to believe that the photo of him as a kid that the media passed along is proof of a conspiracy, but the picture of him as a kid with gold fronts is proof that he's a vicious killer.

And as far as 'representing' goes grills don't make you no banger. Local gangs use more interesting means, for a while it was rolling up the left pant leg or shaving notches in eyebrows. Hand and neck tattoos are common as well.

[TheL8Elvis]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

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

What was that ? The sounds of the goalposts going by? That I may disagree is completely relevant - this is an Internet forum discussion , not a court of law. When did this particular discussion become about the legal aspects ?

Originally Posted by johnny karate

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?

Since we have this legal principle of innocent until proven guilty, shouldn't you talk about the word of the officer and the accused ? And as I said earlier, it depends on particular circumstances. Would you like to make a blanket statement that we should always accept a police officers word over a non-police officers word ? If not, why ?

Originally Posted by johnny karate

And speaking of skepticism... where's the skepticism regarding the officer at Martin's school?
Again, why should a criminal's word be given equal weight to that of a police officer?

Yes, like gas passing criminals, those dishonest bastards
http://www.herald-dispatch.com/news/...er-passing-gas

The police should always be given the benefit of the doubt ...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1331401.html

Originally Posted by johnny karate

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.

Yes, I feel confident he stole it or was holding it for someone. As I stated numerous times. The jewelry exists and police have it. There are no claims that I am aware of that he didn't actually have that stuff in his possession at the time he was caught on videotape vandalizing property. Resulting in his third suspension, which his parents blatantly lied about.

Your alternative that you feel better describes the scenario is ? He found the items and was on his way to return them ?

Originally Posted by johnny karate

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

Great.

Then these should be easy questions to answer:

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

Why should this be easy to answer ? How did you determine that ? Maybe. It's completely possible he was holding for a friend. But YES I think that was stolen jewelry and a burglary tool he had.
You ?

Originally Posted by johnny karate

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.

Again, maybe.

[Dan O.]

Originally Posted by curi0us

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.

If all we had to go on was the word of GZ, there would be no way to contradict it and we would be forced to believe him. However, we have evidence beyond what GZ says and I believe it is incompatible with GZ's statement that he was returning to his truck. I don't understand though why GZ would lie about this part. Even if he was standing in the commons shouting "come out come out wherever you are" for those 90 seconds, that doesn't lead to his guilt. But lying about it destroys his credibility and his credibility is all he has to say the shooting itself was self defense.

Quote:

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

I'm sure we'll see this in the trial unless George's attorney moves to suppress it.

[Amazer]

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

He should have the addresses memorized as well ?

Yes

Quote:

Do you find this to be an indication that GZ was lying to the police because he actually knew the address, therefor had no reason to check ?

No

Quote:

Does this also mean that as watch captain he knew all the people in the neighborhood, and was able to determine TM was a stranger, therefor suspicious ?

No, since he's clearly unaware of all the streets and cut-through's, I sincerely doubt that he knew everyone in the community. That said, I don't think that is necessarily a requirement for determining suspicious behaviour.

[Cylinder]

Details Regarding the George Zimmerman Defense Fund

Quote:

What Happened to the Money Already Raised?

The week of April 23, we disclosed that the PayPal account Mr. Zimmerman had opened before his arrest collected approximately $204,000. That account has been closed, and approximately $150,000 of that money is being transferred to the new independently administered trust account. Approximately 3.5% of the money raised was consumed by PayPal fees. Of the balance $5,000 went to bond, a little more than $1,000 was put into telephone and commissary accounts at the jail. Much of the rest was used to address the considerable expense of closing existing financial obligations, attending to his security and secured transportation and setting up new, secure living quarters where he can safely await trial. Roughly a third of the balance remains liquid and in Mr. Zimmerman’s possession for living expenses for the next few months. So far, none of the funds have been applied to legal expenses.

The new account has been set up at http://www.gzlegalcase.com/index.php/defense-fund .

[curi0us]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

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.

Honest people can appreciate the difference between factually inferred speculation and totally made up speculation. There is a huge difference between Crump speculating that what the girlfriend told him was accurate and Crump making up conversation details the girlfriend didn't mention at all.

Crump's actions matter because many people, including you, believed what he was saying without questioning it. How did you know that TM was just minding his own business walking back from the store? Do you remember your previous posts on the matter? Here a couple to refresh your memory:

Originally Posted by johnny karate

So that fact that before the altercation, Martin was minding his own business while walking home from the store and Zimmerman was following him around with a gun means nothing?

