Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Toontown]

That's really impressive and all...

...had Varwoche been quoting *you* instead of someone else in his earlier post about Jackson... where the other poster used the broad brush on JREF as a whole.

As far as your understanding sarcasm fail, and refusal to look at reality, they tell me that very little can be done to help with that.

You continue to have no idea what you are talking about - possibly because you clearly failed to follow my instructions.

FYI, the Varwoche post I responded to was one in which he quoted Mumbles' response to me. Toontown. Not some other poster.

Hope that helps.

 

[Kestrel]

Okay, so please enlighten me “stand your ground” what does this a law mean?

Stand Your Ground was a relaxation of Florida's rules regarding self defense. It permits the use of lethal force instead of retreating from danger. Most US states only allow lethal force as a last resort.

 

[triforcharity]

I'm just astonished at all the wild speculation and evidence-free assertions that passes for critical thinking in this thread.

We're at the point where people are drawing conclusions from a route no one even knows was taken, and some people even presume to know how a person's body will fall after they've been shot, and what position they'll die in.

It's unreal, I guess this is why I mostly stayed out of the Amanda Knox thread. I think I'll stay mostly out of this one until new information becomes known, it's just going around in circles at this point anyway.

So, because someone asked a question, you decide to post a belittling comment, that does nothing to further the discussion?

Come on wildcat, you're smarter than that, I know you are.

Every route that has been posted, is specifically said to be speculation, and made with assumptions.

WRT how a person will fall or land after being shot, I said 10,000 times that IF this, or IF that.

I agree, you posting in this thread is useless, when all you do is belittle people, and act as if you're some kind of Forum judge, admonishing someone for asking a question.

 

[Roadtoad]

Things are getting worse in many ways...

After a rant about the cancellation ("He wasn't going to get out of here with an easy interview!") O'Donnell went ahead with his list of interview questions for Sonner anyway.

"Who is paying you?" a heated O'Donnell asked the empty chair. "Did you represent [Zimmerman] when he was arrested for assault on a police officer in 2005? Were you his lawyer then? Did you represent him in the domestic violence case in 2007?"

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm pretty sure you saw my post earlier, questioning how else a 140 pound little boy could otherwise kick a giant fat man with a guns ass, unless it was assaulting him from behind?...

That's your reasoning? That's absurd. Rather than an ambush wouldn't leaving and getting to the safety of that condo make 1000 times more logical sense?

What, Trayvon had some history of seeking revenge for anyone who disrespected him?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

TM was on the phone with his girlfriend. She reported him saying that a "strange man" was following him. later she head Martin say "why are you following me?" and someone else respond "what are you doing here?" just before the call was cut off.

Not the least bit consistent with GZ's story, adding to the evidence GZ's story was false. It incriminates GZ.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm just astonished at all the wild speculation and evidence-free assertions that passes for critical thinking in this thread. ....

I hope you are including yourself in that.

 

[crimresearch]

You continue to have no idea what you are talking about - possibly because you clearly failed to follow my instructions.

FYI, the Varwoche post I responded to was one in which he quoted Mumbles' response to me. Toontown. Not some other poster.

Hope that helps.

That's fantastic.

 

[WildCat]

Assumes facts not in evidence. It is a claim by the defendant, with no physical evidence to back it up.

(See, it's not so nice when someone does that bull **** to you, is it? )

The fight was witnessed by an uninvolved 3rd party, and physical evidence (fat lip, broken nose, gash on back of head, grass stains on back of shirt) supports it.

I feel like I'm arguing with a truther here. Let me guess, all the evidence is faked, right?

There's really no sense in discussing this with you if that's the way you're going to go about it.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Her account of the confrontation (including the exchange of words) substantially conflicts with Zimmerman's.

How so? Both Zimmerman and the girl's account have Zimmerman following Martin, then they lose each other, then they meet again and words are exchanged followed by a scuffle. It seems to me they corroborate each other.

The description of the confrontation is significantly different. They most certainly do not corroborate one another. The words exchanged and the timing of the beginning of the fight are significantly different.

In Zimmerman's account, Martin was the aggressor. In the girlfriend's account, Martin was trying to get away from someone following him. (Oddly enough, Zimmerman seemed to believe that Martin was trying to get away based on what he said to the 911 dispatcher.)

It's an unusual circumstance, and weren't people demanding he step down?

Yes. . and why were they demanding he step down? Why was there even a perception that he was going to be an obstacle to the investigation? Could it not be from his statement early on that there is no evidence that casts doubt on Zimmerman's account?

You seem to be attempting to fit the facts into your predetermined narrative, rather than just going where they lead you.

Rubbish. My position is that we have conflicting accounts of what happened. (And if the police chief wasn't aware of the conflicting accounts, he wasn't doing his job.) The police chief was wrong to say that there was no reason to doubt Zimmerman's account. He was correct to step down.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Not the least bit consistent with GZ's story, adding to the evidence GZ's story was false. It incriminates GZ.

