Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Kestrel]

One thing bothers me about GZ's father's account of GZ's actions. He says that GZ got out of his truck to look at a street sign so he could tell the police where he was. From the map, there are only three street names in that neighborhood. If he lived there, and especially if he was on the neighborhood watch, he should know which street is which. He may not have known an exact address, but looking at a number on a house would tell him that. Regardless, the claim is he was looking for a street sign. Has anyone heard more about this?

As I recall, the claim was that Zimmerman went to the next street looking for a house number, not a street sign. He then turned around and was headed back to his truck along this path when Martin jumped out from a hiding place and attacked him.

Where did Martin hide?

 

[Alt+F4]

That has got to be the ugliest housing development....ever!

 

[Professor Yaffle]

He was really thin and hid behind one of those trees.

 

[triforcharity]

I would guess you are in the minority on that.

I can probably name half the streets in my entire county! I'm probably in the minority on the other end of the equation.

If there were only 3 streets in the entire complex and Z was the captain of the neighborhood watch for that entire complex (for 2 years?), then Z not knowing the name of one of the 3 streets is highly suspicious.

Very true. If someone tells me the name of a street in my city, I can tell you where it is, and the nearest cross street. But, then again, I have to know it for my job.....so I am not a good example.

But, I can tell you every street in my neighborhood. It would seem very odd that as a NW guy, wouldn't know his location within the 3 different streets. But he knew the address to the clubhouse.....

 

[triforcharity]

I have to do a search of the thread, it was early on in the first week, she had gone to the press making all sorts of statements and there was a press statement alleged to have been regarding the interviews.

I will be going through the thread soon to find the original source.

So, this still doesn't make any sense to me.

"She did write a statement, for her roommate,

She wrote a statement for her roommate. Why? Did her roommate not have the ability to write? Language problems? This line doesn't make and sense to me.


and that was only after several attempts by officers who were asking for her information," Morgenstern said, adding that "the information she provided in her sworn statements… [was] consistent with the information Zimmerman provided."

Now it gets even more confusing. She wrote a statement for her roommate, but it was her sworn statement? No, not possible.

There are times when someone else would physically write a statement for someone else. Language barriers (rare, because they could write it in whatever language, and the PD would translate it later) physical handicaps, (very likely) or what have you. This would not be HER sworn statement, but the sworn statement of her roommate.

So, unless the two sentences really don't belong in the same sentence, it's completely illogical and wrong.

(And again, I am not attacking you DD, just the statement from SPD.)

You cannot write a sworn statement for your roommate, and then have it become YOUR sworn statement.

Something is not right here....

 

[Beerina]

Too funny.

This thread is a monument to opinions poorly disguised as facts.

An epic monument.

Nah, when it does its first rollover, like Amanda Knox, then you are permitted to make statements like this


Those who study meme spread through host organisms are having a field day watching this process in action.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Let's start way back at the beginning with my claim:

GZ has already stated it was he who was screaming. Witnesses have corroborated his story.

To which JK replied:

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.
...
SO - which 'witness' has contradicted this story ?

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.

If I had to explain your opinion of Mary Cutcher's testimony in a word, it would be irrelevant.
Unless you've got some unique insight nobody else does, what witnesses in this case you deem to be mistaken has no bearing on reality.

You asked me explain her testimony. I did. Then you tell me my explanation is irrelevant.
(Actually, I think she's a liar base on her changing story and the Polices's statement of how long it took them to get a statement from her, but mistaken works as well )
911 call number 6 on the City of sanford site.
MC: "it's a black guy."
Dispatcher: "What do you mean, it's a black guy? that got shot?"
MC: "I don't know"
...
MC: Theres a black guy standing up over him.

If you prefer, you can dismiss Cutcher's testimony - for whatever reason you might want to do that - and pretend the witness testimony that corroborates Zimmerman's account is ironclad.

Personally, I prefer to be suspect of all witness testimony unless it can be substantiated with hard evidence.

Why bother with witnesses when you have hard evidence ?

How about we dismiss her testimony becuase she keeps changing it, and didn't even correctly identify the color of the man standing. We know she got that wrong, unless it was zombie TM.

The only thing 'dishonest' in those posts are your two hilited statements.

 

[Dan O.]

As I recall, the claim was that Zimmerman went to the next street looking for a house number, not a street sign. He then turned around and was headed back to his truck along this path when Martin jumped out from a hiding place and attacked him.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/218314f82d4fa513de.jpg

Where did Martin hide?

That's a better picture of what I thought was a luminary for the path. Here it is even closer: http://www.tampabay.com/news/humaninterest/article1221799.ece

The article also has some details on the neighborhood watch program that were questioned earlier.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

And what evidence do you have that Zimmerman though Martin was violent?

He took his gun.

OK then.

I see what you did there. It was only slightly less dishonest than you trying to twist something I said into something you could more easily attack.

There it is , in its entirety in context. How is it dishonest ?

If I say "George Zimmerman took his SUV and killed Trayvon Martin" ... are you OK with that statement ? It's true, right ? He did take his SUV, and he did Kill TM ? That's how I view your statement about grabbing his gun and killing TM. Context matters.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

So, this still doesn't make any sense to me.

"She did write a statement, for her roommate,

She wrote a statement for her roommate. Why? Did her roommate not have the ability to write? Language problems? This line doesn't make and sense to me.


and that was only after several attempts by officers who were asking for her information," Morgenstern said, adding that "the information she provided in her sworn statements… [was] consistent with the information Zimmerman provided."

Now it gets even more confusing. She wrote a statement for her roommate, but it was her sworn statement? No, not possible.

There are times when someone else would physically write a statement for someone else. Language barriers (rare, because they could write it in whatever language, and the PD would translate it later) physical handicaps, (very likely) or what have you. This would not be HER sworn statement, but the sworn statement of her roommate.