When determining the validity of Zimmerman's self-defense claim, we disregard his reckless and irresponsible actions that set the whole thing in motion, and just treat him like he was also minding his own business?

Originally Posted by johnny karate

You know, at some point while we're all engaging in these mental gymnastics to figure out what Martin might have done to warrant being shot to death, Occam's Razor has to come into play.

Zimmerman is the one with a violent history.

Zimmerman was the one with the gun.

Zimmerman was the one who pursued Martin, who at the time was guilty of the crime of minding his own business while walking home from the store.

In the end, Martin ended up dead.

Now, there certainly exists the possibility that while Zimmerman was innocently following Martin around with a gun, Martin decided viciously attack him for no reason at all before going home to enjoy his Skittles and iced tea.

But for some nagging reason, that version of events doesn't quite wash for me.

It's about determining what happened, not making George Zimmerman a liar.

Your argumentation today is blatantly disregarding your previous statements in this thread. Back to the present:

Quote:

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.

What the hell do you think you were doing in this thread before I started posting in it?

I didn't start posting in this thread till April and was inspired to do so by things like you comparing people who disagreed with you to 9/11 Truthers. Remember this post of yours:

Originally Posted by johnny karate

*shakes head*

The degree of evidence denial on this issue is staggering, and something I wouldn't have expected to see outside of a 9/11 conspiracy theory website.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=4469

Note that post above is a few hours before my very first post in this thread. Your argumentation is prone to massive hypocrisy and there is a clear pattern of you labeling disagreement with your position as CT. How do you know you are not the one who has been acting CT?

Quote:

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.

What might make the world a better place is helping to promote critical thinking and encouraging people to examine their own prejudices. This forum can actually do that. You now seem threatened by that possibility. While in the grand scheme of things what is said here matters little something about this case originally seemed important to you and I wonder if you explain what that is. Didn't the issues of justice and prejudice matter to you when you first started posting on this topic?

Originally you were actually interested in "determining what happened" and you were so offended by people who disagreed with your interpretation of the evidence you compared them to truthers. Now you say it's pointless to scrutinize witness statements and you say "of course" Crump has been speculating with "no facts". You've backpedaled all the way to horizon but don't even seem to realize it.

[Natural Born Skeptic]

This entire thing about trying to prove that GZ is a "liar" because at some point in his life he lied is beyond hilarious. Based on that standard EVERY single person participating in this thread is a liar (heck one poster in particular making the assertion against GZ seems to like to lie in almost every post). What's relevant is if GZ has a history of lying, or has lied before under oath.

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Originally Posted by Freddy

I think you are right that the prosecution's case will be based on trying to discredit Zimmerman.

They have to. But IF there is an the absence of evidence that GZ is lying, isn't it ethically outrageous for them to simply try and suggest he's a liar or try and discredit him to get a conviction, IF there's no reason to believe he's lying?

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

What was that ? The sounds of the goalposts going by? That I may disagree is completely relevant - this is an Internet forum discussion , not a court of law. When did this particular discussion become about the legal aspects ?

It's not about legal aspects, and it's not about shifting the goal pasts. You challenged the assertion that an affidavit is evidence. I merely countered that challenge.

An affidavit is evidence, as determined by a court of law. Or are legal standards not good enough when assessing evidence? And if I can't use legal standards as a yardstick, what am I supposed to use?

Quote:

Since we have this legal principle of innocent until proven guilty, shouldn't you talk about the word of the officer and the accused ? And as I said earlier, it depends on particular circumstances.

Well, let's not pretend Zimmerman was some poor, innocent guy being railroaded based solely on the word of a police officer. What we're talking about is merely an aspect of a crime we know he committed.

And yes, it certainly depends on circumstances. What specific circumstances about Zimmerman's case leads you to suspect the officer in question might be lying?

Quote:

Would you like to make a blanket statement that we should always accept a police officers word over a non-police officers word ? If not, why ?

I'm not sure why you continually insist on phrasing it this way. Zimmerman wasn't merely a "non-police officer" in this case. He was a criminal. And yes, I'm perfectly content to make the blanket statement that - absent any other exculpatory evidence - a police officer's word should be accepted over a that of a criminal.

