Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[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.

And the prosecutor should have at least convened some sort of hearting to determine that it was, indeed, self-defense, and that there was no evidence to suggest otherwise.

He didn't even wait until they had heard and assessed the girl friend's description of what she heard on the phone as Z was assaulting Martin. Slovenly. He needs a new job. There will be one opening up in December when I turn 66 and hang up my mop for good.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

It really would support a case that Martin was fighting for his life after a ranting lunatic cornered him.

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.

"Why wouldn't he fight back"? That statement is already starting with all sorts of assumptions that we don't have the necessary information to make.

One might just as easily ask why would he fight back? If someone aggressively approaches you and asks "what are you doing here"*, I'd suspect the way the majority of people would react would be to say "I'm walking home" and to try to remove themselves from the conflict.

I agree it's possible that TM thought he was being stalked/attacked, and attacked because of it, or GZ might have gotten aggressive physically and TM defended himself, it's even possible that TM lost his temper and attacked as GZ claims, unaware that he was armed. But those are all assumptions.

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.

^^^ This ^^^ Anyone who is convinced otherwise is starting with false assumptions and then making everything else fit those assumptions. For instance, it's really easy to listen to the 911 call and create a picture of GZ, and then make the rest of the encounter match that impression.

*I am not asserting that is what happened, simply using it as an example since that's what TM's girlfriend says she heard.

 

[RandFan]

I agree it's possible that TM thought he was being stalked/attacked, and attacked because of it, or GZ might have gotten aggressive physically and he defended himself, it's even possible that TM lost his temper and attacked as GZ claims, unaware that he was armed. But those are all assumptions.

Given that GZ had no duty to avoid a confrontation and given that TM is dead, if there is no evidence that controverts GZ then case closed. In some states it could be easier to make a case that GZ's actions were reckless and/or negligent.

 

[johnny karate]

"Why wouldn't he fight back"? That statement is already starting with all sorts of assumptions that we don't have the necessary information to make.

One might just as easily ask why would he fight back? If someone aggressively approaches you and asks "what are you doing here"*, I'd suspect the way the majority of people would react would be to say "I'm walking home" and to try to remove themselves from the conflict.

I think the point is that Martin would have the right to fight back in a scenario in which Zimmerman attacked him. That you or anyone else might not agree with that particular course of action is irrelevant.

And again, I marvel at the time spent scrutinizing every possible aspect of Martin's behavior to determine what he might have done wrong, while Zimmerman is seemingly given a pass for deciding to take a gun and follow someone around for no good reason.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Sorry, but you're so biased on the subject that you continually project things others aren't saying onto them.

I think the point is that Martin would have the right to fight back in a scenario in which Zimmerman attacked him. That you or anyone else might not agree with that particular course of action is irrelevant.

Perfect example above. Where did I say anything about agreeing or disagreeing with a particular course of action? Quote it to me please.

And again, I marvel at the time spent scrutinizing every possible aspect of Martin's behavior to determine what he might have done wrong, while Zimmerman is seemingly given a pass for deciding to take a gun and follow someone around for no good reason.

I marvel that you're incapable of discussing the subject without thinking that anyone not screaming "I know that lousy bastard GZ murdered TM" is somehow an apologist for GZ. Also, again, please quote to me where I scrutinized Martin's behavior. Is there some behavior to scrutinize that I'm not aware of?

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

rand fan,

We have a person in the voice identification field, who the courts look upon as an expert in the field, who is claiming that he can eliminate GZ based on new software/technology. His claims go contrary to previous standards set for that industry.

Your position seems to be that you are going to defer to his expertise barring some other expert of equal stature saying that it's not possible. Is that a correct representation of your position? (I'm asking about what you think here and now, not in some theoretical court as a jury member)

 

[RandFan]

rand fan,

We have a person in the voice identification field, who the courts look upon as an expert in the field, who is claiming that he can eliminate GZ based on new software/technology. His claims go contrary to previous standards set for that industry.

Your position seems to be that you are going to defer to his expertise barring some other expert of equal stature saying that it's not possible. Is that a correct representation of your position? (I'm asking about what you think here and now, not in some theoretical court as a jury member)

I've stated quite clearly on at least a dozen occasions. There is nothing futuristic or mysterious about it.

Right here. Right now. Based on what I know:

• Given the Reasonable Doubt Standard I do not accept the voice print testimony.
• Given the Preponderance of Evidence Standard I do accept the voice print testimony (I do defer to the experts who have excluded GZ).

It's entirely possible (and quite reasonable) to hold two different positions based on the two different standards. And it's not just theoretical. It's practical. The opinion is useless in a vacuum. We can only understand the opinion in light of real world applications. That is my honest real world opinion.

 

[johnny karate]

Where did I say anything about agreeing or disagreeing with a particular course of action? Quote it to me please.

Where did I state you did agree or disagree with a particular course of action.

Quote it to me please.

Sorry, but you're so biased on the subject that you continually project things others aren't saying onto them.

What have I said that would indicate to you I am biased?

Quote it to me please.

I marvel that you're incapable of discussing the subject without thinking that anyone not screaming "I know that lousy bastard GZ murdered TM" is somehow an apologist for GZ.

Where have I said that is what I think?

Quote it to me please.

Also, again, please quote to me where I scrutinized Martin's behavior. Is there some behavior to scrutinize that I'm not aware of?

You really should pay closer attention to what people are saying. My exact quote was "I marvel at the time spent scrutinizing every possible aspect of Martin's behavior... ".

I have bolded the word that is key to your apparent misunderstanding of what I said.

And here's where you did just that:

One might just as easily ask why would he fight back? If someone aggressively approaches you and asks "what are you doing here"*, I'd suspect the way the majority of people would react would be to say "I'm walking home" and to try to remove themselves from the conflict.

Or is your claim that this isn't a scrutinization of what Martin might have done?

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

• Given the Reasonable Doubt Standard I would not accept the voice print testimony.
• Given the Preponderance of Evidence Standard I would accept the voice print testimony (I do defer to the experts who have excluded GZ).

1. Why do you defer to these two experts (or maybe you only defer to Owen?), while not deferring to experts who have been interviewed and pointed out that the test Owen did does not meet voice identification standards?

2. To clarify then, as long as it's a recognized expert making a claim, you're willing to defer to their expertise, even if the claim* they're making goes contrary to what was previously known/stated in their field, without any proof of said claim, and without the industry to which they belong having yet accepted their claims??

3. I'm curious, when the scientists said they had discovered neutrinos that moved faster then light, did you also defer to their expertise? Or did you wait to accept their claims until they were ultimately proven to be baseless? If you think that's a false equivalency, why. Because I'm having a real hard time fathoming how someone that champions the scientific method can be willing to defer to one** expert and one alone, without demanding proof of said experts claims when they contradict all of the previous standards for the field. I'm willing to defer to the expertise of climate scientists that say global warming is man-made, because that position is held by a vast majority. But if tomorrow a single climate scientist made an extraordinary claim, I'd want it confirmed by the field before accepting it.

*That being the claim that they can eliminate someone to a degree of certainty based on the circumstances that have been discussed here.

**This assumes that you give no credence to the joker who uses his "minds eye" and "critical listening skills", but if you defer to his expertise as well please correct me.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

johnny karate, I've seen a lot of people in this thread make good arguments for differing views, regardless of whether I agree with them or not. I've yet to see you contribute anything but strawmans and fallacies and absurd suggestions that people are anti-Martin if you don't like their posts. Now, unable to answer my questions, you respond by mimicking my questions. Consider yourself of having the honor of being the first and only person on JREF added to my ignore list.

 

[leftysergeant]

I agree it's possible that TM thought he was being stalked/attacked, and attacked because of it, or GZ might have gotten aggressive physically and TM defended himself, it's even possible that TM lost his temper and attacked as GZ claims, unaware that he was armed. But those are all assumptions.

Per the girlfriend, there was almost no pause between Z asking what Martin was doing there and the sounds of physical contact.

Martin would have wanted to maintain communication with an off-site witness, perhaps to ask her to call the cops. Z would probably have seen that as a threat and tried to end the communication. Whatever the truth is, we have no reason to believe that the final encounter began as Z claims.

A law abiding kid doing nothing wrong is unlikely to be on the phone with his girlfriend while he lays an abush for the pervert who is chasing him.

 

[RandFan]

1. Why do you defer to these two experts (or maybe you only defer to Owen?), while not deferring to experts who have been interviewed and pointed out that the test Owen did does not meet voice identification standards?

2. To clarify then, as long as it's a recognized expert making a claim, you're willing to defer to their expertise, even if the claim* they're making goes contrary to what was previously known/stated, without any proof of said claim, and without the industry to which they belong having yet accepted their claims??

