Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[RandFan]

I missed it, who said Martin was heading back to the truck?

My apologies. I screwed up twice on that one. I bet I thought no one would notice.

The question should have been, who said Zimmerman was heading back to the truck? The answer is, of course, Zimmerman. So, I had my answer and didn't need to ask, you can ignore my post all together.

As an aside, is there any evidence other than GZ's testimony that he was headed back to the truck?

 

[leftysergeant]

I'm pretty sure that if exonerated he'll be free to report anything he wants to police. What are they going to do, block his number from 911?

Post a guard on his home so that there is somebody watching him whenever he leaves and warning people to watch for his vehicle.

Moot point, anyway. He moved out. I doubt that he is going to make himself well-known where has moved to now.

 

[sgtbaker]

My apologies. I screwed up twice on that one. I bet I thought no one would notice.

The question should have been, who said Zimmerman was heading back to the truck? The answer is, of course, Zimmerman. So, I had my answer and didn't need to ask, you can ignore my post all together.

As an aside, is there any evidence other than GZ's testimony that he was headed back to the truck?

No but in criminal justice, you kind of have to prove guilt, not innocence. That's the problem. There is only one version of the events in question.

 

[Checkmite]

If Z considered "staring" at him threatening, he knew that getting out of his vehicle would have to look like a challenge. Since he had no right to challenge Martin, he may have already been in violation of the law. He was clearly harrassing Martin.

I will agree with you that if someone runs away from you and you give chase despite not having any reason to believe a crime was committed or about to be committed, that's pretty blatantly harassment, "legal" or not.

 

[leftysergeant]

Cherrypick much? By his own words he also said he ended the pursuit and was heading back to the truck when Martin confronted him.

After the fact.

Before the shoooting, he was making it clear that he was going to maintain visual contact with Martin. He interdicted Martin's path to the back gate.

No excuses. He did not tell the cops he had ended his pursuit. He's screwed on that count.

 

[RandFan]

No but in criminal justice, you kind of have to prove guilt, not innocence. That's the problem. There is only one version of the events in question.

No, we don't have to prove innocence but if the evidence should impeach GZ's testimony then perhaps it might be good to have some other evidence. I think a judgement will need to be made on the evidence in toto, right?

 

[sgtbaker]

After the fact.

Before the shoooting, he was making it clear that he was going to maintain visual contact with Martin. He interdicted Martin's path to the back gate.

No excuses. He did not tell the cops he had ended his pursuit. He's screwed on that count.

He didn't tell the police that he was continuing the pursuit, either. Assuming that he did is pure speculation.

I just want to be more clear: on the phone, he just replied, "Okay." But in his statement, according to the police, he told them that he ended the pursuit and was heading back to the car.

 

[sgtbaker]

No, we don't have to prove innocence but if the evidence should impeach GZ's testimony then perhaps it might be good to have some other evidence. I think a judgement will need to be made on the evidence in toto, right?

What evidence is impeaching his testimony?

 

[RandFan]

What evidence is impeaching his testimony?

For the moment let's stick with the hypothetical. You would agree, right?

 

[crimresearch]

I think a judgement will need to be made on the evidence in toto, right?

Oh, like the Totality Of The Circumstances? Imagine that...

 

[AlexW]

Not to beat this drum again, but I'm with those saying that most of the "evidence" at this point is fairly suspect--particularly those parts that aren't reflected on the 911 tapes. That information, such as it is, is all coming from the Sanford Police Deparment and unnamed sources. Do they have an inclination to tell their side of the story at this point (e.g., that they were justified in not arresting GZ)? You be they do. The investigation can't be both good and bad at the same time; and until we know one way or another, I don't think any of the ex-911 tape information is all that cut and dry at this point.

 

[leftysergeant]

What evidence is impeaching his testimony?

Statements to the effect that Martin asked ther fool why he was following him. Inconsistant with his being attacked from behind.

 

[Kestrel]

Well what's so threatening about ending the pursuit and heading back to the car? I mean, considering the only version of events available from any of the witnesses and/or participants to the case stated that this is how it happened, I was just curious if you got your version from a cited source or your imagination.

It's called being a skeptic. Recognizing that Zimmerman has a really good reason to make his side of the story sound as innocent as possible.

Zimmerman didn't stop when the dispatcher told him to stop. He rejected the suggestion to wait for the cops next to his truck. He didn't want this one to get away and had a plan.

So what did he do? Did he chase directly after Martin, or down the street then between condo units where he could cut Martin off and confront him?

Remember that Martin's only crime was looking like Zimmerman's stereotype of a burglar. He was black and male, just like the 9 year old kid that Zimmerman called the cops about in an earlier incident.

 

[leftysergeant]

I have heard the hoodie that Martin was wearing was white. Is this correct?

Does that have any significance right now?

 

[RandFan]

It's called being a skeptic. Recognizing that Zimmerman has a really good reason to make his side of the story sound as innocent as possible.

Zimmerman didn't stop when the dispatcher told him to stop. He rejected the suggestion to wait for the cops next to his truck. He didn't want this one to get away and had a plan.

So what did he do? Did he chase directly after Martin, or down the street then between condo units where he could cut Martin off and confront him?

Remember that Martin's only crime was looking like Zimmerman's stereotype of a burglar. He was black and male, just like the 9 year old kid that Zimmerman called the cops about in an earlier incident.

If it is shown that Zimmerman continued his pursuit then I think that is problematic. I don't know about Florida but in a number of states you are not supposed to unnecessarily create a situation that could lead to harm. I think it reasonable that Zimmerman believed confronting Martin could lead to harm. Having called for police and knowing they were dispatched there was no need for him to do that. And this is important IMO, Martin had not committed a crime, right?

 

[crimresearch]

I have heard the hoodie that Martin was wearing was white. Is this correct?

Does that have any significance right now?

Light enough that Martin was probably the person IDed as 'on top'.

 

[sgtbaker]

For the moment let's stick with the hypothetical. You would agree, right?

I think I got turned around. By the hypothetical, you mean if the evidence empeaches Zimmerman's statement, yes, I agree that an investigation is warrented.

 

[RandFan]

Speaking of beating dead horses...

Is there any testimony by Zimmerman that gives his reasons for being suspicious of Martin? The call to police doesn't seem to provide any compelling reasons.

 

[RandFan]

I think I got turned around. By the hypothetical, you mean if the evidence empeaches Zimmerman's statement, yes, I agree that an investigation is warrented.

Thanks. To answer your question, I don't know if any evidence impeaches Zimmerman's testimony.

 

[sgtbaker]

Statements to the effect that Martin asked ther fool why he was following him. Inconsistant with his being attacked from behind.

That depends on how it was said. Say for instance (and this is me making it up for argument's sake) Martin approached Zimmerman from behind and asked in a confrontational tone, "why are you following me?" Then that wouldn't be inconsistant with being attacked from behind. Mind you, the conversation was not in the initial report. The conversation didn't show up until three weeks later when the girlfriend finally decided to come forward. That whole situation is suspect, anyway, IMHO.