Quote:

Yes, like gas passing criminals, those dishonest bastards
http://www.herald-dispatch.com/news/...er-passing-gas

The police should always be given the benefit of the doubt ...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1331401.html

Wow... talk about goal post shifting. Who said anything about the police being honest about everything all the time, or the police being given the benefit of the doubt in any circumstance?

This is a specific situation in which we have a police officer's word against a criminal's. No other exculpatory evidence exists. In that situation, I will believe the police officer every time.

Quote:

Yes, I feel confident he stole it or was holding it for someone. As I stated numerous times. The jewelry exists and police have it. There are no claims that I am aware of that he didn't actually have that stuff in his possession at the time he was caught on videotape vandalizing property.

Well, in fairness, Trayvon Martin is dead. We don't have his side of the story, and never will. If Zimmerman had been dead, he wouldn't have been around to challenge what that police officer said.

So what counter claims could you possibly expect?

Quote:

Resulting in his third suspension, which his parents blatantly lied about.

For the vandalism. He was only suspended for the graffiti, not the felony possession of stolen property.

Quote:

Your alternative that you feel better describes the scenario is ? He found the items and was on his way to return them ?

I don't know. We only have one side of the story. Unfortunately, Martin doesn't have the luxury of providing an explanation like Zimmerman did, him being dead and all.

Quote:

Why should this be easy to answer ? How did you determine that ? Maybe. It's completely possible he was holding for a friend. But YES I think that was stolen jewelry and a burglary tool he had.
You ?

I agree.

Quote:

Again, maybe.

So we're back to where we started. In one case, a police officer's word is good enough for you, in another it's not. And again, no particular reason has been offered as to why you would doubt the word of that one officer.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by curi0us

What might make the world a better place is helping to promote critical thinking and encouraging people to examine their own prejudices.

I agree. However, I suspect most people think they are the critical thinkers and it's the people who disagree with them that are not.

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Originally Posted by Cylinder

The media presupposed police misconduct in this case.

Absolutely! My initial outrage about this case (that GZ was a cold-blooded murderer) began when I read a media reports that suggested the following:

1. GZ is white and followed and gun down an itsy bitsy teen who was walking home with iced tea and skittles.

2. His father is a judge and the corrupt racist police let him off. ABC kept reporting about how they had done an "investigation" revealing the the police had "told witnesses what to say".

3. GZ was using some "crazy" FL law that allows him to shoot someone and claim self-defense and nothing can be done about it. While I don't know if I am in favor of SYG or not, once I actually read it I found it to be anything but a "you can come out all guns blazing and claim self-defense" law.

All in all, what the media did in this case is criminal. And it's not like it was an honest mistake. Every single aspect of the case could have been easily researched before they started selling their narrative.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by curi0us

Honest people can appreciate the difference between factually inferred speculation and totally made up speculation. There is a huge difference between Crump speculating that what the girlfriend told him was accurate and Crump making up conversation details the girlfriend didn't mention at all.

That's super. But Crump isn't really even involved in this case. He's basically just a spokesperson for the Martin family. He won't be called to testify, and he won't be submitting any evidence. Your obsession with him is bizarre, and that you he think it's at all relevant in determining the facts is utterly hilarious.

Quote:

Crump's actions matter because many people, including you, believed what he was saying without questioning it. How did you know that TM was just minding his own business walking back from the store? Do you remember your previous posts on the matter? Here a couple to refresh your memory:

Ahh... I must be another one of those people "influenced" by Crump, eh?



The reason I believe Martin was "minding his own business" is because that's what the evidence supports. It points to him merely going to the store to buy snacks.

Now, if you want to believe that he was up to something more sinister - which you clearly so desperately do - that's up to you to prove. It's not up to any one else to prove Martin wasn't engaged in suspicious activity.

Quote:

Originally you were actually interested in "determining what happened" and you were so offended by people who disagreed with your interpretation of the evidence you compared them to truthers.

Your fantastical interpretation of events remains amusing. But here's a question for you: if I am so deeply offended by anyone who disagrees with me that I resort to comparing them to 9/11 truthers, then why haven't I done that with every single person who disagrees with me in every instance of disagreement?

I'm sure your response will be very entertaining.

Quote:

Now you say it's pointless to scrutinize witness statements and you say "of course" Crump has been speculating with "no facts". You've backpedaled all the way to horizon but don't even seem to realize it.

