• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
A very interesting new piece of information. Using this shortcut would be consistent with Martin's route back from the 7-11 (as also identified on the same page), and would put Martin on Retreat View Circle walking in the same direction as Zimmerman would have been driving towards the main entrance. This allows for a better opportunity for Zimmerman to first catch sight of Martin than if he had been coming back through the main entrance.
 
A very interesting new piece of information. Using this shortcut would be consistent with Martin's route back from the 7-11 (as also identified on the same page), and would put Martin on Retreat View Circle walking in the same direction as Zimmerman would have been driving towards the main entrance. This allows for a better opportunity for Zimmerman to first catch sight of Martin than if he had been coming back through the main entrance.
It still would not have been likely that Z would have seen him come over the fence. Since there is a recreational facility of some sort in the area, it would not be unusual for someone to be walking in the direction that we can assume Martin to have been walking at that point.

That Martin was not known to Z is irrelevant, in my opinion, because it would be only remotely possible that he would know anywhere near every resident in that big an area and that many housing units. If anyone questions this, I would ask them how many of their neighbors they know over a similar area.

I cannot think of any valid reason to be so suspicious of a young person dressed appropriately for the time and the weather conditions other than that the person had some inate suspicion of the charter of any young black male whom he did not know by name.

Nothing that Z describes about Martin's behavior even seems to be probable cause to suspect him of something. It is kind of natural that, when you notice someone following you for no good reason, you would look at least a little apprehensive.

Certainly, if I were being followed, I would start looking for possible escape routes in case things got really hinky all of a sudden.
 
It still would not have been likely that Z would have seen him come over the fence. Since there is a recreational facility of some sort in the area, it would not be unusual for someone to be walking in the direction that we can assume Martin to have been walking at that point.

That Martin was not known to Z is irrelevant, in my opinion, because it would be only remotely possible that he would know anywhere near every resident in that big an area and that many housing units. If anyone questions this, I would ask them how many of their neighbors they know over a similar area.

I cannot think of any valid reason to be so suspicious of a young person dressed appropriately for the time and the weather conditions other than that the person had some inate suspicion of the charter of any young black male whom he did not know by name.

Nothing that Z describes about Martin's behavior even seems to be probable cause to suspect him of something. It is kind of natural that, when you notice someone following you for no good reason, you would look at least a little apprehensive.

Certainly, if I were being followed, I would start looking for possible escape routes in case things got really hinky all of a sudden.
I don't think it add any more justification for Zimmerman's suspicion, if it is an oft-used short-cut, but it does allow for a longer window of opportinity for Zimmerman to spot and initially follow Martin in the first place, thus making the latter more wary/apprehensive in the process.

It certainly doesn't change the fact that Zimmerman simply not knowing/recognising Martin is not a particularly valid bar to set on the scale of suspicion. In fact, given that it becoming obvious that this "gated community" is actually about as secure as a sieve, and it wouldn't surprise me if it wasn't just residents who used the newly-identified "gap" as a short-cut, as well.
 
The fact that it is not such a secure area to begin with just makes Z's reactions seem that much less realistic. That so few arrests have stemmed from his wild rants makes him look more than just a little paranoid, which makes his claim of self-defense look just a little more like meadow muffins.
 
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.

Hi KatieG, as we transition from the fifth life of the thread into the sixth, it might help you to know that the status of SYG has been hotly debated in first three lives of the thread.

While teh media and possibly GZ's lawyer have mentioned the SYG and it may have influenced the proffering of charges, it may not be that likely to enter into the defense of GZ, if there is a trial.

basically and in non-legal terms, SYG means that an individual does not have to attempt to flee before using lethal force. So, in some states a claim of self defense may require that the individual was cornered and had no means of egress before using lethal force. And a jury can decide that it was not self defense because the individual chose to fire rather than retreating. In FL the law states that this is not a requirement for self defense.

