Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Unabogie]

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.



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.

I'm no expert in blood splatter, but if he'd shot Martin while Martin was on top of him - in the chest, mind you - there's be no doubt about the blood. He'd be covered in it and would never appear dry and clean, even with a red sweatshirt.

 

[WildCat]

There is plenty of evidence that he has a pattern 0f behavior that involves putting his hands on people first and making excuses later, with no evidence of prior use of a gun.

Cite?

 

[WildCat]

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

Why yes, we know Martin was shot dead. We don't know what immediately preceded that point .

 

[WildCat]

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

It's far from clear that's what he said. It doesn't sound like that to me. I hear a "f" sound where the "c" should be, and a long o.

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

Keeping him in sight until the police came?

 

[leftysergeant]

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

Because Martin was still enroute to a place where he had a reasonable right to be. Z wasn't.

 

[WildCat]

Problems.

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

(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.

Internet forensic experts rock!

 

[TheL8Elvis]

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.

It does fit, though. He didn't want him to get away, so he followed TM. He didn't 'take off' with a loaded gun - going everywhere with a loaded gun appears to be his MO ?

He got into a confrontation becuase he followed TM. I understand, people might be uncomfortable being followed. Or scared. In that case, maybe they should run or not confront the person following them. Again, from the facts we have, TM confronted GZ, not the other way around. And for all we know, TM initiated whatever fight they had.

I also listened to the mother jones take on 'coon' and I'm really not sure what I think I hear.

And just for those in the peanut gallery - I don't think provoking a fight, and then shooting someone because you are losing is any kind of justified self defense. I don't know FL SYG laws. But if GZ was just a cop wannabe, and always carried a gun, and did nothing but follow TM, and then was getting his ass kicked for following him, I am not sure that him using the gun at some point in the struggle makes him morally wrong. Maybe he is still legally guilty, IDK. Some of it we won't know until we get more information, like the rest of the police report, forensics, etc. But it does seem to me there some posters are really reaching in the opposite direction to paint GZ as badly as possible in any way they can. Maybe he deserves, but I'm really not near convinced he does, yet.

 

[Unabogie]

It's far from clear that's what he said. It doesn't sound like that to me. I hear a "f" sound where the "c" should be, and a long o.


Keeping him in sight until the police came?

His own friend is saying he said "*********** goons", which while not racist, is still not some curse at his phone or cones in the street. He was cursing a kid who'd done nothing wrong while running after him with his gun.

 

[Noztradamus]

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

From what I can tell, he claims to have received a broken nose. I haven't seen any medical records.

I want to see proof that it wasn't already broken

 

[Unabogie]

Again, from the facts we have, TM confronted GZ, not the other way around. And for all we know, TM initiated whatever fight they had.

I don't agree with this at all. Zimmerman confronted Martin even if Martin spoke first, which is not even established. But Zimmerman left his car, again toting his gun, and appeared in front of Martin. Since Zimmerman had to move his body to the place where Martin was in order for the fight to occur where it did, Zimmerman confronted Martin. I don't think who uttered the first words makes any difference on that score.

 

[WildCat]

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 does he call in Martn's location if he doesn't know where he is? How does he know where he is without following 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.

How would the journalists know this? Are they psychic? Do they have information which hasn't been published?

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).

Only after Martin asked him why he was following him. That tells you nothing about what the intent was prior to that point.

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.

You have no evidence that Zimmerman intended to confront Martin! And the evidence we do have has Martin confronting Zimmerman!

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?

Once again, it was Martin that questioned Zimmerman, according to the account by the girl Martin was on the phone with.

 

[This is The End]

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?

If there are only two people outside, and one of them starts to follow the other one, that alone can be seen as the confrontation. That alone can be seen as making contact. Unless of course the person doing the following is a police officer.

Eventually if you follow someone around long enough they are going to get annoyed and ask you what in the world you want. That isn't the point of confrontation or contact. The following was.

Just think about that for a second. Z was close enough for M to turn around and say WTF!!??? That is not how you follow someone if you only intend to keep an eye on them.


-----------


All that really matters is that even if he didn't throw the first punch he could still have provoked the fight. Self defense does not cover provoking a fight and then losing.

The defense probably has the GF ready to testify that Z was doing just that.

If they can prove that Z provoked the fight, his self defense claim is over.

 

[WildCat]

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

Because the situation changed?

Are you contending that Zimmerman intended to shoot Martin from the moment he stepped out of his vehicle?

 

[WildCat]

Bikewars statement seems to contradict that completely.

What previous conviction? Zimmerman had no convictions.

And do you think just any previous conviction can be brought up in a trial, or will the prosecution have to show that it's relevant to the current case?

 

[johnny karate]

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

It would make him more credible, and thus make his version of events that much more believable.

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

The point is he armed himself to - as you claim - merely keep someone is sight until the police arrived. I'm not sure why he would need a gun just to watch someone.

You cannot possibly know that with the information we have.

I know that Zimmerman armed himself and pursued Martin. That's a lot more than just reporting him to the police, which seems to be where you stop when determining whether or not Zimmerman is a vigilante.

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?

Being prepared with deadly force is quite a bit different than just simply being prepared. There's no evidence Martin did anything to warrant Zimmerman pursuing him with a gun. So it begs the question why he needed the gun in the first place.

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

I'm not suggesting Zimmerman was looking to "punish" Martin for anything. But in evaluating Zimmerman's actions, there seems to be this tendency to overlook the fact that he armed himself and pursued someone that by all accounts wasn't doing anything wrong, and that person ended up dead.

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

He got out of his car with a gun and followed him. Zimmerman could have reported Martin's location sitting in his car.

Do you think all evidence in a criminal investigation is typically released prior to trial? Why do you think that is, and why should this case be different?

I'm not demanding any evidence be released, merely reserving my judgment regarding Zimmerman's supposedly broken nose until it is.

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?

This is an excellent point. It seems that Zimmerman is being given every benefit of the doubt regarding his right to defend himself, while Martin doesn't seem to be given that right at all.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I don't agree with this at all. Zimmerman confronted Martin even if Martin spoke first, which is not even established. But Zimmerman left his car, again toting his gun, and appeared in front of Martin. Since Zimmerman had to move his body to the place where Martin was in order for the fight to occur where it did, Zimmerman confronted Martin. I don't think who uttered the first words makes any difference on that score.

That's fine. I understand that POV, I just don't think I agree with it.

From a legal standpoint, do you see anything wrong with following a stranger through your subdivision while concealed carrying ? I mean, theoretically , that's not illegal is it ? I t could be intimidating, provocative or confrontational - but is it illegal ?

 

[WildCat]

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.

Seriously Joe, can we discuss this without you throwing straw all over the place?

No one claimed Zimmerman unintentionally followed Martin, no one claimed Zimmerman unintentionally asked Martin what he was doing there (after Martin first questioned Zimmerman), and no one has presented evidence that Zimmerman was doing anything but following Martin.

Whether you consider following to be approaching is a matter of semantics, but can we stop the straw?

 

[crimresearch]

I don't think provoking a fight, and then shooting someone because you are losing is any kind of justified self defense.

That is correct on self defense, and Stand Your Ground is a side issue.

Zimmerman is going to have to make a claim that something more than merely being on the bottom put him in fear for his life.

Supporting that claim, and overcoming the prosecution's claim that his fear was not reasonable in light of his actions prior to the shooting, is going to take some doing.

 

[WildCat]

I'm no expert in blood splatter, but if he'd shot Martin while Martin was on top of him - in the chest, mind you - there's be no doubt about the blood. He'd be covered in it and would never appear dry and clean, even with a red sweatshirt.

Another internet forensics expert!

 

[WildCat]

His own friend is saying he said "*********** goons", which while not racist, is still not some curse at his phone or cones in the street. He was cursing a kid who'd done nothing wrong while running after him with his gun.

How would his friend know? Did Zimmerman tell him?