Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Moss]

Any predictions on when the witch hunt will end?

When enough people are convinced there isn't a witch to hunt?

I'm not sure what other kind of answer you could get to that.

 

[crimresearch]

Any predictions on when the witch hunt will end?

Which witch?


There seem to be a few.

 

[sgtbaker]

The timeline shows very little time between GZ's ending his call to 911 when they told him to stop following TM and the time TM's call with his girlfriend ended.

Given the location of the shooting and the fact there is a clear view down that sidewalk, why do you keep sticking to your belief GZ could have been returning to the SUV and didn't see where TM was at that time?

I don't doubt the evidence you cited that GZ lost sight of TM. That was prior to the time span I was referring to.

The location of the shooting contradicts GZ's claim he was returning to his SUV and didn't know where TM was. GZ would have had TM in sight if he was in that location. A view of TM would have been unobstructed there.

The time between GZ's 911 call when they told him to stop following and the end of the call to the girlfriend was only a couple minutes.

If GZ wasn't making up an incriminating lie he might have said, I saw TM but the operator said to stop following so I did. After I stopped the pursuit TM approached me. That would have been credible. GZ's story is not.

I see a lot of presumptions from someone who's never actually been in the development, has no idea what the range of visibility was, and where GZ was standing when he claims to have lost sight of Trayvon.

My belief is not in Zimmerman's word. As a matter of fact, I have no belief in any of this. I will explain to you exactly how I see the situation and keep all emotion out of it.

Zimmerman sees a kid he claims is looking suspicious. He calls 911 to give a description and reports everything he sees Trayvon doing. Trayvon, after about a minute, starts walking away. George gets out of the truck to follow him. The dispatcher askes George if he is following him. George says that he is. The dispatcher tells George that they don't need him to do that. George says okay. The dispatcher gets a little bit more information from him, on his location then gets his cell phone number. George gives directions to where they will find his truck. The dispatcher asks George for his address and George starts to give it, then says that he doesn't want to say it out loud because he doesn't know where he is. First he is going to meet with the officer at the mailbox, then asks if the officer can just call his cell when he arrives. They agree, the call ends and then (A1) _____________________ _____________________________________________________________(Z2)
People begin calling in about a fight. One witness reports seeing the two men struggle and one screaming for help. He goes inside to call the police and then (A2)____________________________________________________(Z2) Reports of two men fighting turn into reports of two men fighting then one man shot.

What I see a lot of people doing is filling in the blanks between A1 and Z1 as well as the blanks between A2 and Z2 and somehow knowing Zimmerman's intentions. Unfortunately because Trayvon is dead, there is only one version being told, which doesn't make it true but it doesn't automatically make it false, either. I see a lot of discarding the story from the only living participant and the only eye witness, close enough to make a positive identification in place of emotionally charged, ear witnesses and family member's accounts, who weren't there to see any of it go down. I simply don't know when, "I know it wasn't Trayvon because my son just wouldn't do that," became a valid argument.

 

[Information Analyst]

But from the street layout, Zimmerman had only a possible 3-4 seconds before he drove past on his errand. It would have been even less time before Zimmerman brought his truck to a stop, What could Martin have possibly been doing to give Zimmerman an almost instantaneous "reasonable suspicioun of Trayvon"? (other than being "black and wearing a hoodie")

When does "hooded person on foot" become profiling?

OTOH it is quite reasonable for a truck stopping suddenly for no apparent reason and the driver observing you silently to set off alarm bells.

Given that Zimmerman was leaving the development just as Martin was returning to it, both by almost completely different routes, one unanswered question is exactly where where they when Zimmerman first noticed Martin. Given where Zimmerman's truck seems to have ended up, it was most likely on the crossing in front of the clubhouse, but yes, Zimmerman would have had to make a really quick decision that a) he did not recognise Martin, and b) Martin was behaving "suspiciously."

 

[Giz]

I see a lot of presumptions from someone who's never actually been in the development, has no idea what the range of visibility was, and where GZ was standing when he claims to have lost sight of Trayvon.

My belief is not in Zimmerman's word. As a matter of fact, I have no belief in any of this. I will explain to you exactly how I see the situation and keep all emotion out of it.

Zimmerman sees a kid he claims is looking suspicious. He calls 911 to give a description and reports everything he sees Trayvon doing. Trayvon, after about a minute, starts walking away. George gets out of the truck to follow him. The dispatcher askes George if he is following him. George says that he is. The dispatcher tells George that they don't need him to do that. George says okay. The dispatcher gets a little bit more information from him, on his location then gets his cell phone number. George gives directions to where they will find his truck. The dispatcher asks George for his address and George starts to give it, then says that he doesn't want to say it out loud because he doesn't know where he is. First he is going to meet with the officer at the mailbox, then asks if the officer can just call his cell when he arrives. They agree, the call ends and then (A1) _____________________ _____________________________________________________________(Z2)
People begin calling in about a fight. One witness reports seeing the two men struggle and one screaming for help. He goes inside to call the police and then (A2)____________________________________________________(Z2) Reports of two men fighting turn into reports of two men fighting then one man shot.

