Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[tsig]

We don't have nearly enough information at this point to determine that.

Will you ever have enough information? You seem to be ignoring the dead body, that's strong evidence that someone got shot.

 

[This is The End]

Zimmerman's attorney says today that Zimmerman's nose was broken in the altercation with Martin: http://video.msnbc.msn.com/msnbc-tv/46849124/#46849124

Why was he not treated at the scene or brought to the ER? I've heard that a broken nose can hurt terribly and bleed profusely.

Was there anything about it all in the police report?

Why are we just hearing about the broken nose a month later?

 

[triforcharity]

The news media have reported that he followed Martin, then approached him and then challenged him, asking something like "What are you doing?"

The fact that he did something more than simply reporting Martin's location is pretty strong evidence that Zimmerman intended to do something more than reporting Martin's location to police.

And he's been explained this numerous times, yet still brings it up.

I stopped replying. It's not worth it.

Which, is honestly sad, since I have a lot of respect for WildCat. But, he is also playing devils advocate too.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Why isn't it evidence that he was following Martin to keep him in sight?

Tomato tomahto.

Didn't you ask for evidence that he intended to do anything other than call in Martin's location? Following him is something other than calling in his location.

How do you know Martin didn't seek out and confront Zimmerman for following him after Zimmerman lost sight of him?

I don't know that, but that's not what the news stories have said. I'm relying on journalists to report what they've learned from the police and from the girlfriend.

By your reasoning if I go driving somewhere in my car, and get in a traffic accident, that's evidence I intended to get in a traffic accident?

This is BS reasoning. You asked for evidence that he intended to do anything other than phone in Martin's location. We have provided that evidence (the fact that he did do things other than phone in Martin's location).

Accidents are by nature unintentional. In order to follow Martin and approach him and question him he had to have decided to do these things.

If you're claiming that he only followed and approached and questioned Martin accidentally, I find that claim extremely incredible. Is that what you believe? It's possible to follow, approach and question someone unintentionally?

 

[tsig]

You misunderdstand, what if he said he was patrolling the neighborhood for suspicious persons? How would that change anything?


No, but neither did the shirt he was wearing or the shoes on his feet. Did someone claim it did?


You cannot possibly know that with the information we have.


Being prepared doesn't mean you're looking for one. Does buying health insurance mean you intend on getting cancer? Did Larry Silverstein's insurance policies mean he blew up the World Trade Center?


You have evidence that was his intent? What was he looking to punish Martin for again?


Again, you have evidence he intended to do anything more than report Martin's location to police?

Well there's this dead body.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

He said on the tape, "these ******** always get away", then "*********** coons", then went after Martin carrying his gun in his waistband.

Sheesh, if not to prevent another "*******" from getting away, what the hell else was he hoping to accomplish?

He was following the ******* so he could tell the police exactly where he was ? Not so he could confront him ?

No evidence has been shown that GZ intended to do other than follow TM.

Lots of speculation about what else he may or may not have been doing, but that seems to have all been based on wildly varying degrees of nonsense, such as how GZ couldn't name the street he is on, or using loaded terms like vigilante.

According to GZ, and TM's girlfriend, GZ was following TM. Again, according to the girlfriend, TM confronted (see how easy it is to use loaded words ?) GZ and asked him 'why are you following me?' and GZ responded 'what are you doing here?' and the next thing we have evidence of is TM on top of GZ and GZ yelling for help.

So - how did we get from 'why are you following me?' and GZ responded 'what are you doing here?' to shooting ? I would like those who are convinced that GZ is a vigilante and guilty as hell to help me understand what they think or believe may have happened.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And he's been explained this numerous times, yet still brings it up.

I stopped replying. It's not worth it.

Which, is honestly sad, since I have a lot of respect for WildCat. But, he is also playing devils advocate too.

I think that's being generous. Right now he seems to be plugging his ears and saying "La-la-la- not listening".

I don't believe that even Wildcat believes that Zimmerman accidentally followed and accidentally approached Martin.

That's just silly.

 

[tsig]

What evidence do you have that he intended to confront Martin, let alone shoot him?

Lots of people telling[ me that Martin intended to detain Martin, or even shoot him, yet no one has provided evidence of this intent. Did Zimmerman have a history of detaining people? If he intended to use his gun to detain Martin, how is it the fight occurred? Did Martin attack a man who was pointing a gun at him in your scenario?

How did Martin get dead if Zimmerman had no intention to shoot?

 

[RandFan]

I think that's being generous. Right now he seems to be plugging his ears and saying "La-la-la- not listening".

I don't believe that even Wildcat believes that Zimmerman accidentally followed and accidentally approached Martin.

That's just silly.

All Zimmerman needed to do was stay in his car. He didn't do that.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Accidents are by nature unintentional. In order to follow Martin and approach him and question him he had to have decided to do these things.

If you're claiming that he only followed and approached and questioned Martin accidentally, I find that claim extremely incredible. Is that what you believe? It's possible to follow, approach and question someone unintentionally?

Is 'GZ didn't intend to question him at all' really too far-fetched to believe ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Why was he not treated at the scene or brought to the ER? I've heard that a broken nose can hurt terribly and bleed profusely.

Was there anything about it all in the police report?

Why are we just hearing about the broken nose a month later?

Because can does not always imply does ?

We don't have anything like the entire police report.

Because I don't believe GZ has had a lawyer say *anything* prior to this, so anything new we will be hearing about a month later.

 

[leftysergeant]

We have a witness interview and a 911 call that say GZ was yelling for help and TM was on top of him.

I don't see how that does anything but add to his claim of self defense.