How can I backpedal from positions I never assumed? I have never cited either Crump or witness statements to support my arguments about the events of that night, and in fact have made it quite clear that I don't find the body of witness testimony particularly compelling at this point.

Your paranoid fantasy has downshifted into petty lies.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Natural Born Skeptic

Absolutely! My initial outrage about this case (that GZ was a cold-blooded murderer) began when I read a media reports that suggested the following:

1. GZ is white and followed and gun down an itsy bitsy teen who was walking home with iced tea and skittles.

2. His father is a judge and the corrupt racist police let him off. ABC kept reporting about how they had done an "investigation" revealing the the police had "told witnesses what to say".

3. GZ was using some "crazy" FL law that allows him to shoot someone and claim self-defense and nothing can be done about it. While I don't know if I am in favor of SYG or not, once I actually read it I found it to be anything but a "you can come out all guns blazing and claim self-defense" law.

All in all, what the media did in this case is criminal. And it's not like it was an honest mistake. Every single aspect of the case could have been easily researched before they started selling their narrative.

My only concern is that I have a son the same age as TM, I would hate for him to get shot , just because he was talking on his phone and walking slowly. And he might pop someone he thought was harassing him, he might not.

The trial will show.

[Noztradamus]

Originally Posted by Amazer

The high lighted bit baffles me.... GZ supposedly is the neighborhood watch captain. I'd kind of expect him to at least be familiar with his neighborhood to such an extent that he knows the layout and the street names.

Well, on his not911 call he gives directions like a girl, so maybe he doesn't have map sense.

[AlBell]

Originally Posted by RandFan

I truncated your post to focus on my question. It doesn't make any sense t me. It would seem to follow from the highlighted text that planning and/or premeditation are an element of 2nd degree murder. The problem is that premeditation and/or planning are explicitly not an element of 2nd degree murder. What you "go on to say" doesn't clarify anything.

So, I will ask again, what does planning to shoot someone have to do with 2nd degree murder?

As we both know, nothing. Why she would arrive at that charge is to me incomprehensible. My supposition is all I have. You?

[AlBell]

Originally Posted by Freddy

...

***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.

Thank you.

Also thanks to NBS for going through it previously.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by AlBell

As we both know, nothing. Why she would arrive at that charge is to me incomprehensible. My supposition is all I have. You?

I was only trying to understand you to which Freddy assisted me. I understand you now. Perhaps you could be less oblique in answering me.

IMO: If you are correct, and you may very well be, then she is acting in bad faith. In a perfect world she would only bring charges that were supported by the evidence and nothing else. Of course we do not live in a perfect world.

Also: As far as I can tell, the evidence thus far does not come close to 2nd degree murder. If I had to place a bet it would be that she does not have that evidence.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by RandFan

I was only trying to understand you to which Freddy assisted me. I understand you now. Perhaps you could be less oblique in answering me.

IMO: If you are correct, and you may very well be, then she is acting in bad faith. In a perfect world she would only bring charges that were supported by the evidence and nothing else. Of course we do not live in a perfect world.

Also: As far as I can tell, the evidence thus far does not come close to 2nd degree murder. If I had to place a bet it would be that she does not have that evidence.

My understanding was that AlBell was talking about a hypothetical scenario. I think we are presuming for the purpose of the hypothetical that she has reasonable grounds to think it is first degree murder, but just doesn't think she can prove premeditation. If she thinks she's just shy of being able to prove premeditation, then she would probably have enough evidence to reasonably believe in good faith that she can prove 2nd degree murder.

Of course, this hypothetical is not necessarily related to reality at all. Unless I am mistaken, it was just a possible scenario in which a second degree murder charge would make sense.

[TheL8Elvis]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

So we're back to where we started. In one case, a police officer's word is good enough for you, in another it's not. And again, no particular reason has been offered as to why you would doubt the word of that one officer.

The word of the LEOs is good enough for me in both cases, based on what I know.

I believe that in a one on one type of scenario with a LEO like the GZ scenario, opens up more possibilities and reasons for the LEO to be less than honest, such as being angry with GZ for being shoved by him. But I only have vague information regarding the circumstances of that evening.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Freddy

My understanding was that AlBell was talking about a hypothetical scenario. I think we are presuming for the purpose of the hypothetical that she has reasonable grounds to think it is first degree murder, but just doesn't think she can prove premeditation. If she thinks she's just shy of being able to prove premeditation, then she would probably have enough evidence to reasonably believe in good faith that she can prove 2nd degree murder.

