Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[johnny karate]

What evidence led you/leads you to believe this occurred ?

Obviously, there isn't any. Just like there isn't any evidence that Zimmerman was suddenly attacked by Martin.

What this all goes to is the believability of Zimmerman's version of events, and thus his credibility.

If you want to believe it is more plausible that Zimmerman immediately stopped his pursuit and was then attacked by the guy who was running away from him, that's your prerogative.

However, I would argue plausibility lies in the idea of Zimmerman continuing the pursuit subsequent to the altercation between him and Martin.

 

[sgtbaker]

The testimony of the GF has been rather nebulously reported.

The piece I quoted could also be read this way:

She said he was walking with his hood up. According to her audio testimony, she said Martin told her "I think this dude is following me" and slowed down to see who it was.

But ... idk. I would think he would put his hood up because it was raining. That makes the most sense to me.

It doesn't make much sense to me, either.

 

[Unabogie]

Why do you have that theory when the GF makes it pretty clear TM stopped and spoke first to GZ ?

Because confronting someone doesn't need to be about who spoke first. Zimmerman ran up to Martin after chasing him. I consider that a confrontation, regardless of who uttered the first words.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Because confronting someone doesn't need to be about who spoke first. Zimmerman ran up to Martin after chasing him.

Would you post the video footage you evidently have that the rest of us don't?

I consider that a confrontation

What if he walked up to him instead of running up to him?

 

[Moss]

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/La...tion/-/1637132/9613958/-/57edqqz/-/index.html

Crump played the audio files of the girl, whose identity won't be released because of her age, where she says Martin was running back from 7-Eleven in the rain and he ran into a nearby apartment awning to get shelter. He then called her back at 6:54 p.m. and said he was walking with his hood up.

According to her audio testimony, she said Martin told her "I think this dude is following me," and slowed down to see who it was. She says she then told him to "be careful and just run home."

She said Martin tried to lose Zimmerman and thought he did. He then said "Oh he's right behind me again," according to her testimony, before asking Zimmerman "Why are you following me?"

If it happened that way it would confirm the suspicions of both sides that the other side was not up to anything good. Which seems a sadly plausible starting point for what happened moments later.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Because confronting someone doesn't need to be about who spoke first. Zimmerman ran up to Martin after chasing him. I consider that a confrontation, regardless of who uttered the first words.

OK. It's hard to keep track of how everyone is using 'confronted' to fit it into their particular scenario.

I just have a hard time when trying to describe that scenario:

Zimmerman confronted martin. Finally, martin turned around and had words with zimmerman.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

If it happened that way it would confirm the suspicions of both sides that the other side was not up to anything good. Which seems a sadly plausible starting point for what happened moments later.

^ This ^ (it's supposition but seems very possible)

 

[crimresearch]

Could someone help me with Florida law in a hypothetical.

Two people are in Florida, they leave a bar and get into a fight. All witnesses agree the fight was mutually started and that the two people were still sober.

One of the two people, now Person A, gets the clear upper hand and is beating Person B senseless. Then Person B pulls out a gun and kills Person A.

Under Florida law would person B have any valid argument for that shooting being justified.

Florida has nothing to do with it, anywhere in the country, the same overarching legal axiom applies to situations like the one you describe.

Eppur si dipende

The correct legal answer is 'Absolutely not', except when the correct legal answer is 'Yes'.

If you fill in the blanks with the right variables either answer will be correct

 

[Unabogie]

Would you post the video footage you evidently have that the rest of us don't?

What if he walked up to him instead of running up to him?

All of this is public knowledge by now, isn't it? Zimmerman ran after Trayvon and ended up behind the homes. This much is clear, judging by the location of the body of the murdered boy who Zimmerman shot in the chest. Zimmerman moved to where Trayvon was, and that's where whatever took place, took place. I don't believe that's Zimmerman screaming. I think it's a seventeen year old boy who was on his way home from the store. I believe Zimmerman caused this whole ordeal because he racially profiled Trayvon, and then took after him with a loaded weapon in his possession. I believe Zimmerman is completely at fault for what happened after this, regardless of what Trayvon did once he was confronted by the older man. I believe Zimmerman has a history of violence including two incidences in which he assaulted women. I think he has a history of anger issues. I think he shot this kid because he got mad.

If some new evidence comes out that totally contradicts this, I'll rethink it. So far, this is what makes sense to me based on what we know. Perhaps not for the folks on the far right, but I don't have much in common with these people anyway.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

All of this is public knowledge by now, isn't it? Zimmerman ran after Trayvon and ended up behind the homes. This much is clear, judging by the location of the body of the murdered boy who Zimmerman shot in the chest. Zimmerman moved to where Trayvon was, and that's where whatever took place, took place. I don't believe that's Zimmerman screaming. I think it's a seventeen year old boy who was on his way home from the store. I believe Zimmerman caused this whole ordeal because he racially profiled Trayvon, and then took after him with a loaded weapon in his possession. I believe Zimmerman is completely at fault for what happened after this, regardless of what Trayvon did once he was confronted by the older man. I believe Zimmerman has a history of violence including two incidences in which he assaulted women. I think he has a history of anger issues. I think he shot this kid because he got mad.

If some new evidence comes out that totally contradicts this, I'll rethink it. So far, this is what makes sense to me based on what we know. Perhaps not for the folks on the far right, but I don't have much in common with these people anyway.

Fair enough. That's a whole ton of assumptions some of which seem baseless to me but it's also certainly all possible. I guess I just don't get why anyone would want to so convince themselves of what happened with so little evidence, and even if you think you'll change your mind if new evidence comes out it's going to be hard if you've so completely convinced yourself of what happened.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

I've read that GZ was questioned for 4 (5?) hours after police took him in. Does anyone know if some or all of that was video taped? Is there a policy in FL for whether that would be done in a case such as this?

On a side not, if there's anyone here that is in law enforcement, what goes on when someone is interviewed like that for 4 hours over an incident that was relatively short in length?? Do they make the person just repeat what happened again and again looking for contradictions?

 

[Dancing David]

This hang-up some people seem to have in strictly defining Zimmerman's actions in terms of legality doesn't create a full and honest account of the appropriateness of his behavior.

I have the legal right to coat my head in honey and stick it in a fire ant hill. But that doesn't make it a good idea.

The bottom line is that taking a gun and following someone you suspect to be a criminal is a reckless and dangerous idea.

I agree, I do not focus on the legal niceties because of some obsession, but because they will matter not my opinion. The fact that I feel GZ should have stayed in the car and just waited for the police has no bearing on what a judge will instruct the jury.

The fact that I agree, had GZ stayed in his car Trayvon would not have been shot and therefore he is culpable, matters not one whit. What matters is the law, the legal precedents and what happens in a potential trial.

I have been followed and approached by people who were acting crazy and/or suspicious, I felt very threatened in those situations. I feel that Trayvon probably also felt threatened.

That and $3.50 will buy you a fancy coffee to take to court. I know what I feel, however in these cases the evidence, the law, the legal precedents and the trial are what matter.

Legal precedents in Florida will have a major sway in any potential trials, what evidence is permitted and what lines of argument are presented will matter even more, the jury instructions will matter the most.

 

[Dancing David]

I started reading this thread when it was on page 2.

As I said, you are a brave soul!

 

[sgtbaker]

I've read that GZ was questioned for 4 (5?) hours after police took him in. Does anyone know if some or all of that was video taped? Is there a policy in FL for whether that would be done in a case such as this?

On a side not, if there's anyone here that is in law enforcement, what goes on when someone is interviewed like that for 4 hours over an incident that was relatively short in length?? Do they make the person just repeat what happened again and again looking for contradictions?

I was question for something rather insignificant, compared to this. He had me in this tiny room with a tiny table, a stool molded to the floor, no windows, and no mirror. My situation was basically a question of responsibility to a bounced check from a business. He asked me over and over if there was something I was forgetting to tell him or if I was holding back anything. Seriously, over a bounced check I was interrogated for close to an hour. He only had me tell the story once but then he would ask me for more detail about a particular part of the story. Then he would ask again if I was holding something back. He would look at his file again, ask me something else, then ask me if I am sure that's all of it. I finally said, "Look, I feel like I've told you every little detail. If there is something you know that I haven't said, tell me and I will answer for it. I can't think of anything else, though." He eventually ended the interview but that is my only experience with the law. It certainly wasn't dramatic.

 

[curi0us]

I don't believe that's Zimmerman screaming.

Why not?

How does it alter your belief about what happened if the one screaming is Zimmermen?

 

[Unabogie]

Why not?

How does it alter your belief about what happened if the one screaming is Zimmermen?

1. It doesn't sound like Zimmerman to me, based on his recorded voice.
2. Two audio experts state that it isn't him.
3. Trayvon's mother says it's Trayvon.
4. The screaming stops after the shot is fired.

 

[Nursedan]

So for those who don't believe George Zimmerman, what exactly do you think happened with him and Trayvon Martin? If he's lying, then he must have followed Trayvon and just shot him unprovoked? Was he having a bad night or something? If this is about racial profiling, I'm sure was any number of black people George could have murdered. Something doesn't add up.

