Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Dan O.]

From what i've read, there was a main gate, similar to what you'd see at some of the higher end gated communities in Viera, like Summer Lakes, Wyndham, etc.

But, there was a well known unsecured pedestrian entrance at some point, but where it is exactly, I don't know.

Visible in Google Maps, the whole corner behind Zimmerman's building appears to be missing the perimeter fence. The adjoining property is the open space around the lake.

 

[KatieG]

I don't mean to patronize so if I come across that way then please to forgive me.

• In America a defendant is presumed innocent.
• For legal purposes I believe that until the case is adjudicated Zimmerman is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (though I hold the position that he is likely guilty).
• The state (prosecution) must demonstrate guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
• I don't believe that Zimmerman is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for a number of reasons.
• As it relates to the issue at hand, I don't know enough about the technology and have not seen it explained in court, nor have I seen the expert testify or be cross examined, nor have I seen a challenge to the technology by the defense. That's reasonable doubt.

• The screams on the tape could be from Zimmerman.
• Zimmerman could be telling the truth and acted in self defense
• I hold by the preponderance of the evidence standard that the screams are not Zimmerman's.
• I don't hold that position beyond a reasonable doubt.

Thank you for your response. Wasn't patronizing at all. I believe in innocent until proven guilty. I am regularly horrified by the new evidence in many cases that fly in the face of that.

In this case, I am unable to critically examine any evidence that implies this was truly a case of self defense. I do not under any circumstances believe GZ was in fear for his life. So, I won't be serving on that jury, and to me, that's a good thing. If I can't be rational, I can't make an informed judgement.

I've read thru this thread because I want to be more informed. I want something or someone to convince me this man did not shoot this young man in cold blood. Perhaps that's a fool's errand. So be it.

 

[RandFan]

Thank you for your response. Wasn't patronizing at all. I believe in innocent until proven guilty. I am regularly horrified by the new evidence in many cases that fly in the face of that.

In this case, I am unable to critically examine any evidence that implies this was truly a case of self defense. I do not under any circumstances believe GZ was in fear for his life. So, I won't be serving on that jury, and to me, that's a good thing. If I can't be rational, I can't make an informed judgement.

I've read thru this thread because I want to be more informed. I want something or someone to convince me this man did not shoot this young man in cold blood. Perhaps that's a fool's errand. So be it.

I'm fine with that. In America you are allowed to form an opinion and you are allowed to share that opinion. You are right about that likely excluding you from a jury but it's still your right.

BTW: I've talked to one person who told the judge during selection that he was certain the defendant was guilty. The judge asked him if he could weigh the evidence objectively. He said yes. The defense didn't challenge (or they were out of challenges I don't remember) and he was put on the jury. Defendant changed his plea before the trial started.

 

[crimresearch]

Thank you for your response. Wasn't patronizing at all. I believe in innocent until proven guilty. I am regularly horrified by the new evidence in many cases that fly in the face of that.

In this case, I am unable to critically examine any evidence that implies this was truly a case of self defense. I do not under any circumstances believe GZ was in fear for his life. So, I won't be serving on that jury, and to me, that's a good thing. If I can't be rational, I can't make an informed judgement.

I've read thru this thread because I want to be more informed. I want something or someone to convince me this man did not shoot this young man in cold blood. Perhaps that's a fool's errand. So be it.

And where would the evidence that could convince you come from?

Out of all the possible scenarios, I can think of hypothetical possibilities that could satisfy the self defense claim.

I don't particulary believe them likely to be what happened, based on the evidence right now... but they are no more impossible than other theories going around right now using the same lack of information.

As I said earlier, all anybody has at this point is a collection of puzzle pieces.

Many people are bending and twisting the shapes to try to get them to form a complete picture, but the people who are simply assessing what does and doesn't match, have no such picture.

 

[tyr_13]

What you are happy with is irrelevant. Lots of people are not happy with DNA evidence. What they are happy with is not relevant. Can you at least acknowledge that much? It's not up to you and I. It's up to the courts who rely on expert testimony. No one is arguing that GZ shouldn't be able to challenge the evidence. He has every right. For all I know this evidence won't even be allowed in. So your argument is pointless.

• Not you.
• Not me.
• Not the public.
• The courts decide who is an expert and what evidence is allowed in.
• If allowed in the defense has an opportunity to challenge.

I accept the evidence of the experts provisionally for preponderance of evidence standards. That's all. You are making this into something it's not.