Of course, this hypothetical is not necessarily related to reality at all. Unless I am mistaken, it was just a possible scenario in which a second degree murder charge would make sense.

And this is what's frustrating. I asked a direct question. In hindsight it was presumptive and I regret asking it in the way that I did. That aside, why on earth can't I just get a direct answer? Anyway, that wasn't directed at you Freddy. Thanks for the assistance.

[GWCarver]

Originally Posted by Beerina

Your 29 posts make me wanna have a sex change.

I wouldn't want you to give me complete credit. You were probably leaning in that direction already, and I was just the catalyst. I hope you're a guy though, because one Chaz Bono is quite enough, thank you.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by AlBell

The only way I can imagine the PA going 2nd degree murder is if she has something that makes her believe GZ was actively hunting a black guy to shoot, but doesn't think a grand jury would agree and come back with the correct-in-that-case murder 1. ymmv.

Originally Posted by RandFan

What does that have to do with 2nd degree murder?

Looking for someone to shoot would demonstrate premeditation and or planning, right?

FTR: Hypothetical or not, this strikes me as an incomplete argument. What is the "something"? Is it sufficient for 2nd or is there something else to justify 2nd degree?

So, it's seems to me that there are two possibilities.

• Something = evidence that points to 1st degree but will only likely establish 2nd degree murder.
• Something = evidence that points to 1st degree but is insufficient AND she also has evidence that she believes will likely establish 2nd degree murder.

At the end of the day I don't understand the line of reasoning in the hypothetical. Believing that GZ committed 1st degree murder is not itself sufficient to justify a charge of 2nd degree, right? Bringing charges based on that reasoning would be in bad faith, right?

[TheL8Elvis]

Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths

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

No. I will say that shoving a random bar patron who is not a LEO is:
a) unlikely to get you arrested
b) unlikely to get you a felony assault charge.

Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths

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

Yes, see above.

[TheL8Elvis]

Originally Posted by Amazer

No, since he's clearly unaware of all the streets and cut-through's, I sincerely doubt that he knew everyone in the community. That said, I don't think that is necessarily a requirement for determining suspicious behaviour.

The claim is he was going for a street number, not a name. He already demonstrated he knows the street name.

I'm not sure I understand why you expect him to know the street number at a cut through.

[GWCarver]

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

The claim is he was going for a street number, not a name. He already demonstrated he knows the street name.

I'm not sure I understand why you expect him to know the street number at a cut through.

This street number stuff is just another bogus argument. I don't know the street number of the house right behind me. I think that would be true for most people, and certainly wouldn't be incriminating if the police were to ask me what it was and I had to walk down the sidewalk and around to where I could see the number before relaying that information.

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

My only concern is that I have a son the same age as TM, I would hate for him to get shot , just because he was talking on his phone and walking slowly. And he might pop someone he thought was harassing him, he might not.

Yep, that is easily the most terrifying aspect of this case. Not only do I know young men I can imagine being Trayvon Martin, even IF TM attacked him as GZ says I know some men who were bad asses in their teens and engaged in that type of behavior that grew up to be incredibly good and kind people that I consider myself lucky to know. So for me the gun aspect is crucial, if GZ did not have a gun I think the would have gone home that night with a few more bruises, and probably had his paranoia increased further, and would likely have had the opportunity to fulfill his dream and become a policeman, and then could abuse others (the strike through is a joke, the rest is serious)

Legally though the fact that they'd both be alive (IMO) if he didn't have a gun is irrelevant, since he had a legal right to carry a gun, and I think his actions likely fell within self-defense laws.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by Cylinder

The head wounds are reasonable doubt. The prosecution will create the narrative where Martin was somehow justified in inflicting those wounds. Since the charge is Murder 2, they can't really claim that Zimmerman over-reacted to the assault - that's manslaughter. They have to prove that Zimmerman acted in a manner that demonstrated "ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent."

That's the problem with the probable cause affidavit. Throughout its argumentative and unattributed narrative, it does nothing to present even a prima facie claim to support that element.

And it doesn't need to do so. That isn't what is needed for PC.

Just because GZ's attorney hammed it up for the media until the judge got bored and shut him down, doesn't make that statement any more significant.