Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Checkmite]

I think many people (myself included) are getting swept away by their emotions.

Nonsense. I am in control of my emotions.

Here's a video I just made of me being perfectly in control of my emotions:

 

[crimresearch]

I was speaking strictly in terms of personal belief.

Zimmerman admits to killing Martin.

Zimmerman claims it was in self-defense.

That is a positive claim that requires substantiation.

My logic is sound.

Ample substantation has been provided. 'I was attacked, injured, and reasonably believed that my life was in danger when he grabbed my weapon' is substantiation almost verbatim from the law on self defense.
All he needs to do is assert something that matches the elements for self defense to the available facts.

If you want to exclude that middle and jump to *your* claim that he needs to prove a negative (namely that it didn't happen the way you or anyone else 'suspects' it happened), those are logical fallacies until we have more facts.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Zimmerman acted in contradiction to what the police dispatcher advised him, and in violation of the rules of the neighborhood watch program with which he claims to be affiliated.

That didn't really answer my question. I'm also not sure its completely accurate or relevant.

 

[leftysergeant]

Ample substantation has been provided. 'I was attacked, injured, and reasonably believed that my life was in danger when he grabbed my weapon' is substantiation almost verbatim from the law on self defense.
All he needs to do is assert something that matches the elements for self defense to the available facts.

He was not acting in a rational manner. Self-defense requires that the person using such a defense be rational.

 

[leftysergeant]

That didn't really answer my question. I'm also not sure its completely accurate or relevant.

One hundred percent accurate. We have the tapes that shgow him blowing off the dispatcher whop told him to stop following Martin.



The Neighborhood Watch rules forbid his following or chasing people while armed, having not seen an actual felony in progress.

 

[crimresearch]

He was not acting in a rational manner. Self-defense requires that the person using such a defense be rational.

Requires 'fear for your life' to behave rationally?


I'll add that to the list of legal 'facts' that we are still waiting for you to back up with cites.

 

[Peephole]

I think many people (myself included) are getting swept away by their emotions. I know that I'm angry about Trayvon, because I have a young nephew whom I care about deeply. One thing we need to recognize, is the system is working. Zimmerman is going to have his day in court.

But isn't that primarily because this case was brought to light?

 

[johnny karate]

Ample substantation has been provided. 'I was attacked, injured, and reasonably believed that my life was in danger when he grabbed my weapon' is substantiation almost verbatim from the law on self defense.
All he needs to do is assert something that matches the elements for self defense to the available facts.

Try to follow along here:

I was speaking strictly in terms of personal belief.

If you want to exclude that middle and jump to *your* claim that he needs to prove a negative (namely that it didn't happen the way you or anyone else 'suspects' it happened), those are logical fallacies until we have more facts.

So we can take any positive claim and make it a negative by asserting the opposite?

This is excellent news for all the people who believe in Bigfoot. I guess science had better get cracking on proving Bigfoot doesn't exist.

 

[johnny karate]

That didn't really answer my question.

My claim was merely that Zimmerman behaved recklessly and irresponsibly. You are the one who tried to frame it in terms of gun laws and training.

As I never asserted his recklessness and irresponsibility had anything to do with gun laws or training, I have no obligation to defend that position.

I'm also not sure its completely accurate or relevant.

Feel free to elaborate.

 

[Dancing David]

I hope it happens that way. Because anything else leaves a lot more doubt.
I freely admit that I got carried away on the "how do you prove your innocence in self defense" tangent. Sorry about that. I lost sight of what else is there because I went from just what is reported. Which is assuredly less than what LE and the prosecution has.

No problem, this is very scary.

 

[sgtbaker]

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

Because we don't know exactly what happened after that. What we do know is that he got out of his truck. Even if he did get out of the truck with the specific intent to hunt down and detain Martin till the cops got there (which I think is actually a crime) but instead chose to go back to the truck and Trayvon confronted him, he [Zimmerman] was no longer following him, no longer a threat, and no longer the aggressor.

If he chose not to go back to the truck and instead went in search of Martin, found him, and initiated the confrontation, he is guilty as sin.

No laws are actually broken until the confrontation occurs. The problem is, the only witness to the time that could define who actually broke the law is also the only survivor. I understand doubting, I don't understand assuming.

 

[Dancing David]

But isn't that primarily because this case was brought to light?

No, it isn't. I became aware of the case two days before I started this thread. At that time there was still an ongoing investigation by the SPD, and GZ was unarrested. At some point shortly thereafter the lead homicide investigator recommended GZ be arrested for manslaughter. The SPD along with the SAs office declined to press that charge, with the case later being closed for investigation and turned over to the SA's office.

Meanwhile the story went viral and controversial.