No RandFan, you are making this into something it is not. My criticisms and skepticism of the voice analysis is NOT dismissing it, and not saying it shouldn't be presented in trial. In fact you know this because after my first comment on it you explicitly agreed with me. You're taking my phrase, 'happy with' out of context. I never suggested that the experts or courts ask me what I'm happy with. I never suggested you were arguing against Zimmerman's defense questioning the evidence if it gets presented.

Nothing you've said addresses my criticism at all. The applicability of these new method and expanded parameters could be falsified by analysis against Martin and the result coming back as ruling out Martin. If it came back as inconclusive or as Martin, it would be consistent with the other results being applicable. Falsification is a hurdle in science. This is not a criticism against voice biometrics being used ever.

 

[RandFan]

No RandFan, you are making this into something it is not.

No.

If it came back as inconclusive or as Martin, it would be consistent with the other results being applicable. Falsification is a hurdle in science. This is not a criticism against voice biometrics being used ever.

And what you are asking is not always possible. If objective science can exclude Zimmerman to some degree of certainty it makes not a wit of difference as to Martin. I get that is a stumbling block in your head but science doesn't work as you suppose. So I'm sorry, I cannot agree with you as it's not reasonable. Sure it would be nice to be able to test Martin, but we don't have that luxury. And in fact that happens all of the time in science. Your bar is simply unreasonable if, and I say "if" objectively it can be demonstrated that Zimmerman can be reasonably excluded. There is no absolute need to test Martin.

 

[johnny karate]

Define wound dressing.

The standard definition will do.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Visible in Google Maps, the whole corner behind Zimmerman's building appears to be missing the perimeter fence. The adjoining property is the open space around the lake.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...eading-to-the-shooting-of-trayvon-martin.html

Trayvon Returns to the Retreat at Twin Lakes Trayvon may have entered the gated community either through a pedestrian gate at the front entrance or through an unfenced section often used by residents as a shortcut.

If you go to the third 'bullet point' it shows in the lower right corner it shows the map associated with the above bullet point.

It seems GZ may have encountered TM earlier than I thought, at least.

 

[Dan O.]

Most security gates only stop cars. Anyone on foot can walk around them. GZ made no comment he saw TM enter the complex. Perhaps someone can correct me if that is wrong.

There is a separate gate for pedestrians and it appears to have a locking mechanism. However, in both the Google maps and street view the main gate is open (the back gate is closed in both).

Btw, did anyone check the security camera footage from the 3 or 4 cameras at the front gate?

This is completely inconsistent with TM's girlfriend's testimony corroborated by the phone records. And you are assuming GZ wasn't close behind GZ or considering maybe TM merely stopped to ask GZ why he was following him when he saw GZ pursued TM around the corner between the condos.

Maybe you didn't read what I said correctly. I presented two scenarios that are contradicted by the evidence leaving only the third scenario where Trayvon must be hiding in the shadows while George passes. They meet later when Trayvon resumes his journey home.


As for lighting, a survey of the village through Google Maps reveals that they light the path with short posts no more than waist high at some of the corners. The lighting would be designed so that the light only illuminated the path near the post but you would then be able to see of someone was on the path in front of you because they would contrast with the illuminated background. There is one such post on the curve of the path where it enters the cut-through and another at the "T" with the path that goes between the rows of condos.

 

[tyr_13]

No.

You certainly listed a lot of things about my criticism that weren't true for that.[/QUOTE]

And what you are asking is not always possible. If objective science can exclude Zimmerman to some degree of certainty it makes not a wit of difference as to Martin.

That's simply untrue. Testing that degree of certainty and the expanded parameters of voice biometrics is exactly what comparing to Martin is about. Not that it isn't the only way to test that either.

I get that is a stumbling block in your head but science doesn't work as you suppose.

It most certainly does. It's simply attempting to falsify a hypothesis. That's one of the most basic ways science works.

So I'm sorry, I cannot agree with you as it's not reasonable. Sure it would be nice to be able to test Martin, but we don't have that luxury.

Why? Are there no recordings of Martin's voice?

And in fact that happens all of the time in science. Your bar is simply unreasonable if, and I say "if" objectively it can be demonstrated that Zimmerman can be reasonably excluded. There is no absolute need to test Martin.

Testing that 'if' is why it could be useful to test Martin.

 

[RandFan]

Not that it isn't the only way to test that either.