3. I'm curious, when the scientists said they had discovered neutrinos that moved faster then light, did you also defer to their expertise? Or did you wait to accept their claims until they were ultimately proven to be baseless? If you think that's a false equivalency, why. Because I'm having a real hard time fathoming how someone that champions the scientific method can be willing to defer to one expert and one alone, without demanding proof of said experts claims when they contradict all of the previous standards for the field. I'm willing to defer to the expertise of climate scientists that say global warming is man-made, because that position is held by a vast majority. But if tomorrow a single climate scientist made an extraordinary claim, I'd want it confirmed by the field before accepting it.

*That being the claim that they can eliminate someone to a degree of certainty based on the circumstances that have been discussed here.

To begin with I don't see an acknowledgment of what I've claimed. My position is two fold and provisional. If you are going to ask me questions it might be helpful if you could acknowledge my positions.

1. To start with, I'm not as dogmatic on this point as you seem to claim. I've not seen an expert authorized to testify in court on video voice print analysis provide contradictory evidence. There is almost always contradictory "expert" testimony. I've seen it countless times.
2. No. When it comes to a legal matter I put myself into a real world scenario. At the end of the day that's what counts, right? So, from an arrest/charge/arraignment/indictment/held over point of view I adopt the Preponderance of evidence standard (as that is the real world standard).
3. You've now moved from the legal realm into the scientific. But I'm happy to oblige. I take each scientific claim on a case by case basis. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Faster than light is an extraordinary claim. I've not seen extraordinary evidence and there is no real world need to make a preponderance of evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt standard decision. My gut reaction was wait and see. Relativity and quantum mechanics are very counter-intuitive. While I expect science to provide further counter-intuitive discoveries ala J. B. S. Haldane I'm more guarded for those claims.

Summary, I don't need to form an opinion about GZ but I have and I've stated that opinion countless times. I'm sure I'll be asked over and over again what my position is. That's fine. If compelling evidence comes forward to push me off of either position then I'm open to changing them both.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Per the girlfriend, there was almost no pause between Z asking what Martin was doing there and the sounds of physical contact.

I am unsure of that assessment. From what I've read she says she heard someone say "why are you following me" and GZ say "what are you doing here". Then she heard the phone go dead. She did not report hearing any screams. So we don't know how quickly the physical contact took place after the discussion started.

I know that I've also read statements that she assumed TM was pushed when the phone went dead, but I think that's likely 20/20 hindsight assumption on her part, since she could not see what happened and heard nothing after that.

A law abiding kid doing nothing wrong is unlikely to be on the phone with his girlfriend while he lays an a bush for the pervert who is chasing him.

I think that's a good point. And it's certainly strange that GZ says TM surprised him from the back (do I have that right?), that seems at odds with TM being on the phone talking to his GF when the confrontation started.

 

[johnny karate]

johnny karate, I've seen a lot of people in this thread make good arguments for differing views, regardless of whether I agree with them or not. I've yet to see you contribute anything but strawmans and fallacies and absurd suggestions that people are anti-Martin if you don't like their posts. Now, unable to answer my questions, you respond by mimicking my questions. Consider yourself of having the honor of being the first and only person on JREF added to my ignore list.

I am unable to answer you question (I only left one unanswered) because it is based on an unfounded assumption. An assumption which you refuse to substantiate, and instead follow up with unsubstantiated claims of "strawmans", "fallacies", and "absurd suggestions" before melodramatically announcing that you are taking your ball and going home.

Somehow, some way, I will pick up the shattered pieces of my life and move on from the devastating news that you have put me on ignore. At the very least, it will save JREF on bandwidth usage since I will no longer have to repeatedly ask you to substantiate all the ridiculous accusations you hurl at me.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

To start with, I'm not as dogmatic on this point as you seem to claim. I've not seen an expert authorized to testify in court on video voice print analysis provide contradictory evidence.

Are you saying that you have not seen an expert on TV or in the media point out that Owen's statements don't meet standards set? If so, I believe some have, but I'm also curious why you need to hear it from an expert when you can read it yourself just by looking at the current standards?

No. When it comes to a legal matter I put myself into a real world scenario. At the end of the day that's what counts, right?

No ! We aren't sitting on a jury. We are on a message board on the Internet having a discussion and I'm asking you why you are willing to defer to this expert when his claims of what he can do are not supported by current standards and have not been peer reviewed.

If we're going to use your real world scenario, why are we even having this discussion? Even by Owen's own admission this type of testimony has only been allowed in one state.

I take each scientific claim on a case by case basis. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Faster than light is an extraordinary claim.

But you don't find a claim being made by one person, that is not backed up by current standards in the field, that in fact turns them on their head and blows them away, that has not been peer reviewed, to be an extraordinary claim? I guess this is where is differ. I find it quite the extraordinary claim.

