Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[RandFan]

Well, I don't consider myself an expert either, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Much needed at the moment.

As I alluded to earlier, at least one sponsor of Florida's SYG law has publicly said that the law was not meant to protect what Zimmerman did here, and that he does not think it does protect Zimmerman's behavior. That isn't dispositive of what the law means, of course, because it is the statute, and not the legislative intent, that is enacted into law. But still, it does indicate that if Zimmerman gets away with this, there will be bipartisan support for amending the SYG law. Which is something, at least.

Agreed.

 

[crimresearch]

A.) Three times now I've apologized. Let me make this the 4th. I'm sorry. B.) I honestly don't remember doing that.

Demonstrably incorrect. Wrong. I'm calling you on it. I did no such thing.

Your fallacies are easy to demonstrate. You appealed to shame. That's a fact.

I never called your facts fallacies. I called your error in logic fallacies. Ad hominem poisoning the well (you attacked the legal pundits). That's a fallacy. You accused me of arguments I never made. That's a fallacy.

• I apologized 3 times without knowing your complaint.
• I've apologized a 4th time without demanding you prove your accusation.

Can we move on?

You labelling something a fallacy doesnt make it so.

I asked for proof... you couldn't deliver, and instead just expanded the claim by saying that I've made more fallacies.

None of what you've posted falls into the category that law schools used to refer to as 'correct or useful'.

 

[RandFan]

The 'rules of evidence' are the codified law, a part of the statutes.

Questioning whether or not this judge broke those laws, and ran the trial improperly by allowing some form of tainted evidence to be admitted and ruled credible would require some extreme proof.

I'm taking the null hypothesis. What I don't know is what I don't know. I accuse the judge of nothing. I suspect very much based on simple statistics that the judge acted appropriately. Please don't give me positions to argue against when I don't hold those positions.

The facts of what the judge based his opinion are still are not in evidence in this thread. And that's a fact.

 

[RandFan]

You labelling something a fallacy doesnt make it so.

I asked for proof... you couldn't deliver, and instead just expanded the claim by saying that I've made more fallacies.

None of what you've posted falls into the category that law schools used to refer to as 'correct or useful'.

You attacked Toobin and the other experts personally and not their arguments. That is textbook ad hominem poisoning the well.

You accused me of positions and arguments that I do not hold. That's straw man argument.

One more time, I'm sorry. If I honestly thought that I had wrongly accused you of fallacy I'd apologize for that also. I'm not looking to win a pissing contest. I'm not here to win a debate (please see sig file).

I think your emotions have gotten the best of you. Why don't we stop the back and forth. Take a time out? Would that be fair?

 

[RandFan]

BTW:

So after 15+ pages of my posting careful and factual explanations, complete with references about why Zimmerman's story did not add up, and pointing out the holes in his claim of self defense, and pointing out how the systme seemd to have dropped the ball up to this point, and lining to the new federal investigation...

I apologize but I've not seen these.

I apologized from the start. That's a half dozen sincere apologies. Could you accept one?

 

[crimresearch]

But his actions are clearly reckless no matter what he says. In most states there are concepts in the law known as manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter. In those instances you are responsible for the consequences of your actions. If you know that police are on their way and you have no reason to believe there is imminent danger, then you are clearly responsible for the actions that follow if you disregard the instructions. FWIW: I've not watched Nancy or Jack Ford. I've watched prosecutors and attys (yes I know Nancy was a prosecutor don't care) discuss SYG. You might be right but so far you are a minority of one.

So this post #599 where you accuse me of being a minority of one defending Zimmerman doesn't exist because you now say so? But a post where I attack Jeffrey Toobin personally (instead of describing the media's long standing practice of sensationalizing) does exist... yet you can't provide it any more than the other asked for proof?

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed off topic material

 

[RandFan]

So this post #599 where you accuse me of being a minority of one defending Zimmerman...

I'm confused, where did I say you were defending Zimmerman?

As for "minority of one". I apologize for the language. It was poorly worded on my part. I meant that by my experience you were the only expert making the claims that you were. That's all.

So, I'm sorry for that but I don't think I ever accused you of defending Zimmerman. I think you are confusing me with someone else.

 

[Noztradamus]

Thanks for the link.

Police said Zimmerman told them he got out of his vehicle to get a look at a street sign, and Martin attacked him from behind. Zimmerman said he shot Martin because he was afraid for his life.

I also found in the http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/...tice-fbi-and.html#disqus_thread#storylink=cpy:

Zimmerman said he had stepped out of his truck to check the name of the street he was on when Trayvon attacked him from behind as he walked back to his truck, police said. He said he feared for his life and fired the semiautomatic handgun he was licensed to carry because he feared for his life.
~~~~

Twin Lakes Gated Community has just three (3) streets: Retreat View Circle ring road around the perimeter, Twin Trees Lane and Long Oak Way making a lazy Y through the centre.

If Zimmerman has been prowling it for years and still has to check what street he is on, he shouldn't be carrying a gun or driving a vehicle.

 

[leftysergeant]

If Zimmerman has been prowling it for years and still has to check what street he is on, he shouldn't be carrying a gun or driving a vehicle.

Ermm...Hold the phone here. I would assume that to "check what street one is on," one would have to be on the street.

The murder scene appears to have been along a pedestrian path between two rows of town houses. Did Martin drag the moron back there to beat him up?

This aint making a whole lot of sense.

As for the idiot's claim that Martin looked like he was on drugs, I would have to say that he just showed how freaking stupid and unfit he was to even own a BB gun. Of course Martin would look a little agitated with some fat slob chasing him around for no apparent reason. The cops should have already figured out the instant they knew that Martin was not using drugs that the shooter either lied to them or was too retarded to be trusted with a weapon or a motor vehicle.

 

[This is The End]

I am having trouble locating this 'official story' where Zimmerman claims he was attacked from behind by Martin.

It does not appear to come from the police report:
http://cnninsession.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/martinpolicreport.pdf

Can someone point in the general direction of this info ? Thanks.

I was wondering about that too, I have only heard it from posters here.

That's weird because you are the one that linked to the story!

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8125741#post8125741

 

[3point14]

What evidence do you have that Martin was cornered?

You are also asserting an intent that's not apparent from the evidence.

No evidence. I still haven't made up my mind what happened. I'm not sure we'll ever really know.

I was just pointing out what I percieved as the problem with your scenario (as an abstract).

It might well be the way the law works, I can't dispute that, but it seems odd that person A can follow person B, therefore initiating the interaction by being aggressive and scary (it's scary being followed), and then, after escalation, shoot person B in self defence.


N.B. - I feel the need to point out that I'm not following you around just to disagree with everything you post, it just seems that we both find the same things interesting and have wildly differing views.

 

[3point14]

Yes, I am very optimistic. I have full faith in the FBI and DOJ to do a complete and impartial investigation.

I also have full faith in a special prosecutor to get the facts, and make a fair and unbiased judgement on her opinion, based on the law.

Lastly, Gov. Scott's office of special investigation is going to investigate also, and if things need to be changed WRT the "SYG" law, it will go before the legislature. Hell, even the Co-sponsor of the bill has said he thinks that, based on recent developments, the language needs to be changed, and is supporting re-visiting the bill.

So, yes, I have full faith that if (and I am leaning towards Florida's law on SYG being changed,) things need to be changed, then they will find it.

If (As I FULLY believe) the SPD failed to do a complete investigation, thereby violating laws and SOP in Florida, then someone's going to be punished.
The people accountable, will be scrutinized.

And no, no matter how many times you repeat it Travis, Florida does not have a "Kill anyone who looks funny law".

If you would like, I can quote the entire SYG law if you would like. I can even link to it, so you can see for yourself how the law is written. Maybe then you'll stop making incorrect, and quite frankly, stupid statements like that.

Do you think there will be enough evidence around for a conviction?

If all there is is unreliable eye-witness accounts and very little evidence gathered by the police, due to the initial assumption of self defence, then he walks?

Maybe?

If the evidence is not sufficient, no matter how much it seems (for whatever reason) that Zimmerman was not acting in self defence, if there is insufficient evidence, then he walks. Which is as it should be.

 

[3point14]

Well, not NOW. NOW we're starting to get results.

At least the Sanford Police isn't sitting around with their thumbs up their asses as they have for almost 3 weeks.

Look at the date this thread was started.

I know.

Timing - yes

Level - no

But what's done is done, and at least now some things will see the light of day (even if it is to watch the sunlight shine off them when they're shown to be squeaky clean.)

If I were Zimmerman and I had been acting only in self defence, I'd be thankfull that all these agencies are getting involved

 

[Dancing David]

Well at least this forum has found its new Amanda Knox.

Hush your mouth, this thread was going alright until the usual name callers started calling names.

I am concerned that a teen was killed with no judicial review at this point. If Zimmerman walsk then so be it, I just want a review of what happened.

My teen wears hoodies and walks slowly when he talks to his gf on the phone.

 

[Dancing David]

I really hate messy situations like this. I just end up feeling bad for everyone involved.

I hear you, I also hate people getting shot.

 

[Dancing David]

Maybe because they are ignorant, poorly trained crackers not that worried about a dead black prowler.

Back on the list.

 

[Dancing David]

Zimmerman's story is that he stalked Martin and then, after getting out of his car to check the street signs because he was lost*, was jumped from behind by a 17-year old who he was then forced to shoot.

As noted the shooting was a far remove from the car.

 

[3point14]

Absolutely! Without one shred of doubt, I hold myself to be more cautious in any situation. I have never had to draw my weapon out while in public*. If I were to draw my weapon, I know that one of two things is GOING to happen.

Either A) I am going to fire that weapon at minimum of twice, aiming towards center mass, or B) the offender is going to cease whatever he was doing immediately, lay on the ground, and surrender.

There is no if's, and's, or but's about it. One of those two are GOING to happen. I do not WANT to put myself in ANY situation where I would NEED to fire my weapon. If I saw a suspicious person in my neighborhood, I would call the cops and observe and report. If the person ran, I would CONTINUE to observe and report, from a distance.

If the person was breaking into my neighbor's heart, I would do exactly the same. I would observe and report.

If the person was murdering my neighbor, that person has two choices after I pull my weapon. Cease immediately, or meet his maker.

Plain and simple.

I would NOT under ANY circumstances put myself in a situation where it COULD be escalated to where I would need to use my weapon.

Isn't there a third option where they just cease whatever they're doing and run away?

 

[This is The End]

Well at least this forum has found its new Amanda Knox.

It looks like the police goofed in this one too, but in the exact opposite way.

Instead of charging an innocent person of murder, they fail to charge a guilty person of murder.

 

[Dancing David]

Isn't there a third option where they just cease whatever they're doing and run away?

That is the point that the SYG law addresses, in a situation where a home owner or other feels that there is a reasonable case of threat to themselves, they may fire without running away first.

Now the issue is that it is always up to a jury and the judge to decide what gets interpreted where.