Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[crimresearch]

Can someone let me know what the procedure is with suspicious death in the US?

Over here (UK) I think the procedure would be the case would be referred to the coroner and after hearing the evidence they would issue a verdict, something like unlawful death, misadventure etc.

In criminal cases the coroners verdict is generally deferred until after the criminal investigation over, but a verdict would still be given - is that similar to the US? Is there a coroner over there?

It just feels a bit "dead endish" that the determination of a lawful death is made by the police / prosecutors and thats it. Obviosuly I don't know much about the US system and I presume there is a formal procedure for the official recording of cause of death and its lawfulness.

Coroners determine cause of death such as 'natural causes', etc. and the approximate time of death for the vital records statistics. Depending on their initial findng, an investigation might be started.

In a case of a dead body with the shooter standing there, claiming to have pulled the trigger, the coroner's report on cause of death would not be that critical unless something inconsistent was found.

The coroner's final report with autopsy and so on, *might* be very important later on.

If the shooter claimed for example, that he was on the ground firing upward in self defense, then entry and exit wound data could confirm or dispute that.

But generally, the coronor rarely goes around 'solving' crimes.

 

[WildCat]

He certainly strongly suspected Zimmerman's intentions were hostile, seeing as how after looking at him Martin suddenly started running away from him - which evidently is when Zimmerman grabbed his gun, got out of his vehicle, and took off after him.

So now Martin's suspicions about Zimmerman are sufficient reason to initiate a confrontation with Zimmerman, but Zimmerman's suspicions about Martin are insufficient to follow Martin?

 

[Delscottio]

Coroners determine cause of death such as 'natural causes', etc. and the approximate time of death for the vital records statistics. Depending on their initial findng, an investigation might be started.

In a case of a dead body with the shooter standing there, claiming to have pulled the trigger, the coroner's report on cause of death would not be that critical unless something inconsistent was found.

The coroner's final report with autopsy and so on, *might* be very important later on.

If the shooter claimed for example, that he was on the ground firing upward in self defense, then entry and exit wound data could confirm or dispute that.

But generally, the coronor rarely goes around 'solving' crimes.

They don't solve crimes here either, more establish if one has been commited.

The point I was wondering was, is there is a reason why the coroner hasn't been involved if the police have decided that no further criminal investigation is needed. i.e have the police actually dropped the case?

 

[WildCat]

If it was in fact the common area. If it wasn't.

No "ifs" about it, we know it was a common area.

 

[WildCat]

They don't solve crimes here either, more establish if one has been commited.

The point I was wondering was, is there is a reason why the coroner hasn't been involved if the police have decided that no further criminal investigation is needed. i.e have the police actually dropped the case?

I'd be shocked if the coroner isn't doing a full autopsy.

 

[crimresearch]

No "ifs" about it, we know it was a common area.

That's nice. And 'we' know this how? Bigfoot told 'us'?

 

[crimresearch]

They don't solve crimes here either, more establish if one has been commited.

The point I was wondering was, is there is a reason why the coroner hasn't been involved if the police have decided that no further criminal investigation is needed. i.e have the police actually dropped the case?

The city police have passed it on to the state government who have better resources. I expect a lot of information will be held back while they investigate.

After the whole criminal process has been exhausted, there is a good chance of a lawsuit, and the coronor's work will no doubt play a role in that.

 

[WildCat]

That's nice. And 'we' know this how? Bigfoot told 'us'?

You do realize that if it wasn't then Martin was trespassing and Zimmerman had every right to be suspicious? What exactly do you think you are proving?

But it is obviously a common area, otherwise only those living on the end units could egress from the back of their units, which would be ludicrous.

 

[crimresearch]

You do realize that if it wasn't then Martin was trespassing and Zimmerman had every right to be suspicious? What exactly do you think you are proving?

But it is obviously a common area, otherwise only those living on the end units could egress from the back of their units, which would be ludicrous.

Martin was trespassing on his father's girlfriend's property where he was an invited guest?

He was commmmiting the crime of trespassing by running to safety from an unknown guy who was running after him?

But Zimmerman had every right to be there?

ROTFLMAO!! Seriously where do you get this stuff? Bigfoot? Jerry Kane seminars? Where?

So you haven't got a link to a source that says 'for a fact' that Zimmerman never went onto anyone's private property... (And no, chasing 'one of those ****s' to 'keep them from getting away', isn't legal grounds for trespass even for an imaginary Captain on 'personal errands')...
http://www.mysanfordherald.com/book...n+into+shooting+of+17-year-old+Trayvon+Martin


As for your 'obviously', I'll take it as evidence that you haven't got a clue as to the difference between an easement, and a 'common area'... or that you don't want one.

 

[332nd]

You're claiming that Martin knew Zimmerman's thoughts? Knew about the phone call to police? If not, it's completely irrelevant wrt Martin's actions.