 

[RandFan]

...I'm also curious why you need to hear it from an expert when you can read it yourself just by looking at the current standards?

This has been addressed. Argument ad nauseam gets rather old. At some point it is just ignoring your opposition and simply badgering.

We are on a message board on the Internet having a discussion and I'm asking you why you are willing to defer to this expert when his claims of what he can do are not supported by current standards and have not been peer reviewed.

Facts not in evidence. Given the preponderance of evidence standard I would defer to Owen. Assuming the court agrees then Owen should present evidence at trial and the defense should have the right to challenge. If the court disallows the evidence I will happily defer to the court and Owen will be spanked good and well.

If we're going to use your real world scenario, why are we even having this discussion? Even by Owen's own admission this type of testimony has only been allowed in one state.

Preponderance of evidence standard. Owen is an expert who has a long history of testifying in court. His credentials are substantial. I'm not saying GZ is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm saying from my understanding, here and now, there is sufficient reason to allow Owen's testimony into court and have it challenged.

But you don't find a claim being made by one person, that is not backed up by current standards in the field, that in fact turns them on their head and blows them away, that has not been peer reviewed nor accepted by his field to be an extraordinary claim? I guess this is where is differ. I find it quite the extraordinary claim.

A number of your premises implicitly assume your conclusion. Clean it up.

 

[RandFan]

It's not going to change.

No ! We aren't sitting on a jury.

This issue is within the legal realm. The questions have to do with legal standards. That we are not sitting on a jury is just a fatuous point that will not advance the discussion. The questions still have legal relevance. Badgering me to see the case as not a legal one is pointless. If you cannot get it that preponderance of evidence standard (in the case of an arrest/charge/indictment) and reasonable doubt standard (needed for conviction) will be the only standards used in this case then there is nothing more I can do for you. There is no point to the discussion. You don't seem to get that we are talking about legal matters. Not simply scientific. Not gut feelings. Not absolute certainty. Not mathematical proofs.

Legal. Just legal. If you just can't grasp that then I don't see the point of a discussion. I'm here not to win a debate but to have a discussion. I don't mind a spirited discussion but I expect those I discuss the issues with can at least grasp the context of the discussion. If you can't accept my opinion from a legal POV and discuss it from a legal POV then I won't bother responding to you anymore.

If that's the case then all the best.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

This has been addressed. Argument ad nauseam gets rather old. At some point it is just ignoring your opposition and simply badgering.

Or your ego assumes I've read all of your posts.

Owen is an expert who has a long history of testifying in court. His credentials are substantial. I'm saying from my understanding, here and now, there is sufficient reason to allow Owen's testimony into court and have it challenged.

Got it. So as long as someone has really good credentials, we should just allow their claims into court even if they fly in the face of current standards/science, as long as we allow another expert to challenge them.

A number of your premises implicitly assume your conclusion. Clean it up.

I don't think so, but I do admire the way you avoided having to respond with that response. But feel free to clean up my faulty premises for me, I'm sure you will .

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

This issue is within the legal realm. The questions have to do with legal standards. That we are not sitting on a jury is just a fatuous point that will not advance the discussion. The questions still have legal relevance. Badgering me to see the case as not a legal one is pointless. If you cannot get it that preponderance of evidence standard (in the case of an arrest/charge/indictment) and reasonable doubt standard (needed for conviction) will be the only standards used in this case then there is nothing more I can do for you. There is no point to the discussion. You don't seem to get that we are talking about legal matters. Not simply scientific. Not gut feelings. Not absolute certainty. Not mathematical proofs.

Legal. Just legal. If you just can't grasp that then I don't see the point of a discussion. I'm here not to win a debate but to have a discussion. I don't mind a spirited discussion but I expect those I discuss the issues with can at least grasp the context of the discussion. If you can't accept my opinion from a legal POV and discuss it from a legal POV then I won't bother responding to you anymore.

If that's the case then all the best.

I notice you start some posts with "I don't mean to be condescending" and also mention ego in your sig. Do you find those to be things people in your life frequently accuse you of having issues with? If so, I can't imagine why. And thank you for explaining all of that. I'll spend some time pondering those things. Perhaps next time around you can explain some other deep concepts, maybe even enlighten us all that the earth is round (well, sort of round, anyway).

 

[Information Analyst]

I honestly can't tell if you are adding to what I am saying or thinking you are correcting it. I saw the suggestion that Trayvon might have been scaling walls to get in and said I don't think that happened and explained why I don't think it happened.

Adding. Don't be surprised - it is possible.