You know how people complain of bias in the media? This whole storyis such a great example of that. They never fail to mention that Trayvon had a "pack of skittles and an iced tea" (to make him seem like a pure victim) and they intentionally leave out Zimmermans account of what happened. The only other option here is that Zimmerman simply gave in to some deep desire to kill black people and did so. I for one will not be joining the angry mob without looking at this critically. The media make that impossible when they only print one side of a story or edit evidence, as NBC did:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/04/us-nbcnews-trayvonmartin-idUSBRE83214H20120404

 

[RandFan]

So for those who don't believe George Zimmerman, what exactly do you think happened with him and Trayvon Martin? If he's lying, then he must have followed Trayvon and just shot him unprovoked? Was he having a bad night or something? If this is about racial profiling, I'm sure was any number of black people George could have murdered. Something doesn't add up.

You know how people complain of bias in the media? This whole storyis such a great example of that. They never fail to mention that Trayvon had a "pack of skittles and an iced tea" (to make him seem like a pure victim) and they intentionally leave out Zimmermans account of what happened. The only other option here is that Zimmerman simply gave in to some deep desire to kill black people and did so. I for one will not be joining the angry mob without looking at this critically. The media make that impossible when they only print one side of a story or edit evidence, as NBC did:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/04/us-nbcnews-trayvonmartin-idUSBRE83214H20120404

• I'm not certain GZ had a good faith basis to suspect TM but I'm happy to give him the benefit of the doubt.
• I see no evidence of racism.
• I think it likely that GZ was sincerely concerned about crime.
• It is plausible and I think it likely that GZ did not follow TM for malicious reasons.
• I think GZ was irresponsible and reckless to follow TM.
• I think it quite possible that neither intended to hurt the other at the time they confronted each other.
• I think it likely that once there was a confrontation there was an escalation (not unheard of).

 

[johnny karate]

So for those who don't believe George Zimmerman, what exactly do you think happened with him and Trayvon Martin? If he's lying, then he must have followed Trayvon and just shot him unprovoked? Was he having a bad night or something? If this is about racial profiling, I'm sure was any number of black people George could have murdered. Something doesn't add up.

I don't think the only two options are: 1) Zimmerman is a racist, murdering sociopath, or 2) Zimmerman acted completely within his rights and did nothing wrong.

My personal belief is that Zimmerman was overzealous in both his suspicion and pursuit of Martin, an altercation developed as a result of that pursuit, and Zimmerman - believing he was engaged with a criminal - shot and killed someone who was actually just a teenage boy walking home from the store.

You know how people complain of bias in the media? This whole storyis such a great example of that. They never fail to mention that Trayvon had a "pack of skittles and an iced tea" (to make him seem like a pure victim)...

They "never fail to mention" it because it's true. No matter what you think occurred later, the facts clearly show that prior to his encounter with Zimmerman, Martin wasn't guilty of anything more than minding his own business while walking home from the store.

... and they intentionally leave out Zimmermans account of what happened.

I call shenanigans. I don't know where you've been getting your news, but I've watched quite a bit of coverage of this story on both CNN and MSNBC, and I've never seen a report that failed to mention Zimmerman claimed he was acting in self-defense.

The only other option here is that Zimmerman simply gave in to some deep desire to kill black people and did so.

Incorrect. See above.

I for one will not be joining the angry mob without looking at this critically. The media make that impossible when they only print one side of a story or edit evidence, as NBC did:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/04/us-nbcnews-trayvonmartin-idUSBRE83214H20120404

What "The Today Show" did was shoddy and irresponsible, and they have been taken to task as a result.

But it should also be noted that MSNBC was one of the first networks to broadcast enhanced images from the surveillance video that supposedly show Zimmerman's injuries. ABC News released an enhanced version of that video showing the same thing. CNN used audio enhancement to determine Zimmerman probably didn't use a racial slur on his 911 call.

The media is certainly making hay out of this story, but to pretend they have some kind of anti-Zimmerman agenda simply doesn't wash.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

• I'm not certain GZ had a good faith basis to suspect TM but I'm happy to give him the benefit of the doubt.
• I see no evidence of racism.
• I think it likely that GZ was sincerely concerned about crime.
• It is plausible and I think it likely that GZ did not follow TM for malicious reasons.
• I think GZ was irresponsible and reckless to follow TM.
• I think it quite possible that neither intended to hurt the other at the time they confronted each other.
• I think it likely that once there was a confrontation there was an escalation (not unheard of).

• when escalation occurs, person with gun has distinct advantage