Wrong. We know Zimmerman had an aggressive attitude. We alsoknow that he was convinced Martin was up to no good. We know that he was advised not to get out of the car.

We know Martin was unarmed, visiting a relative, & was killed.

With what we have so far I fail to see why we, as the public, can't make a judgement that Zimmerman did something stupid.

I know I don't have enough facts to know one way or the other, unlike others here who are claiming facts not in evidence.

I'm not asking you if Zimmerman was justified in the shooting. I'm asking if you think that Zimmerman was right in following Martin & then getting out of the car to follow him on foot.

 

[WildCat]

Martin was trespassing on his father's girlfriend's property where he was an invited guest?

Your claiming Zimmerman was trespassing on his own property!

He was commmmiting the crime of trespassing by running to safety from an unknown guy who was running after him?

Yet another "fact" not in evidence.

But Zimmerman had every right to be there?

Yes, he lived there.

ROTFLMAO!! Seriously where do you get this stuff? Bigfoot? Jerry Kane seminars? Where?

You handed it to me on a silver platter.

So you haven't got a link to a source that says 'for a fact' that Zimmerman never went onto anyone's private property... (And no, chasing 'one of those ****s' to 'keep them from getting away', isn't legal grounds for trespass even for an imaginary Captain on 'personal errands')...
http://www.mysanfordherald.com/book...n+into+shooting+of+17-year-old+Trayvon+Martin

Did Zimmerman enter someone's unit?

As for your 'obviously', I'll take it as evidence that you haven't got a clue as to the difference between an easement, and a 'common area'... or that you don't want one.

Did you notice the sidewalk betwen the units?

 

[crimresearch]

Wrong. We know Zimmerman had an aggressive attitude. We alsoknow that he was convinced Martin was up to no good. We know that he was advised not to get out of the car.

We know Martin was unarmed, visiting a relative, & was killed.

With what we have so far I fail to see why we, as the public, can't make a judgement that Zimmerman did something stupid.




I'm not asking you if Zimmerman was justified in the shooting. I'm asking if you think that Zimmerman was right in following Martin & then getting out of the car to follow him on foot.

We also (reasonably) know or can deduce that Zimmerman was not acting in any official Neighborhood Watch capacity, from their specific prohibitions against carrying guns on patrol, and by his statement to the police that he was driving on a 'personal errand'.
We know that the police didn't authorize him to chase down anyone.

We do *not* know by what standard Zimmerman judged the victim to be 'on drugs', or otherwise doing anything other than eyeballing the guy in the SUV who was eyeballing him.

We know that Martin then ran away from the SUV that was checking him out. Not an unreasonable move for a non gangster student in Miami... or O'Town.

We know that Zimmerman somehow got to the scene faster than a 17 year old athlete could run to safety.

We do *not* know why, or on what authority.

We do know that every aspect of the self defense statutes can be reasonably applied to Martin's actions as reported.

We know that the police say there wasn't *enough* to prove that they didn't apply to Zimmerman.

We know that the Sheriff made the bizarre statemnt that the 911 tapes would prove that Zimmerman said he 'did not know'; when asked the race of the suspicious person.

And we know Zimmerman quite clearly answered 'black', 2 times instead.

And we don't know enough about who said what, who touched who, who hurt who, who yelled what, or anything else about the interactions in the moments before the shootings... except that they may have taken place on private property.

 

[WildCat]

Wrong. We know Zimmerman had an aggressive attitude.

Define "aggressive attitude". And what does this have to do with what Martin knew?

We alsoknow that he was convinced Martin was up to no good. We know that he was advised not to get out of the car.

So? He still had every legal right to get out of his car and follow Martin.

We know Martin was unarmed, visiting a relative, & was killed.

Relevance?

With what we have so far I fail to see why we, as the public, can't make a judgement that Zimmerman did something stupid.

You can make any judgement you wish about anything you wish. But police and district attorneys don't have that luxury. They need facts and evidence.

I'm not asking you if Zimmerman was justified in the shooting. I'm asking if you think that Zimmerman was right in following Martin & then getting out of the car to follow him on foot.

I see no reason whatsoever why someone shouldn't have the right to follow a suspiciopus person in their neighborhood.

And once again: So now Martin's suspicions about Zimmerman are sufficient reason to initiate a confrontation with Zimmerman, but Zimmerman's suspicions about Martin are insufficient to follow Martin?

 

[tyr_13]

I'll cut out the rest of your ridiculous and counter factual speculation, but I'd like to point out that tray no Martin's parents have clearly, and publicly, stated that it was their son's voice screaming for help on the 911 tape, so your first sentence is obviously false.

They claim it now but that is not what their, specifically Martin's father's, statement to police said.

Factual speculation? Bwahahaha.

 

[tyr_13]

The reason people are ignoring the part you highlighted is because it is completely meaningless. So his father avers the guy is not a racist. What father ever thinks their child is a racist?

It apparently is meaningful to those who still insist that Zimmerman is white, or at least that he looks white and is therefore close enough, and therefore more likely to be racist against black people.

It's unlikely that someone who grew up with black family members and friends is racist against black people. Not impossible. In the absolute absence of evidence that Zimmerman is racist against black people, the speculation that it was racial motivated is no better than an appeal to emotion or poisoning the well.

Yeah, it's the "some of my best friends are black" defense. It doesn't help that Zimmerman's father also claims that his son never followed Martin, when the 911 tapes make it clear that this is false.

Zimmerman's fathers statements about what happened that night are worthless because he wasn't there. His statements about the race of his son and the race of his own relations should probably be given the benefit of the doubt and a hell of a lot more weight than what you think Zimmerman looks like.

_____________________________________________

So far the evidence that this was racially motivated thus far presented have been that Zimmerman is white (not evidence and false), that Zimmerman looks white (irrelevant, subjective), that the victim was black (fallacious reasoning), and that Zimmerman said 'they' (easily referencing criminals not black people).

I still don't know enough to guess if the shooting was justified or not, although undoubtedly it was tragic. However, I can say that I don't believe it was racially motivated and this 'cry wolf' form of knee jerk is harmful to actually addressing race issues in the US.

 

[WildCat]

We also (reasonably) know or can deduce that Zimmerman was not acting in any official Neighborhood Watch capacity, from their specific prohibitions against carrying guns on patrol, and by his statement to the police that he was driving on a 'personal errand'.

You may as well post the price of fish in the supermarket, it's just as relevant.

We know that the police didn't authorize him to chase down anyone.

Also irrelevant.

We do *not* know by what standard Zimmerman judged the victim to be 'on drugs', or otherwise doing anything other than eyeballing the guy in the SUV who was eyeballing him.

More irrelevant blather.

We know that Martin then ran away from the SUV that was checking him out. Not an unreasonable move for a non gangster student in Miami... or O'Town.

We know that Zimmerman somehow got to the scene faster than a 17 year old athlete could run to safety.

You're actually claiming that Martin ran away while Zimmerman was still in his car, and that Zimmerman exited the car and chased down Martin?

We do *not* know why, or on what authority.

Authority to do what?

We do know that every aspect of the self defense statutes can be reasonably applied to Martin's actions as reported.

We also know that we have no idea what actually happened after Zimmerman hung up until the time of the shooting.

We know that the police say there wasn't *enough* to prove that they didn't apply to Zimmerman.

And you presume to know more than they do?

We know that the Sheriff made the bizarre statemnt that the 911 tapes would prove that Zimmerman said he 'did not know'; when asked the race of the suspicious person.

The 911 tape proved he was unsure, and only knew for sure when Martin walked towards him.

And we know Zimmerman quite clearly answered 'black', 2 times instead.

The first time he was unsure, he confirmed it the second time.

And we don't know enough about who said what, who touched who, who hurt who, who yelled what, or anything else about the interactions in the moments before the shootings...

You sure act like you know!

except that they may have taken place on private property.

It was private property, it belonged to the homeowner's association. And both Martin and Zimmerman had the right to be there.

 

[crimresearch]

Your claiming Zimmerman was trespassing on his own property!


Yet another "fact" not in evidence.


Yes, he lived there.


You handed it to me on a silver platter.


Did Zimmerman enter someone's unit?


Did you notice the sidewalk betwen the units?

Zimmerman did not own the entire complex, nor is there a shred of evidence that Zimmerman was in any kind of position of authority over the entire subdivision, so your astounding leap that the crime scene was Zimmerman's property is sheer garbage.

Did you notice the 911 call 'behind my porch? The police report of grass stains? What kind of common area sidewalk is that?

So once again, you've gone from making absolute claims, to producing zero evidence, to claiming that someone else made fantastic claims that are in fact strawmen you've fabricated, to projection of your irrational nonsense onto others.

All that is missing for old time's sake is you claiming that the posted links were never posted and parroting demands for proof of reality.

ETA: (Nevermind.. I see you've 'gone there' already by simply making up what was on the 911 tape, and declaring all the facts 'irrelevant blather').

It is painfully obvious that once again, your answers are neither correct, nor useful.

 

[WildCat]

Zimmerman did not own the entire complex,

Nor did Martin's relatives.

No need to comment on the blather that follows from your initial red herring.

 

[Mumbles]

They claim it now but that is not what their, specifically Martin's father's, statement to police said.

Factual speculation? Bwahahaha.

I see no reason to believe the police here, given that they've demonstrably given a false statement to the press.

 

[crimresearch]

Nor did Martin's relatives.

No need to comment on the blather that follows from your initial red herring.

Martin was running from a man who later killed him.

That's allowed, no matter how many FOTL theories about Zimmerman 'protecting his property' you spin, or what parts of reality you dismiss..