In Oklahoma there was a woman who fired upon people trying to break into her house after threatening her. She killed them and no charges were offered because there was evidence that she was engaging in the use of lethal force to defend her life. The SYG law basicaly extends this sort of idea.

And welcome to the fray.
 
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.
In what real world is 'preponderance of the evidence' a rational standard for criminal cases?
 
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.
So in what 'legal realm' is preponderance of the evidence the standard for a jury/burden of proof in criminal cases?
 
I think Randfan is saying that the preponderance of evidence is all he needs to make up his mind about what he thinks happened, but it would not be enough for a court of law. That is why he states that he thinks Zimmerman is in the wrong, but would not feel able to vote "guilty" if he were on the jury.
 
I think Randfan is saying that the preponderance of evidence is all he needs to make up his mind about what he thinks happened, but it would not be enough for a court of law. That is why he states that he thinks Zimmerman is in the wrong, but would not feel able to vote "guilty" if he were on the jury.
My point exactly. Calling personal opinions 'legal... just legal' doesn't make them anything of the sort.
 
I think Randfan is saying that the preponderance of evidence is all he needs to make up his mind about what he thinks happened, but it would not be enough for a court of law. That is why he states that he thinks Zimmerman is in the wrong, but would not feel able to vote "guilty" if he were on the jury [without hearing the rebuttal case].
ftfy

RandFan makes perfect sense with this position. For me, enough of the rebuttal case has been revealed but I would consider evidence might exist we have not seen.
 
Last edited:
The Bicker Quotient in this thread is approaching actionable levels. Please cut out the sniping and personalization or the mods will be forced to stand their ground.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky
 
Did you see my link about what Frank said on CNN? The guy has serious problems.

I did watch the video, and it didn't prompt me to go digging into who Frank was and what he may or may not have done in the past.

I'm not sure what serious problems he has that are relevant.
 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...tape-screw-up/2012/04/03/gIQA8m5jtS_blog.html

NBC has completed its investigation into the mishandling of the police dispatcher’s conversation with George Zimmerman in the Trayvon Martin case. And the process ends with a finding of error, plus an apology. Here is the statement just issued by the network:

During our investigation it became evident that there was an error made in the production process that we deeply regret. We will be taking the necessary steps to prevent this from happening in the future and apologize to our viewers.


Of course, it's prominently displayed in the corrections section by nbc...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3891881/#.T3xb46trMQI
A March 21 story about the Trayvon Martin shooting in Sanford, Fla., initially truncated a transcription of George Zimmerman's conversation with a police dispatcher. The truncated quote made it seem that Zimmerman, acting as a neighborhood watch, brought up the race of the Miami teenager he was following in his neighborhood. Martin was later shot during a confrontation with Zimmerman. During the conversation, the police dispatcher asked Zimmerman specifically about the teen’s race and he answered.
 
Maybe you guys should all save yourselves the effort, and realize this will just be another Amanda Knox quagmire. Did anyone consider her as a suspect in this case?

I did watch the video, and it didn't prompt me to go digging into who Frank was and what he may or may not have done in the past.

I'm not sure what serious problems he has that are relevant.

Well, it seems the head of the neighborhood watch is pretty seriously racist, and it seems reasonable by extension that racial profiling used by Zimmerman. Sure, it doesn't prove anything. But I don't think Frank's performace helped Zimmerman at all.
 
Last edited:
Maybe you guys should all save yourselves the effort, and realize this will just be another Amanda Knox quagmire. Did anyone consider her as a suspect in this case?



Well, it seems the head of the neighborhood watch is pretty seriously racist, and it seems reasonable by extension that racial profiling used by Zimmerman. Sure, it doesn't prove anything. But I don't think Frank's performace helped Zimmerman at all.

I think he made sense, it was the self satisfied reporter that was trying to mince his words. His point was, yes, there was a heightened sense of alert to young black males lurking about the neighborhood because they loosely fit the description of the people commiting the robberies but he didn't only take note of young black males. At least two of his calls were about suspicious women who's race is undisclosed.

The italics were mine. He didn't say that.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom