Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Checkmite]

I meant in the radio call or 911 operator call to the SFD to go to the incident. Would the scene and injuries be described when SFD was dispatched?

Not in extreme detail; and in any case the SFD would have been dispatched to that scene for Martin, not Zimmerman. The police report indicates the officer performed CPR on Martin until the SFD relieved him (correct procedure), so any dispatcher recording would likely have an address and "gunshot wound to the chest".

Since they were there they would've treated Martin; he would've gotten his own run sheet. Two important notes here:

1. The run sheet is HIPAA-protected; don't expect it to be leaked or released before the trial. Zimmerman can say whatever he wants about his injuries - verifying (or not) without a court order is impossible.

2. If the medics determined transport was recommended and Zimmerman was willing to go, the police could not have prevented him from being taken to the hospital.

I reject Zimmerman's lawyer's claim on its face that Zimmerman was denied medical treatment. If he was injured, the only way he wasn't going to the hospital is if Zimmerman refused (and yes, they would not have left without a signature) or the EMT's decided his injuries did not warrant hospital treatment.

 

[sgtbaker]

There's been talk that Trayvon "pummelled him" for an extended period of time. It's somewhere on this thread a ways back. I'm not talking about one punch. If Trayvon only hit him once, then his claims of self-defense are harder to justify.

Pummelling is a suggestive term, much like stalking, vigilante, and attempting to detain. These are details that people are adding in with there imagination. Feel free to call them out for using such colorful terms.

 

[Xulld]

I'm sorry, but responsible gun owners don't chase down people and ask rude questions just because they're black and wearing a hoodie. And yes, if you chase me down and demand questions, and even act like you're going to grab me, then we're fighting. And if you do this, and I see that you have a gun, then I'm going to go for your gun. Because you have a gun.

Don't people know how to behave? Chasing after people is asking for trouble. What's so hard to understand about that?

Been lurking, but just had to respond to this.

So if I had thought you dropped a hundred dollar bill and ran to catch up to you, and in the moment my shirt came up revealing a holstered gun, you would immediately attack me and try to take my gun?

What if I am an undercover cop just trying to give you back what I thought you dropped?

Sounds to me like you are unhinged.

Personally, I react to any force with no greater force than is needed to establish my safety. ie, if the person is not reaching for their gun, I do not react as if the gun is a threat.

Which is what the law supports.

Id offer advice to you, that your current line of thinking is very dangerous, and could get you killed.

============================

On a side note, this thread has revealed to me who is an actual objective critical thinker here and who is not. So many painfully obvious flawed arguments are being presented. Personally Id be ashamed to present such uncritical thinking on such a forum.

============================

Back to the case, I cannot offer much that has not already been presented, we need more facts, and a better understanding of the details from the REAL eye witness who saw the altercation.

Crimeresearch please correct me if I am wrong here.

Two important moments during this altercation where when Martin knocked Zimmerman to the ground and when the neighbor came out and yelled for Martin to stop.

It is my understanding that at both times a reasonable person should stop attacking.

When you have knocked someone down during a fist fight, and continue to attack you have then presented a situation where that person may fear for their life.

When a third party enters into the situation and calls for it to stop. That offers another opportunity to stop the attack and deescalate the situation.

Does that jive?

 

[Cylinder]

Wow what?

Errrr...wow that it seems that if the defendant can barely tip the scale of "it could have happened that way" then the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that "it didn't happen that way" - before the matter can proceed to trial.

ETA: This is wrong. The standard for a pre-trial claim of immunity is a simple preponderance of the evidence. See Horn v Florida.

 

[Noztradamus]

By Zimmerman's account, Martin was never in a fist fight.

Zimmerman claims Martin punched him once in the nose and he went down, then Martin began banging his head on the pavement.

By that account, it would be unlikely that Martin would have any visible injuries to his hands.

But if Zimmerman was beaten senseless he is not a reliable witness.

 

[Xulld]

Errrr...wow that it seems that if the defendant can barely tip the scale of "it could have happened that way" then the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that "it didn't happen that way" - before the matter can proceed to trial.

How can it be otherwise given innocent until proven guilty?

 

[kedo1981]

Zimmerman will never get a fair trial
And because of him being tried by the self important Jackson/Sharpton/Spike Lee AA posers he will walk.

 

[Unabogie]

Everything I've read said that he hit GZ once and then whacked his head off the ground repeatedly.

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/...ign=Feed:+boomantribune/Svpw+(Booman+Tribune)

Here is his father's account:

"He went to the next street, realized where he was and was walking to his vehicle. It's my understanding, at that point, Trayvon Martin walked up to him and asked him, 'Do you have a [expletive] problem?' George said, 'No, I don't have a problem,' and started to reach for his cell phone... at that point, he (Martin) was punching him in the nose, his nose was broken and he was knocked to the concrete."
Robert said Trayvon, "continued to beat George, and at some point, George pulled his pistol and did what he did."

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Old claim. Been out there a week. Originally from a friend of a relation of Zimmerman - or a relation of a friend (don't care enough to check which) as

"you're gunna die tonight, person who has sexual congress with their female parent"

It has not been confirmed that after he was shot, he said "Arg, ya got me"

I lied check http://news.yahoo.com/trayvon-martin-case-special-prosecutor-appointed-protests-grow-192403360.html comment by 'Blake'

I totally thought you were joking.

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-last-word/46887730#46887730

16:00 minutes in, Tracy Martin said the police told him Zimmerman told them when GZ shot Trayvon, and Trayvon fell back he said 'you got me'.

 

[Unabogie]

It appears the mortician was on Lawrence O'donnel last night :
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/46887730#46887730

But when O’Donnell asked Kurtz if Trayvon’s body showed any signs that would support that version of events, Kurtz said, “I didn’t see anything to support that story.”

ETA: time is about 14:00 minutes in.

Thanks, I'll watch this now. (I don't have cable)

 

[Noztradamus]

I totally thought you were joking.

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-last-word/46887730#46887730

16:00 minutes in, Tracy Martin said the police told him Zimmerman told them when GZ shot Trayvon, and Trayvon fell back he said 'you got me'.

I totally was. And now I'm looking to apply for the James Randi prize.

 

[Unabogie]

In O'Donnell's piece there, they say the police have STILL not interviewed Trayvon's girlfriend? The last non-Zimmerman person to speak to the deceased?

Is that possible???

 

[Checkmite]

Been lurking, but just had to respond to this.

So if I had thought you dropped a hundred dollar bill and ran to catch up to you, and in the moment my shirt came up revealing a holstered gun, you would immediately attack me and try to take my gun?

What if I am an undercover cop just trying to give you back what I thought you dropped?

Sounds to me like you are unhinged.

"SIR! EXCUSE ME! SIR! YOU DROPPED THIS!" [/problem]

 

[Checkmite]

In O'Donnell's piece there, they say the police have STILL not interviewed Trayvon's girlfriend? The last non-Zimmerman person to speak to the deceased?

Is that possible???

Yes, considering the Sanford police are no longer investigating.

 

[crimresearch]

Errrr...wow that it seems that if the defendant can barely tip the scale of "it could have happened that way" then the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that "it didn't happen that way" - before the matter can proceed to trial.

Ahh.. I see where you are getting that.

This was a *post* trial motion for something that should have prevented the trial from ever happening... the court mentions 'legally sufficient' for that standard, and it is lower.

Then they go on to say that even *at trial*, the prosecution didn't meet the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' burden.

In either case, the defendant's claim that he was set up as the intended victim of a planned violent crime, was unrebutted by direct evidence, so SYG applies... as would immunity.

So yes, if a defendant can tip the scales before trial with *unrebutted* 'legally sufficient evidence' (hence the prima facie), it should never get to the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' stage, that is true... but at that same stage the prosecution only needs to show 'legally sufficient evidence' in return, not prove guilt.
That's where grand juries and such can make the difference.

I'm going to guess that Zimmerman won't be able to produce a whole lot of *unrebuttable* evidence before trial that he was the victim of a planned violent crime, in order to invoke immunity... I could be wrong, but his version of events doesn't seem sufficient to support the notion that he was 'standing his ground' against a criminal, when there is proof that Martin was engaged in a Skittles run, not in luring Zimmerman into a trap...

So, I'm still going with 2(a), just 'in fear for his life' at a certain point in the chain of events.

By all believable accounts Martin was not committing a forcible felony, he was where he had a right to be, and his actions in fighting could be seen as reasonable, not criminal, at the time.

 

[RandFan]

So if I had thought you dropped a hundred dollar bill and ran to catch up to you, and in the moment my shirt came up revealing a holstered gun...

Doesn't sound like you are being rude or aggressive at all. GZ suspected TM, that is clear from the tapes. I think it likely that GZ's demeanor was clear to TM at the time of the confrontation, you?

 

[Xulld]

"SIR! EXCUSE ME! SIR! YOU DROPPED THIS!" [/problem]

Criminals often use such ruses before they attack. The reality is you cannot judge someone approaching you based on anything short of a direct threat.

Not saying anything during the approach is not a threat.

Saying, "hey why are you in this neighborhood", is not a direct threat.

If someone approaches you, and you have reason to believe they have a gun, you should never attempt to take there gun from them without a direct threat being present. They could be police, the gun could have nothing to do with their intent.

I carry, so I would not try to take a gun anyways even if presented with a real threat. Id draw. However I would never draw on someone who has not presented a real threat.

I would try to get distance while making it clear I feel threatened (vocalization), not attack myself and find myself in a situation where they intended no harm.

Regardless it is not a well formed argument to say someone approaching, heck even running to catch up to you is a direct threat.

Trust me, if at any time someone tries to grab for my gun they have initiated a deadly encounter. Without a verbal threat, or a specific action which is indicative of a threat, such as reaching for my gun, this line of thought is without merit.

Doesn't sound like you are being rude or aggressive at all. GZ suspected TM, that is clear from the tapes. I think it likely that GZ's demeanor was clear to TM at the time of the confrontation, you?

What source do you have for this? I am often suspicious of many things and do a good job of not showing that, sounds to me like you are just speculating.

Someone can be a complete jerk, and still not be a direct threat. This fact belies any such consideration. I have had many encounters with rude people and none of them involved me hitting that person as some kind of preemptive means of defending myself. Just sounds ridiculous to even talk about it in that way.

 

[crimresearch]

Been lurking, but just had to respond to this.

So if I had thought you dropped a hundred dollar bill and ran to catch up to you, and in the moment my shirt came up revealing a holstered gun, you would immediately attack me and try to take my gun?

What if I am an undercover cop just trying to give you back what I thought you dropped?

Sounds to me like you are unhinged.

Personally, I react to any force with no greater force than is needed to establish my safety. ie, if the person is not reaching for their gun, I do not react as if the gun is a threat.

Which is what the law supports.

Id offer advice to you, that your current line of thinking is very dangerous, and could get you killed.

============================

On a side note, this thread has revealed to me who is an actual objective critical thinker here and who is not. So many painfully obvious flawed arguments are being presented. Personally Id be ashamed to present such uncritical thinking on such a forum.

============================

Back to the case, I cannot offer much that has not already been presented, we need more facts, and a better understanding of the details from the REAL eye witness who saw the altercation.

Crimeresearch please correct me if I am wrong here.

Two important moments during this altercation where when Martin knocked Zimmerman to the ground and when the neighbor came out and yelled for Martin to stop.

It is my understanding that at both times a reasonable person should stop attacking.

When you have knocked someone down during a fist fight, and continue to attack you have then presented a situation where that person may fear for their life.

When a third party enters into the situation and calls for it to stop. That offers another opportunity to stop the attack and deescalate the situation.

Does that jive?

Those might be possible moments at which things could have stopped, but in Martin's case, the question would be 'would a reasonable person in that situation *with similar knowledge* feel that the threat was safely eliminated by either of those 2 things'?

And that opens up a massive amount of speculation as to what a deceased person might have been thinking.

 

[LTC8K6]

In O'Donnell's piece there, they say the police have STILL not interviewed Trayvon's girlfriend? The last non-Zimmerman person to speak to the deceased?

Is that possible???

Knowing O'donnell, I'd guess it's wrong in substance.

Hey, I wonder if someone took the Sanford PD off the case a while ago?

 

[Cylinder]

OK - I'm stupid.

The pre-trial claim of immunity is based on the preponerance of the evidence - whichever account the judge feels to have been proven by the evidence to be more likely than the other. If the defendant's claim is accepted, then immunity is granted.

If the pre-trial claim is denied, the matter proceeds to trial at which point the defense can maintain the claim of justification. At that point a prima facie establishment of self-defense must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be untrue or incorrect.