What I see a lot of people doing is filling in the blanks between A1 and Z1 as well as the blanks between A2 and Z2 and somehow knowing Zimmerman's intentions. Unfortunately because Trayvon is dead, there is only one version being told, which doesn't make it true but it doesn't automatically make it false, either. I see a lot of discarding the story from the only living participant and the only eye witness, close enough to make a positive identification in place of emotionally charged, ear witnesses and family member's accounts, who weren't there to see any of it go down. I simply don't know when, "I know it wasn't Trayvon because my son just wouldn't do that," became a valid argument.

I agree with this. (Hopefully the police have some solid data that isn't yet public domain.)

 

[sgtbaker]

It's the parent's direct testimony they were not told of their son's death for 3 days. I'll have to look into this.

The media got something wrong? I, for one, am shocked.

 

[Information Analyst]

I see a lot of presumptions from someone who's never actually been in the development, has no idea what the range of visibility was, and where GZ was standing when he claims to have lost sight of Trayvon.

That's rather disingenuous, given that aerial views of the whole development have been posted numerous times already. That on top of the fact that it's clear Zimmerman was still in his vehicle when Martin "ran," almost certainly into the cut-through.

My belief is not in Zimmerman's word. As a matter of fact, I have no belief in any of this. I will explain to you exactly how I see the situation and keep all emotion out of it.

Zimmerman sees a kid he claims is looking suspicious. He calls 911 to give a description and reports everything he sees Trayvon doing. Trayvon, after about a minute, starts walking away. George gets out of the truck to follow him. The dispatcher askes George if he is following him. George says that he is. The dispatcher tells George that they don't need him to do that. George says okay. The dispatcher gets a little bit more information from him, on his location then gets his cell phone number. George gives directions to where they will find his truck. The dispatcher asks George for his address and George starts to give it, then says that he doesn't want to say it out loud because he doesn't know where he is. First he is going to meet with the officer at the mailbox, then asks if the officer can just call his cell when he arrives. They agree, the call ends and then (A1) _____________________ _____________________________________________________________(Z2)
People begin calling in about a fight. One witness reports seeing the two men struggle and one screaming for help. He goes inside to call the police and then (A2)____________________________________________________(Z2) Reports of two men fighting turn into reports of two men fighting then one man shot.

What I see a lot of people doing is filling in the blanks between A1 and Z1 as well as the blanks between A2 and Z2 and somehow knowing Zimmerman's intentions. Unfortunately because Trayvon is dead, there is only one version being told, which doesn't make it true but it doesn't automatically make it false, either. I see a lot of discarding the story from the only living participant and the only eye witness, close enough to make a positive identification in place of emotionally charged, ear witnesses and family member's accounts, who weren't there to see any of it go down. I simply don't know when, "I know it wasn't Trayvon because my son just wouldn't do that," became a valid argument.

There is a lot of indisputable evidence already available. The recoridn go Zimmerman's call is one of them; the plan of the local geography is another. It isn't particularly hard to test the most subjective evidence against them and ask where it "works" or not. I outlined one possible scenario a few pages back in which pretty much everything fits upto and including the Martin/girlfriend call, and Zimmerman running into Martin again when returning to his truck. The only deviation is the claim that he was accosted "from behind," and subsequent claims about what Martin did to him that don't seem likely for a host of reasons.

I might be completely wrong, but I would be very surprised is the same scenario hasn't occured to people whose job is to actually work out things like this.

 

[sgtbaker]

That's rather disingenuous, given that aerial views of the whole development have been posted numerous times already. That on top of the fact that it's clear Zimmerman was still in his vehicle when Martin "ran," almost certainly into the cut-through.

Yes, and even with all of the maps, has anyone figured out exactly where Zimmerman was when he saw Martin? Where he was when he said to the dispatcher, "I don't know where he is..." Does anyone know how dark it is, between the rows of houses, when it's raining and the moon is covered?

There is a lot of indisputable evidence already available. The recoridn go Zimmerman's call is one of them; the plan of the local geography is another. It isn't particularly hard to test the most subjective evidence against them and ask where it "works" or not. I outlined one possible scenario a few pages back in which pretty much everything fits upto and including the Martin/girlfriend call, and Zimmerman running into Martin again when returning to his truck. The only deviation is the claim that he was accosted "from behind," and subsequent claims about what Martin did to him that don't seem likely for a host of reasons.

I might be completely wrong, but I would be very surprised is the same scenario hasn't occured to people whose job is to actually work out things like this.