What we know this regards the arrest of GZ

-the lead investigator recommended arrest
-the SA's office and the higher ups in the SPD declined to arrest on that recommendation
-the case was turned over to the SA's office, they said within two days they would convene a grand jury in this case

Now things happened in spite of the outcry, however the Federal investigation and the new SA appointed in this case are a result of the outcry.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

And I see some confirmation bias by you trying to stick to your original position that GZ could be telling the truth that he was returning to his SUV, unaware of where TM was when TM approached GZ from behind.

It's clear from the arial view and the two walk throughs I've now seen, one on Youtube and one on the news that this is a straight sidewalk with two rows of condos on each side, almost no bushes or trees, about 25 feet (as measured on the Google map) from the sidewalk to the backs of the condos on each side. From the site of the shooting there is no place that a person would be not visible. You are in denial to claim one cannot say that.

... 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.

You left out the girlfriend's call which the time it occurred compared to the time of the shooting is recorded evidence. There are only a couple minutes between the end of the call and the shooting. This is completely consistent with what the girlfriend heard on the phone and inconsistent with what GZ claims happened.

 

[johnny karate]

Because we don't know exactly what happened after that. What we do know is that he got out of his truck. Even if he did get out of the truck with the specific intent to hunt down and detain Martin till the cops got there (which I think is actually a crime) but instead chose to go back to the truck and Trayvon confronted him, he [Zimmerman] was no longer following him, no longer a threat, and no longer the aggressor.

If he chose not to go back to the truck and instead went in search of Martin, found him, and initiated the confrontation, he is guilty as sin.

No laws are actually broken until the confrontation occurs. The problem is, the only witness to the time that could define who actually broke the law is also the only survivor. I understand doubting, I don't understand assuming.

So that fact that before the altercation, Martin was minding his own business while walking home from the store and Zimmerman was following him around with a gun means nothing?

When determining the validity of Zimmerman's self-defense claim, we disregard his reckless and irresponsible actions that set the whole thing in motion, and just treat him like he was also minding his own business?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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..."

Why is any of that relevant? It's only the final altercation that is relevant.

Does anyone know how dark it is, between the rows of houses, when it's raining and the moon is covered?

March 19th in Sanford FL:

Sunset: 7:36pm
Twi: 7:59pm

The Sun had not set at the time of the shooting.

 

[RandFan]

Because we don't know exactly what happened after that. What we do know is that he got out of his truck. Even if he did get out of the truck with the specific intent to hunt down and detain Martin till the cops got there (which I think is actually a crime) but instead chose to go back to the truck and Trayvon confronted him, he [Zimmerman] was no longer following him, no longer a threat, and no longer the aggressor.

If he chose not to go back to the truck and instead went in search of Martin, found him, and initiated the confrontation, he is guilty as sin.

No laws are actually broken until the confrontation occurs. The problem is, the only witness to the time that could define who actually broke the law is also the only survivor. I understand doubting, I don't understand assuming.

I agree with this.

 

[RandFan]

So that fact that before the altercation, Martin was minding his own business while walking home from the store and Zimmerman was following him around with a gun means nothing?

When determining the validity of Zimmerman's self-defense claim, we disregard his reckless and irresponsible actions that set the whole thing in motion, and just treat him like he was also minding his own business?

I can't speak for him but I don't think that is his point.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

While people don't like the idea some of us are drawing conclusions before a trial, I would like to comment. On the one hand there may be a legal definition of guilt here, and the FL laws may or may not allow a conviction.

But as far as guilt goes, the evidence is more than sufficient to say that GZ was needlessly reckless and TM died because of it, not because TM initiated a fight even if he did.

That's manslaughter by many people's definitions.

 

[RandFan]

While people don't like the idea some of us are drawing conclusions before a trial, I would like to comment. On the one hand there may be a legal definition of guilt here, and the FL laws may or may not allow a conviction.

But as far as guilt goes, the evidence is more than sufficient to say that GZ was needlessly reckless and TM died because of it, not because TM initiated a fight even if he did.

That's manslaughter by many people's definitions.

That is what I have argued. I'm not as sure that GZ acted contrary to the dispatchers admonition. But I think he did and if he did I think it is manslaughter.

 

[crimresearch]

So that fact that before the altercation, Martin was minding his own business while walking home from the store and Zimmerman was following him around with a gun means nothing?

When determining the validity of Zimmerman's self-defense claim, we disregard his reckless and irresponsible actions that set the whole thing in motion, and just treat him like he was also minding his own business?

No, they just have far less weight than you seem to feel that they do.

If the prosecutor wants to attack Zimmerman's credibility on the core 'fear for my life' premise, they'll have to play within the rules.

A pattern of violent encounters, questions about 'why did you say he was on drugs?', or 'why did you think you had to take it upon yourself?''and so forth add up to *cast doubt*, and the jury can take them however they like.

They aren't the 'gotcha' game changing proof that a lot of folks seem to think.