Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[AlexW]

Here's a good link to a bunch of the related documents. Disregard if previously posted:

http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/03/what-happened-trayvon-martin-explained?page=2

 

[lane99]

It was already cited way back in this very thread. Google the police report yourself, I'm not holding your hand and walking you through what you should already know.

Unless one is interested in walking in circles or going on a wild cat chase, holding your hand isn't advisable. As you appear to be a persistent source of misinformation.

The reason you can't cite a police report that says the shooter had a broken nose is because there is no such report.

 

[This is The End]

Apologies. I misremembered this fomr the article:
Record Count: 4
With the title of the article. Yes, I botched it.

As do I (I apologize). I have made a few mistakes as well.

At any rate you understand it was the same incident and saw the other explanations in the thread, right ?

Yeah I'm responding to posts as I see them, sorry. I covered that here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8152364#post8152364

 

[Noztradamus]

Why did he cross the road when leaving the courthouse?

It was shorter than walking around it.

 

[EGarrett]

No, this is a lady who thinks she heard something, which became another something after she thought about it awhile (and watched TV news). It's only strong evidence because it supports a scenario you want to be true because you appear to have an axe to grind.

No. Thinking you heard a scream when someone actually was screaming is not the same as believing Aliens killed John F. Kennedy. The latter is an extraordinary claim from a non-witness that contradicts available evidence, logic AND common sense. Your analogy is a complete fail and you should know that. Sorry if that makes you angry.

 

[EGarrett]

If that's the best the prosecution has to offer Zimmerman walks.

I think you're struggling with "burden of proof." Zimmerman is the one who has to offer his case. As has been said, you appear to be a consistent source of misinformation and you don't seem to correct yourself or offer sources either.

 

[johnny karate]

It was already cited way back in this very thread. Google the police report yourself, I'm not holding your hand and walking you through what you should already know.

You claimed the police report indicated Zimmerman had a broken nose. I have looked, and I can find nothing to substantiate that claim. That's why I asked for the cite.

A "swollen lip" is in the police report. And police don't diagnose broken noses, doctors do.

Never mind. It seems you are already walking that claim back.

So I stand by my original position. I'll believe Zimmerman had a broken nose when evidence is presented. And as far as I can tell, none has been.

It's irrelevant anyway, and strikes me as a cheap ploy by his attorney to garner sympathy. Even if Zimmerman did get his nose broken by Martin, it doesn't prove anything other than that they had a fight. It tells us nothing about how the fight started.

 

[This is The End]

Here are the bullet points against Z as far as I see it.

(Keep in mind that I still don't know if Z was justified. We just don't know all of the facts yet. WildCat, who I have been batting this back and forth with, has said the same about M. We just don't know the all of the facts yet. If this all played out in a way most favorable to Z, then surely Z has been punished enough already.)

*: Z was keeping an eye on and following M on suspicion only. It is not in dispute that Z did not see M violate any laws.

*: Z was given a very serious sounding suggestion to stop following M by a police dispatcher. This suggestion was given during Z's pursuit of M and was within several minutes of the fatal shot being fired. Z responded to this suggestion with the word "Okay".

*: Several years ago Z was arrested soon after, and directly relating to, an incident where Z was arguing with multiple police officers and where Z pushed (or shoved) one of the officers. One of two charges was "Resisting Officer with Violence Battery on Law Enforcement Officer". The second charge, possibly the first charge reduced, was "Resisting Officer without Violence". Neither the argument with officers nor the pushing of an officer were disputed by either side in the resulting case and Z ended up having to "complete a pretrial-diversion program" to avoid conviction.


ETA: To try and humbly summarize this entire case:

This entire case hinges on who initially provoked whom into fighting. We do not currently have enough evidence yet to determine that.

 

[EGarrett]

EGarrett please stop "skimming" things and pick and choose bits and pieces of information, sometimes wrongly, to fit into your preconceived theory. Read carefully and analyze critically. Otherwise, just please stop posting cause it's painful.

The article I skimmed was one that was irrelevant to Zimmerman's defense based on its very nature, and I said as such. Pay a little closer attention champ. I find your inability to follow distinctions painful, and if you thought that blatantly irrelevant article mattered to the actual case, then you can be the one to stop your little posting career before you get to 100. Got it?

 

[Dancing David]

Personally, I assume geriatrics in my neighborhood are just as likely to be cat burglars as the young adults... I'd rather be robbed than be age-ist.

Having climbed through a window last month when my son forgot to put the spare key back where it belongs. If an older cat burglar wants to make a living, they better work out and stretch.

 

[sgtbaker]

Here are the bullet points against Z as far as I see it.

(Keep in mind that I still don't know if Z was justified. We just don't know all of the facts yet. WildCat, who I have been batting this back and forth with, has said the same about M. We just don't know the all of the facts yet. If this all played out in a way most favorable to Z, then surely Z has been punished enough already.)

*: Z was keeping an eye on and following M on suspicion only. It is not in dispute that Z did not see M violate any laws.

*: Z was given a very serious sounding suggestion to stop following M by a police dispatcher. This suggestion was given during Z's pursuit of M and was within several minutes of the fatal shot being fired. Z responded to this suggestion with the word "Okay".