Thanks, you could have skipped that entire post and just put that. We all could be completely wrong.

 

[johnny karate]

The only fact we have about that confrontation is that we don't know who approached who.

This is a bit disingenuous. We know Zimmerman was the one who pursued Martin with a gun. It wasn't Zimmerman sitting in his truck with Martin coming up to him.

Zimmerman approached Martin. And whatever may have happened during the altercation, it was Zimmerman's actions beforehand that were the catalyst.

 

[Moss]

This is a bit disingenuous. We know Zimmerman was the one who pursued Martin with a gun, and in a rather agitated state. It wasn't Zimmerman sitting in his truck with Martin coming up to him.

Zimmerman approached Martin. And whatever may have happened during the altercation, it was Zimmerman's actions beforehand that were the catalyst.

The problem is that we are missing information about that critical phase of their encounter.
While I'm not sure if Zimmerman is telling the truth about that he went back towards his car and while he might have a motive to lie about there just isn't anything really outstanding and obvious to contradict his claim. He might lie, but then again he might be telling the truth. His claim could be the same either way, barring any outside information tilting this in either direction I don't think we can make a reasonable claim to know which of those scenarios is true.

That being said: I'm quite aware that I am actually biased against Zimmerman on gut instinct. Because he was armed. Because he seemed to display a bias in profiling Martin. Because he seemed to have pursued him on that bias. The question is: how much of that is consistent with what is being reported. (With the added caveat of the reporting being full of spin depending on which particular side the publication favors.) My gut tells me he is guilty somehow. My more rational part is on the fence and wrangling with that bias. Because I feel the danger of going entirely in the other direction. On not particularly rational grounds either. This is a bit of a curious sensation.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

But there's another problem - according to police, his supposed reason for leaving his truck was to look for a street sign. How on earth did he then ends up in a glorified alleyway?

And that's not to mention the 911 tape where he states that he's following Martin...

You never answered my earlier questions about the 911 calls, and about the street signs :

In regards to crying for help .... what is it they agree on ? What is it they disagree on ?

We have a leaked police report which have some of GZs statements to the police. What is contradicted by his call ? As far as the bolded part about street signs, can you link to where you got that ?

I thought most of these things had been covered fairly thoroughly already.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I see a lot of presumptions from someone who's never actually been in the development, has no idea what the range of visibility was, and where GZ was standing when he claims to have lost sight of Trayvon.

My belief is not in Zimmerman's word. As a matter of fact, I have no belief in any of this. I will explain to you exactly how I see the situation and keep all emotion out of it.

Zimmerman sees a kid he claims is looking suspicious. He calls 911 to give a description and reports everything he sees Trayvon doing. Trayvon, after about a minute, starts walking away. George gets out of the truck to follow him. The dispatcher askes George if he is following him. George says that he is. The dispatcher tells George that they don't need him to do that. George says okay. The dispatcher gets a little bit more information from him, on his location then gets his cell phone number. George gives directions to where they will find his truck. The dispatcher asks George for his address and George starts to give it, then says that he doesn't want to say it out loud because he doesn't know where he is. First he is going to meet with the officer at the mailbox, then asks if the officer can just call his cell when he arrives. They agree, the call ends and then (A1) _____________________ _____________________________________________________________(Z2)
People begin calling in about a fight. One witness reports seeing the two men struggle and one screaming for help. He goes inside to call the police and then (A2)____________________________________________________(Z2) Reports of two men fighting turn into reports of two men fighting then one man shot.

What I see a lot of people doing is filling in the blanks between A1 and Z1 as well as the blanks between A2 and Z2 and somehow knowing Zimmerman's intentions. Unfortunately because Trayvon is dead, there is only one version being told, which doesn't make it true but it doesn't automatically make it false, either. I see a lot of discarding the story from the only living participant and the only eye witness, close enough to make a positive identification in place of emotionally charged, ear witnesses and family member's accounts, who weren't there to see any of it go down. I simply don't know when, "I know it wasn't Trayvon because my son just wouldn't do that," became a valid argument.

I agree with all this. Thanks for a good post.

I keep waiting for evidence or witness statements to come to light that clearly contradict Gzs story.

We know the timeline was very short, and he didn't have hours to plan his responses to the police, fiddle with evidence, etc. In fact, the police were there almost immediately.

And despite all that, nothing we have been privy to clearly contradicts his story. The GF phone call possibly disputes the words exchanged ... other than that ??

 

[sgtbaker]

The problem is that we are missing information about that critical phase of their encounter.
While I'm not sure if Zimmerman is telling the truth about that he went back towards his car and while he might have a motive to lie about there just isn't anything really outstanding and obvious to contradict his claim. He might lie, but then again he might be telling the truth. His claim could be the same either way, barring any outside information tilting this in either direction I don't think we can make a reasonable claim to know which of those scenarios is true.