Wildcat claims that the girlfriend's account corroborates Zimmerman's.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The fight was witnessed by an uninvolved 3rd party, and physical evidence (fat lip, broken nose, gash on back of head, grass stains on back of shirt) supports it.

The third party's testimony is contradicted by other witness (we don't need to rehash, I know you don't agree). The broken nose and head gash are only verbal claims by GZ's attorney. There is no medical report. And the police saying they saw blood doesn't mean the blood wasn't TM's that GZ had on his hands and then touched his nose and head.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

A person in many countries can kill another person and say whatever they think will keep them out of trouble. Sometimes they even get away with it.

That aside, the basic premise of self defense in America is similar to English common law, where (as Dryden observed) the right to protect one's self is 'Nature's eldest law'.

Over the years the courts have established that you can use proportionate force to protect life and limb.

Guns have complicated the matter on several fronts... racial, political, and social. The media hasn't helped either.

Suffice it to say that politicians sought to score points by passing modifications that gave more leeway to taking care of 'bad guys' without bothering to ask for their guild card, or without running away.
The media slapped sensationalized labels on these statutes such as 'Make my Day', and 'Stand Your Ground'.

And that does create the prospect of a liar getting away with a murder through a contrived claim of self defense.

Before, the same murderer might have had to work harder to fabricate the claim that 'It was an accident', instead of 'It was self defense'.

Well said.

I'd also add the policy point I've made a couple of times: Do we really want laws that might encourage conflicts to escalate (or that loosen or relax laws that might discourage such escalation)?

 

[RandFan]

Things are getting worse in many ways...

After a rant about the cancellation ("He wasn't going to get out of here with an easy interview!") O'Donnell went ahead with his list of interview questions for Sonner anyway.

"Who is paying you?" a heated O'Donnell asked the empty chair. "Did you represent [Zimmerman] when he was arrested for assault on a police officer in 2005? Were you his lawyer then? Did you represent him in the domestic violence case in 2007?"

It was difficult to watch. The emotion was a bit too hot IMO.

 

[Kestrel]

Proposing a theory and then testing it against the evidence is part of the scientific process. Some theories are easily disproved, others turn out to be valid. Also, any skeptic needs to understand that the "authorities" sometimes turn out to be dead wrong. (The Amanda Knox case was a prime example of this).

The proper way to critique a theory in this thread is to point out exactly why it doesn't match the evidence, not to lob insults at the poster.

 

[Roadtoad]

It was difficult to watch. The emotion was a bit too hot IMO.

No question. At all. The interview with the New York Times reporter went better.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So it's Martin's fault he was shot.

Presumably, it's possible that neither of them did anything criminal. That is, it's possible that the laws allowed mutual perception of threat to escalate to violence, and for that violence to escalate to homicide without any crime being committed--the fight and the homicide might be legally justifiable.

I certainly hope no one is arguing that Martin's actions were unjustified but Zimmerman's were justified!

 

[TheL8Elvis]

The third party's testimony is contradicted by other witness (we don't need to rehash, I know you don't agree). The broken nose and head gash are only verbal claims by GZ's attorney. There is no medical report. And the police saying they saw blood doesn't mean the blood wasn't TM's that GZ had on his hands and then touched his nose and head.

Those injuries were in the leaked police report as well. (bloodied nose, not specifically broken)

Do you really think you it's 'critical thinking' to disbelieve those things ?

The GF's claims are only verbal claims made 3 weeks after the fact. Why should we believe them ? She is clearly biased towards TM, so her statements are worthless, right ?

Will you believe them when you see the original police report ? How about a copy on the internet ? You never know, it could be fake.

That's silly, in my opinion. Maybe you should ask for a copy of TM medical report ? Perhaps he's not dead ?

 

[triforcharity]

The fight was witnessed by an uninvolved 3rd party, and physical evidence (fat lip, broken nose, gash on back of head, grass stains on back of shirt) supports it.



I feel like I'm arguing with a truther here. Let me guess, all the evidence is faked, right?

There's really no sense in discussing this with you if that's the way you're going to go about it.

That is EXACTLY what you've been doing to NUMEROUS other people in this very thread.

You're welcome.

 

[Checkmite]

The GF's claims are only verbal claims made 3 weeks after the fact. Why should we believe them ? She is clearly biased towards TM, so her statements are worthless, right ?

If it's been established that she was on the phone with Trayvon when she said she was, her statements are as credible as those of the other third-party witnesses. Since her account ends when the fight begins, and none of the other accounts begin until after the fight is already in progress, her testimony does not conflict with anything any other witnesses reported.

On the other hand, a few of the after-the-fight-started witnesses' accounts conflict.