Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[jhunter1163]

Do not personalize your arguments, and remain civil and polite.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jhunter1163

 

[sgtbaker]

The best reference I've seen was from a local new reporter that interviewed one of the witnesses. The video report placed the final position behind the second apartment of the first building from the cut-through.

I am going by where the police taped off in the video reporting, the night it happened. The one, the next morning. The reporter is standing there saying, "this is where the fight took place," at it seemed to be right at the corner lot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RaknmTkjvU

 

[TheL8Elvis]

And some witnesses have contradicted his story.

We probably shouldn't trot out the "witnesses have corroborated" canard without mentioning that.

Seems a bit dishonest.

No witnesses claim to have seen Martin screaming.

Only Mary Cutcher claims to 'know' ( I'm not sure how ) that it was martin. She doesn't claim to have seen it. She also couldn't identify the race of the person standing up when she was on the phone.

SO - which 'witness' has contradicted this story ?

And - speaking of dishonest ... you keep saying things like "decided to take a gun and pursue him as Martin ran away". GZ already had his gun on him. There is no evidence he armed himself to follow TM. Is there ?

 

[sgtbaker]

I don't see how acknowledging Zimmerman is not a mind-reader strengthens your point over mine. Zimmerman had no idea what he was getting into when he foolishly stepped out of his car to pursue someone he thought to be a criminal. Him not being a mind-reader is exactly my point.

That was kind of my point, if you go back through the conversation you got involved in.

Zimmerman also had the impression that "something's wrong with [Martin]". I'm not sure how wise it is to give any credence to the "impressions" Zimmerman might have had.

I haven't. That was again, my point.

Yeah, he did "act accordingly". He ran away

Which flies in the face of the claim I was arguing that Zimmerman should have anticipated Martin (the suspected criminal in his mind) would suddenly get violent.

 

[sgtbaker]

No witnesses claim to have seen Martin screaming.

Only Mary Cutcher claims to 'know' ( I'm not sure how ) that it was martin. She doesn't claim to have seen it. She also couldn't identify the race of the person standing up when she was on the phone.

SO - which 'witness' has contradicted this story ?

And - speaking of dishonest ... you keep saying things like "decided to take a gun and pursue him as Martin ran away". GZ already had his gun on him. There is no evidence he armed himself to follow TM. Is there ?

Cutcher knows it was Trayvon because she heard a little boys voice and she didn't hear any punching.

 

[crimresearch]

Clearing up some mis-information:

http://www.freep.com/article/201204...-up-misinformation-in-the-Trayvon-Martin-case


They could have had a much longer article if they would just read this thread.

 

[johnny karate]

No witnesses claim to have seen Martin screaming.

Only Mary Cutcher claims to 'know' ( I'm not sure how ) that it was martin. She doesn't claim to have seen it. She also couldn't identify the race of the person standing up when she was on the phone.

SO - which 'witness' has contradicted this story ?

See my previous post:

Immediately after the gunshot, Cutcher and her roommate reported seeing Martin face-down with Zimmerman straddling him two to three doors down from where the fight was reported to have taken place.

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/2...-self-defense/

Explain how what Cutcher claims to have seen fits into Zimmerman's narrative.

And - speaking of dishonest ... you keep saying things like "decided to take a gun and pursue him as Martin ran away". GZ already had his gun on him. There is no evidence he armed himself to follow TM. Is there ?

Which is why I have never said "decided to take a gun to pursue him". Zimmerman took a gun. Zimmerman pursued Martin. Both actions were his decision.

 

[crimresearch]

See my previous post:
Explain how what Cutcher claims to have seen fits into Zimmerman's narrative.



Which is why I have never said "decided to take a gun to pursue him". Zimmerman took a gun. Zimmerman pursued Martin. Both actions were his decision.

'Took' it from where? He was wearing a holster.

Did he also decide to 'take' his shoes and pursue?

 

[johnny karate]

Which flies in the face of the claim I was arguing that Zimmerman should have anticipated Martin (the suspected criminal in his mind) would suddenly get violent.

No, because the notion that Zimmerman was following a criminal, and the reality that Zimmerman was following a teenage boy walking home from the store are two separate issues.

Zimmerman decided to follow someone he thought was a criminal.

Following a criminal around is foolish and irresponsible, unless you have the proper training and authority to do so. Zimmerman didn't.

Therefore - regardless of what followed or who he was actually following - Zimmerman bears some culpability for the risk to his safety based on the foolish and irresponsible decision he made.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Having read this article at Wagist I snooped around a bit on the sites of those forensic groups linked to Block. Some of those biographies indicate board members are teachers at known diploma mills like this one.
And then we get to the interesting *cough* coincidence of the American Psychotherapy Association having the same abbreviation as the American Psychological Association.

Have all you folks read the post Moss links to, as well as the associated links in it?!

 

[johnny karate]

'Took' it from where? He was wearing a holster.

He didn't take it from anywhere. He took it with him. Do you deny that?

Did he also decide to 'take' his shoes and pursue?

I have no information regarding Zimmerman's footwear at the time of the incident.

However, if he did have his shoes, then yes, it would be factually correct to say he took his shoes with him.

Factually correct, but not particularly relevant.

 

[sgtbaker]

See my previous post:
Explain how what Cutcher claims to have seen fits into Zimmerman's narrative.



Which is why I have never said "decided to take a gun to pursue him". Zimmerman took a gun. Zimmerman pursued Martin. Both actions were his decision.

I watched the link. No, her story isn't changing, at all. Originally he looked at them twice before answering, now it's three times. Originally he was nonchalant, "like leave me alone," about saying call the police, now he is pacing in shock, "Like what did I do?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skNKVjSxQys

 

[curi0us]

Sure it's a reason, just a crap one. That someone was screaming tells us nothing about why they were screaming or the circumstances surrounding their screaming. Anyone can scream any time for any reason. That you allege to know anything about the altercation because you think Zimmerman was screaming is ridiculous.

Have you listened to the audio closely? There is a tremendous amount of information about what going on in the background noise for 44 seconds before the gunshot.

What do you think is the context of the scream five seconds before the gunshot?

Well, if we already know she's a rape victim, of course not. Do you have factual information determining Zimmerman's status as a victim?

"Status as a victim"? What does that phrase mean to you exactly?

In determining wether or not Zimmerman, by your was own words, was just being a "pussy" I think these are some significant details to look at.

1)Zimmerman's own version of what happened with the important quote to police at the scene, "I was yellimg for someone to help me, but nobody would help me."
2)Police at the scene noting that Zimmerman had a bloody nose, blood on the back of his head, and that his back was wet as if he was been on the ground on his back.
3)Three limited/partial eyewitnesses that support Zimmerman's version of events, in particular about it being Zimmerman whom was screaming and about Martin being on top of Zimmerman.
4)The audio of the 911 call where the fighting and screaming can be heard where it is obviously not just a person screaming for help.
5)The father of Martin said it wasn't his son's voice screaming on the 911 call and the father of Zimmerman said it was his son. (Martin's brother also didn't identify the screams as Martin.)

*)There is also more information that the public doesn't have access to but that likely played into the decision to not arrest Zimmerman.

I'm betting you don't, and are simply making a cheap appeal to emotion.

From my vantage point peoples good natured concern about a young man's death has been blatantly exploited by a number of dishonest appeals to emotion.

Original narrative:

An undersized young boy who looked thirteen was badly beaten by a huge racist that outweighed him by 110 pounds. The racist was so racist he used a slur in his 911 call to the police, which the racist police then edited out. A number of witnesses heard the boy's desperate screams for help but nobody came to help him, then the huge racist shot and killed the boy since apparently just beating the boy wasn't racist enough for him.

Now since most of that narrative has been debunked you are left with:

That Zimmerman was crying for help doesn't necessarily mean his life was in danger. It could just mean he's a pussy.

 

[RandFan]

There is no evidence he armed himself to follow TM. Is there ?

There is no evidence that GZ was unaware of the fact that he had a gun. Now, of course, I can't look into his mind. Perhaps he was unaware. Assuming that he was it doesn't speak well for him (from my perspective). IMO: GZ *likely acted recklessly. A person who has a firearm ought to be aware of that fact. A person who is aware that he or she has a firearm ought to be aware that their actions coupled with the firearm can result in death. GZ either consciously decided to keep his firearm with him or he was clueless.

*I don't as yet know all of the facts. I'm still in the probable column.

 

[crimresearch]

He didn't take it from anywhere. He took it with him. Do you deny that?



I have no information regarding Zimmerman's footwear at the time of the incident.

However, if he did have his shoes, then yes, it would be factually correct to say he took his shoes with him.

Factually correct, but not particularly relevant.

The difference between 'Took' and 'had' isn't going to go away with wishful thinking.

He had a gun, he took someone's life.

 

[sgtbaker]

No, because the notion that Zimmerman was following a criminal, and the reality that Zimmerman was following a teenage boy walking home from the store are two separate issues.

Zimmerman decided to follow someone he thought was a criminal.

Following a criminal around is foolish and irresponsible, unless you have the proper training and authority to do so. Zimmerman didn't.

Therefore - regardless of what followed or who he was actually following - Zimmerman bears some culpability for the risk to his safety based on the foolish and irresponsible decision he made.

I am not bringing in the fact that Martin was not a criminal as a reason why it's okay to follow him. I just don't want to come across that I think Martin was actually doing something wrong.

Zimmerman decided to follow someone who had every opportunity for a confrontation and ran away. If he thought they were a part of the previous crime wave, there is no reason to assume that he was violent. Would I follow? Probably not. Does that mean I think it's a good idea? No. Does that mean that anyone with a lick of common sense would come to the same conclusion? No.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

There is no evidence that GZ was unaware of the fact that he had a gun. I can't look into his mind. Perhaps he was unaware. Assuming that he was it doesn't speak well for him (from my perspective). IMO: GZ *likely acted recklessly. A person who has a firearm ought to be aware of that fact. A person who is aware that he or she has a firearm ought to be aware that their actions coupled with the firearm can result in death.

*I don't as yet know all of the facts. I'm still in the probable column.

I don't disagree with any of that, necessarily.

I disagree with the narrative that Zimmerman actively went to the effort of securing a weapon prior to following Martin. That's spin.

 

[johnny karate]

The difference between 'Took' and 'had' isn't going to go away with wishful thinking.

He had a gun, he took someone's life.

Really? You're going to argue what I meant when I used the word "took"?

Feel free to look up the definition. Keep reading until you get to the part that says "carry or bring with one; convey", then drop this ridiculous line of argument.

 

[johnny karate]

I don't disagree with any of that, necessarily.

I disagree with the narrative that Zimmerman actively went to the effort of securing a weapon prior to following Martin. That's spin.

It sure is. Too bad no one you've accused of spinning it that way actually did.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

See my previous post:
Explain how what Cutcher claims to have seen fits into Zimmerman's narrative.

If I had to explain Mary Cutcher in a word, it would be mistaken.

Does she claim to be an eyewitness to who was screaming ?

No, then there are no eyewitnesses that contradict GZ claim he was the one screaming.