If he received a broken nose at the time as well, so does that.

Not a bit of it. It is totally consistant with his having been a total asshat and having scared Martin into thinking that his life is in danger. He had, therefore, no right to do anything in his own defense than to turn and run.

Martin had every right in the world to grab him and pound on him and it is too bad he stopped.

 

[This is The End]

Bolding mine.

Previous arrests are generally not allowed in testimony. However, previous convictions certainly can.
An arrest without further legal action is generally covered under a state's "sunshine" law.

Prior bad behavior is not supposed to be introduced as proof of guilt by itself.
Someone who has robbed a dozen banks can still be innocent of the charges the 13th time.

That leads to the TV fueled fantasy that it can never be brought up... any halfway competent prosecutor could think of more than one way to legitimately make sure that the jury knows about Zimmerman's pattern of behavior leading to violent confrontations.

Thanks for the info. I was quite sure I had seen murder trials before where previous murder convictions were discussed. I thought WildCat's statement seemed a bit too all-encompassing.

No. They will consider the facts of this case only. You can't, for example, try an armed robbery suspect and present to the jury a past armed robbery conviction as evidence that he's guilty of the one he's on trial for.

Bikewars statement seems to contradict that completely.

 

[leftysergeant]

Is 'GZ didn't intend to question him at all' really too far-fetched to believe ?

Yes.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So - how did we get from 'why are you following me?' and GZ responded 'what are you doing here?' to shooting ? I would like those who are convinced that GZ is a vigilante and guilty as hell to help me understand what they think or believe may have happened.

Why start with the confrontation? Why not ask how did we get from a guy walking in the rain with his hoodie on carrying a soft drink to following him?

Again, from my Citizens on Patrol training we're told that when in doubt we should call in anything we see and let the police decide what, if anything, to do about it, so I have no problem with that. But following a guy for wearing a hoodie? That's a huge leap. And again, approaching the guy--especially without even waiting for the police to respond (if they even deemed it worth the trouble)--is completely uncalled for.

How did we get to that point?

But to your question.

Are you arguing that Zimmerman had the right to use deadly force against someone because it was reasonable for him to think Trayvon Martin was a threat to him, but that it was NOT reasonable for Martin to feel at all threatened by Zimmerman's actions? Even if there was a scuffle in between the two questions being asked and the shooting, I think it's still an unjustified homicide. If anything, a scuffle would make it clear that Martin wasn't armed, further undercutting Zimmerman's self-defense theory. In fact, it might even show that Zimmerman had brandished his gun, which would justify Martin actively trying to defend himself--if indeed that's what happened.

 

[Unabogie]

He was following the ******* so he could tell the police exactly where he was ? Not so he could confront him ?

No evidence has been shown that GZ intended to do other than follow TM.

Lots of speculation about what else he may or may not have been doing, but that seems to have all been based on wildly varying degrees of nonsense, such as how GZ couldn't name the street he is on, or using loaded terms like vigilante.

According to GZ, and TM's girlfriend, GZ was following TM. Again, according to the girlfriend, TM confronted (see how easy it is to use loaded words ?) GZ and asked him 'why are you following me?' and GZ responded 'what are you doing here?' and the next thing we have evidence of is TM on top of GZ and GZ yelling for help.

So - how did we get from 'why are you following me?' and GZ responded 'what are you doing here?' to shooting ? I would like those who are convinced that GZ is a vigilante and guilty as hell to help me understand what they think or believe may have happened.

But that doesn't fit what he said. He said he didn't want one of them to get away. He then took off with a loaded gun and somehow ended up in a confrontation. Then he somehow ended up in a fist fight. Then he shot the kid.

I don't think it's a stretch to say a guy who curses "*********** coons" and then chases a person with a loaded gun wasn't just looking to keep tabs. He could have done that from the car, and he should have.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Problems.

1-Martin was found face down. Not impossible under your scenario, but unlikely.

It does seem less likely than face up. Perhaps he threw TM off, the both stood up, and then he shot him, and TM fell face forward.

(And this is unconfirmed, but my speculation)

Zimmerman is not reported to have any blood on his shirt by the officer whom placed him in handcuffs.

Now, this could be in another report, but why would an officer mention grass and water on a person's clothing, but not blood?? Seems weird to me.

Well, he was wearing a red sweater. And I think we can agree that the SPD appear to have botched a number of things ... but yeah. There are still unresolved issues with the way things happened after the SPD arrived.

 

[leftysergeant]

He was following the ******* so he could tell the police exactly where he was ? Not so he could confront him ?

No evidence has been shown that GZ intended to do other than follow TM.

Z positioned himself between Martin and the back gate to the compound. Seems pretty clear that he intended to interdict him so that he would not get out that gate while the cops were at the front gate.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Is 'GZ didn't intend to question him at all' really too far-fetched to believe ?

I find it too far-fetched to believe that he unintentionally followed Martin, unintentionally approached him, and unintentionally asked him what he was doing there.

But I was responding specifically to WildCat's request for evidence that Zimmerman intended to do anything other than call in Martin's location. He'd already done that, then followed, then approached him. I also find it credible--based on the news reports I've read-- that he approached him for the purpose of challenging his presence there. Again, we obviously don't have all the evidence available to us here, but there is certainly evidence that Zimmerman intended to do more than simply call in Martin's location.

 

[crimresearch]

I was quite sure I had seen murder trials before where previous murder convictions were discussed.

Actually it could be an arrest, and the sunshine laws aren't part of it.


http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/prior-bad-act/

Prior bad acts are sometimes allowed as evidence in a criminal case as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident...

Basically the probative value has to outweigh the prejudicial effect.