That being said: I'm quite aware that I am actually biased against Zimmerman on gut instinct. Because he was armed. Because he seemed to display a bias in profiling Martin. Because he seemed to have pursued him on that bias. The question is: how much of that is consistent with what is being reported. (With the added caveat of the reporting being full of spin depending on which particular side the publication favors.) My gut tells me he is guilty somehow. My more rational part is on the fence and wrangling with that bias. Because I feel the danger of going entirely in the other direction. On not particularly rational grounds either. This is a bit of a curious sensation.

This is it. Worded beautifully! The mere fact that the defining moments are absent of any confirmation is what keeps me reserving my judgement.

 

[johnny karate]

The problem is that we are missing information about that critical phase of their encounter.
While I'm not sure if Zimmerman is telling the truth about that he went back towards his car and while he might have a motive to lie about there just isn't anything really outstanding and obvious to contradict his claim. He might lie, but then again he might be telling the truth. His claim could be the same either way, barring any outside information tilting this in either direction I don't think we can make a reasonable claim to know which of those scenarios is true.

Yes, Zimmerman's account is either true or false. But I don't see how we can give equal weight to his version of events. Why should we? He killed someone and is now trying to avoid a murder conviction. Everything he is says is automatically suspect unless it can be verified by an independent source.

That being said, that are three data points that we know for certain:

Zimmerman pursued Martin with a gun.

They fought.

Zimmerman killed Martin.

Regarding the actual altercation, the unknown variable is in how it began. We don't know. And we may never know. But given the information we have, we can believe it was either initiated by the overzealous guy who was exhibiting reckless and irresponsible behavior, or the kid who was walking home and minding his own business, who eventually ended up murdered.

 

[johnny karate]

This is it. Worded beautifully! The mere fact that the defining moments are absent of any confirmation is what keeps me reserving my judgement.

Why do you not consider Zimmerman getting out of his truck with a gun and pursuing Martin to be a "defining moment"?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

That's rather disingenuous, given that aerial views of the whole development have been posted numerous times already. That on top of the fact that it's clear Zimmerman was still in his vehicle when Martin "ran," almost certainly into the cut-through.


There is a lot of indisputable evidence already available. The recoridn go Zimmerman's call is one of them; the plan of the local geography is another. It isn't particularly hard to test the most subjective evidence against them and ask where it "works" or not. I outlined one possible scenario a few pages back in which pretty much everything fits upto and including the Martin/girlfriend call, and Zimmerman running into Martin again when returning to his truck. The only deviation is the claim that he was accosted "from behind," and subsequent claims about what Martin did to him that don't seem likely for a host of reasons.

The difference between seeing it on a map and actually being on the ground MAY make a big difference. You did come up with a good timeline ... but we really still don't know where the car was, how long he sat in his car to watch TM, where TM was ... many of those things are still very much speculation on our parts, but facts the SPD and involved parties actually have already.

I might be completely wrong, but I would be very surprised is the same scenario hasn't occured to people whose job is to actually work out things like this.

And yet those same people with extra facts and whose job it is still haven't charged him.

 

[johnny karate]

And despite all that, nothing we have been privy to clearly contradicts his story.

Why do you feel the evidence must contradict Zimmerman's story to prove it false, as opposed to requiring the evidence to substantiate his story to prove it true?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Why do you feel the evidence must contradict Zimmerman's story to prove it false, as opposed to requiring the evidence to substantiate his story to prove it true?

Probably the culture of "innocent until proven guilty" that pervades the mind of many fair-minded people.

 

[Moss]

Yes, Zimmerman's account is either true or false. But I don't see how we can give equal weight to his version of events. Why should we? He killed someone and is now trying to avoid a murder conviction. Everything he is says is automatically suspect unless it can be verified by an independent source.

That being said, that are three data points that we know for certain:

Zimmerman pursued Martin with a gun.

They fought.

Zimmerman killed Martin.

Regarding the actual altercation, the unknown variable is in how it began. We don't know. And we may never know. But given the information we have, we can believe it was either initiated by the overzealous guy who was exhibiting reckless and irresponsible behavior, or the kid who was walking home and minding his own business, who eventually ended up murdered.

Let me try to rephrase it: if he were actually innocent, but there is no eyewitness like it is the case now, how would he be able to prove that he actually is innocent if we begin our assessment with the assumption that he has a motive to lie and that therefore what he says is suspect?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

...
That being said, that are three data points that we know for certain:

Zimmerman pursued Martin with a gun.
...

I'm curious - if GZ carried his gun all the time - Like going to the store, etc - does that change anything in your mind ?

IOW, would the fact that GZ went everywhere armed make his actions any less egregious than if he had specifically run home to grab his gun before coming back to follow TM ?