*: Several years ago Z was arrested soon after, and directly relating to, an incident where Z was arguing with multiple police officers and where Z pushed (or shoved) one of the officers. One of two charges was "Resisting Officer with Violence Battery on Law Enforcement Officer". The second charge, possibly the first charge reduced, was "Resisting Officer without Violence". Neither the argument with officers nor the pushing of an officer were disputed by either side in the resulting case and Z ended up having to "complete a pretrial-diversion program" to avoid conviction.


ETA: To try and humbly summarize this entire case:

This entire case hinges on who initially provoked whom into fighting. We do not currently have enough evidence yet to determine that.

For what it's worth I don't contest a single thing about this post.

 

[johnny karate]

*: Z was given a very serious sounding suggestion to stop following M by a police dispatcher. This suggestion was given during Z's pursuit of M and was within several minutes of the fatal shot being fired. Z responded to this suggestion with the word "Okay".

On this point, it should also be noted that Zimmerman was violating the rules of his neighborhood watch program by both arming himself and following Martin. So he had at least two good reasons not to be doing what he was doing.

 

[Dancing David]

I follow another forum that consists of a good 30 to 40% conspiracy theorists on this same topic and both thread look exactly the same. What is it about this subject that makes so called skeptics so irrational?

Emotions, but it still is more rational than the Politics forum.

 

[sgtbaker]

No. Thinking you heard a scream when someone actually was screaming is not the same as believing Aliens killed John F. Kennedy. The latter is an extraordinary claim from a non-witness that contradicts available evidence, logic AND common sense. Your analogy is a complete fail and you should know that. Sorry if that makes you angry.

Thinking you heard a scream is one thing. Concluding everything she's concluded from that scream is where she seems a bit batty and quick to draw facts from her own conclusions. If you've done any search on witness testimony, they are most accurate immediately after and lose accuracy and consistency over time. Imagination starts filling in the details.

 

[sgtbaker]

On this point, it should also be noted that Zimmerman was violating the rules of his neighborhood watch program by both arming himself and following Martin. So he had at least two good reasons not to be doing what he was doing.

I thought it came out, pages ago, that he was not patroling as neighborhood watch, at the time. He was heading to the store.

 

[crimresearch]

Here are the bullet points against Z as far as I see it.

(Keep in mind that I still don't know if Z was justified. We just don't know all of the facts yet. WildCat, who I have been batting this back and forth with, has said the same about M. We just don't know the all of the facts yet. If this all played out in a way most favorable to Z, then surely Z has been punished enough already.)

*: Z was keeping an eye on and following M on suspicion only. It is not in dispute that Z did not see M violate any laws.

*: Z was given a very serious sounding suggestion to stop following M by a police dispatcher. This suggestion was given during Z's pursuit of M and was within several minutes of the fatal shot being fired. Z responded to this suggestion with the word "Okay".

*: Several years ago Z was arrested soon after, and directly relating to, an incident where Z was arguing with multiple police officers and where Z pushed (or shoved) one of the officers. One of two charges was "Resisting Officer with Violence Battery on Law Enforcement Officer". The second charge, possibly the first charge reduced, was "Resisting Officer without Violence". Neither the argument with officers nor the pushing of an officer were disputed by either side in the resulting case and Z ended up having to "complete a pretrial-diversion program" to avoid conviction.


ETA: To try and humbly summarize this entire case:

This entire case hinges on who initially provoked whom into fighting. We do not currently have enough evidence yet to determine that.

Your points may be relevant to Zimmerman's *credibility*, but they are still only peripheral to the central legal question of guilt, which hinges on...

In the moment did Zimmerman reasonably believe he was in grave danger?


Reasonable belief has its own set of legal tests spelled out nicely by Freddy a couple of thousand posts ago.

 

[Dancing David]

Is it standard procedure for the police to not arrest, detain OR investigate the killer when there is a claim of self-defense? It seems so bizarre.

Apparently the investigating officer wanted to arrest, but the SAs office wanted more evidence, prior to charging.

 

[Jekyll's Guest]

It's irrelevant anyway, and strikes me as a cheap ploy by his attorney to garner sympathy.

Well he probably saw the giant smear campaign and sympathy factory the other side has rolled out and thought "Hell, why not?"

His client has been tried and found guilty by the court of public opinion, and has a hit out on his head. If he was Hannibal lector he'd be due a drop of sympathy.

I'm reminded of the South park episode with Britney Spears.

 

[EGarrett]

Thinking you heard a scream is one thing. Concluding everything she's concluded from that scream is where she seems a bit batty and quick to draw facts from her own conclusions. If you've done any search on witness testimony, they are most accurate immediately after and lose accuracy and consistency over time. Imagination starts filling in the details.

The 9/11 call was DURING the incident, her statement to cops that she KNOWS it was not self-defense is the one that was immediately after. I think during a chaotic situation, you are less likely to present things accurately as you are at what is probably the best time, after you've taken a moment to have a deep breath and calm down, but the incident is still fresh in your mind.

Regardless, as I continually reiterate, if she sticks by her position and contradicts Zimmerman's claims, she's going to be a major problem for him proving his self-defense claim. On top of his own 911 call and the fact that circumstances may have justified Trayvon Martin attacking him whether Trayvon Martin did or did not do so...which is Zimmerman's side of the story that the dead boy is unable to respond to.

 

[This is The End]

For what it's worth I don't contest a single thing about this post.

Thank you. I worded that post very carefully.