That's it. That's all I'm saying.

It most certainly does. It's simply attempting to falsify a hypothesis. That's one of the most basic ways science works.

We are not communicating. I don't deny this. I only claim it's unnecessary (see above). You and I have been talking past each other. I apologize for my contribution to that.

Why? Are there no recordings of Martin's voice?

Testing that 'if' is why it could be useful to test Martin.

This sub thread was started because someone claimed that since Martin was dead it was not possible to objectively test.

 

[KatieG]

And where would the evidence that could convince you come from?

Out of all the possible scenarios, I can think of hypothetical possibilities that could satisfy the self defense claim.

I don't particulary believe them likely to be what happened, based on the evidence right now... but they are no more impossible than other theories going around right now using the same lack of information.

As I said earlier, all anybody has at this point is a collection of puzzle pieces.

Many people are bending and twisting the shapes to try to get them to form a complete picture, but the people who are simply assessing what does and doesn't match, have no such picture.

There is no picture and no one has all the pieces. I'd like to see some facts out there but I don't want this to be trial by internet. I think there are some very serious legal issues with the SYG law and this case might a major factor in redefining these laws.

If GZ's case prevails and he doesn't go to trial, there's the answer. I'm only saying that for me, that's not the answer I want. If I'm wrong, only the people here will ever know that, most probably won't care.

 

[crimresearch]

There is no picture and no one has all the pieces. I'd like to see some facts out there but I don't want this to be trial by internet. I think there are some very serious legal issues with the SYG law and this case might a major factor in redefining these laws.

If GZ's case prevails and he doesn't go to trial, there's the answer. I'm only saying that for me, that's not the answer I want. If I'm wrong, only the people here will ever know that, most probably won't care.

What does this case have to do with SYG laws?

 

[tyr_13]

That's it. That's all I'm saying.

We are communicating. I don't deny this. I only claim it's unnecessary (see above). You and I have been talking past each other. I apologize for my contribution to that.

This sub thread was started because someone claimed that since Martin was dead it was not possible to objectively test.

I suspected that this might be the case. I'm sorry I wasn't more clear as well.

 

[KatieG]

What does this case have to do with SYG laws?

Isn't that what's being tossed out into the mix on this case? I didn't sleep thru every page I've read here.

 

[crimresearch]

Isn't that what's being tossed out into the mix on this case? I didn't sleep thru every page I've read here.

Zimmerman's alleged claim of being in fear for his life because the victim grabbed his gun while they were on the ground, falls under the regular old self defense statutes, which the media apparently found not as newsworthy as an SYG controversy.

 

[leftysergeant]

As for lighting, a survey of the village through Google Maps reveals that they light the path with short posts no more than waist high at some of the corners. The lighting would be designed so that the light only illuminated the path near the post but you would then be able to see of someone was on the path in front of you because they would contrast with the illuminated background. There is one such post on the curve of the path where it enters the cut-through and another at the "T" with the path that goes between the rows of condos.

this makes it unlikely that Z followed Martin down the same route that Martin took to evade him down between rows of condos and then lost track of him. There would not really be that many places to hide.

It woud be consistant with Z's having headed him off and then walked back to where he had last seen Martin, leading Martin to believe that he was not going to be able to evade the hostile lunatic.

 

[leftysergeant]

Zimmerman's alleged claim of being in fear for his life because the victim grabbed his gun while they were on the ground, falls under the regular old self defense statutes, which the media apparently found not as newsworthy as an SYG controversy.

It really would support a case that Martin was fighting for his life after a ranting lunatic cornered him. This is, conversely, not supportive of self-defense, because it shows provocation on Z's part.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It really would support a case that Martin was fighting for his life after a ranting lunatic cornered him. This is, conversely, not supportive of self-defense, because it shows provocation on Z's part.

Much as I try not to be as unobjective as you sometimes are, it's hard to get away from this point.

No matter how you cut the cake, if TM was indeed perceived as a threat in GZ's eyes, how do you square that with, why wouldn't TM fight back? Anyone in TM's shoes would rightfully have seen GZ as threatening.

 

[KatieG]

Zimmerman's alleged claim of being in fear for his life because the victim grabbed his gun while they were on the ground, falls under the regular old self defense statutes, which the media apparently found not as newsworthy as an SYG controversy.

Thanks for the clarification. Never too old to be corrected. And yes, this case is being tried in the media, as always. Sound bites are more important than facts, I suppose.