So, unless the two sentences really don't belong in the same sentence, it's completely illogical and wrong.

(And again, I am not attacking you DD, just the statement from SPD.)

You cannot write a sworn statement for your roommate, and then have it become YOUR sworn statement.

Something is not right here....

I think it's poor grammar in the article.

From the interviews, it appears obvious that English is not the roomates first language.

So she (mary cutcher) helped her roommate write a statement. The information provided in her (roommate) statement corroborates zimmermans story.

It makes sense to me.

 

[Noztradamus]

Very true. If someone tells me the name of a street in my city, I can tell you where it is, and the nearest cross street. But, then again, I have to know it for my job.....so I am not a good example.

But, I can tell you every street in my neighborhood. It would seem very odd that as a NW guy, wouldn't know his location within the 3 different streets. But he knew the address to the clubhouse.....

Actually not. He never gives or confirms the correct address to the dispatcher.

 

[RandFan]

(Actually, I think she's a liar base on her changing story and the Polices's statement of how long it took them to get a statement from her, but mistaken works as well )

Because truthful witness statements can never change and humans all act in specified ways to given scenarios?

Given these facts I would be persuaded to think she is more likely than not lying if I understood her motivation for not wanting to provide a statement? Is it because she knows the truth and didn't want to implicate Martin? I would also like to know to what extent her story had changed. (I've not seen the details or don't recall them).

 

[RandFan]

If I say "George Zimmerman took his SUV and killed Trayvon Martin" ... are you OK with that statement ? It's true, right ? He did take his SUV, and he did Kill TM ? That's how I view your statement about grabbing his gun and killing TM. Context matters.

Yes, and Zimmerman was either aware that he had a gun when he consciously decided to follow Martin or he wasn't. If he was then he made a conscious decision to follow Martin knowing that he had a gun. That's a bit different than coincidentally taking an SUV. If he wasn't aware then he was irresponsible, IMO.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Yes, and Zimmerman was either aware that he had a gun when he consciously decided to follow Martin or he wasn't. If he was then he made a conscious decision to follow Martin knowing that he had a gun. That's a bit different than coincidentally taking an SUV. If he wasn't aware then he was irresponsible, IMO.

If the story is 'GZ was armed and killed TM' ... that's ok

If the story is "GZ grabbed his gun and killed TM" ... that's not ok.

If you disagree that those two statements convey a different impression of the events, so be it.

 

[RandFan]

If the story is 'GZ was armed and killed TM' ... that's ok

If the story is "GZ grabbed his gun and killed TM" ... that's not ok.

If you disagree that those two statements convey a different impression of the events, so be it.

I think the two statements exclude the middle. BTW: I'm not necessarily defending JK but you might be arguing a straw man.

 

[curi0us]

I don't know. And neither do you.

Well the best witness we have is GZ but I gather you don't want to defer to his description of what happened so I thought evaluating the other evidence we have was a good idea.

Did you even try to listen to the scream five seconds before the gun shot? It's not a normal scream. Mary Cutcher described the yells as "whining" and it has commonly thought to have been a young/adolescent boy due to the pitch and quality of the voice.

The emotional character of the screams is relevant to our exchange because you jumped into the middle of a debate I was having with LeftySergeant where he was arguing that GZ looked like a "banger" and crying for help could be considered aggressive by TM siince GZ could have been calling for back up from his "homies".
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8179876&postcount=5411
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8180064&postcount=5420

You've taken something I said out of context and used it as a basis for a ridiculous straw man argument.

You seem to be under the impression that determining it is Zimmerman screaming on the 911 tape tells us conclusively he was in mortal danger. It doesn't.

I never said anywhere that the 911 tape tells us that the Zimmerman was in mortal danger. I choose my words carefully and said the 911 call gives "us very audible evidence of an anguished person who was panicked and calling for help for an extended period."

My point is that if a person is screaming and crying for help for over a minute then that is a good reason to doubt a narrative that paints that person as the aggressor and sure doesn't sound like they had the (legally significant) option to "withdraw".

The idea that TM may have thought GZ was some kind of banger/stalker is plausible to me, the problem is that if the actual sequence of events is that TM continued to beat GZ while GZ screamed/whined like a "pussy" then the longer that went on for the more questionable TM's actions become. If the screams are GZ then he deserves consideration as a victim himself. We don't have the police photos of his injuries, but if those confirm what is in the initial police report (bloody nose, blood on back of head) and if the screams are GZ you have very clear evidence that major elements of GZ's story that many people thought were lies were in fact true. While the rape victim analogy may have seemed emotionally charged to you it serves a legitimate point in challenging peoples prejudices.

How long does a person need to scream for help before people believe they were really desperate for help? How many times does a person need to cry "help" before a person on top of them should stop hitting them?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I think the two statements exclude the middle. BTW: I'm not necessarily defending JK but you might be arguing a straw man.

I see it as a half-truth.

 

[RandFan]

I see it as a half-truth.

And this is unhelpful in advancing the discussion. There is a statement that can be made that isn't a partial truth. You've excluded it and have created an unnecessary dichotomy.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

George Zimmerman was the person who labeled Martin "suspicious" and decided to take a gun and pursue him as Martin ran away.

And this is unhelpful in advancing the discussion. There is a statement that can be made that isn't a partial truth. You've excluded it and have created an unnecessary dichotomy.

JK's statement is a half-truth. He claimed it was not. I disagreed, and gave examples of how to word it better. I am not 'excluding' adding any additional information. I'll stop with this now, as you are correct, it doesn't add much.

 

[RandFan]

JK's statement is a half-truth. He claimed it was not. I disagreed, and gave examples of how to word it better. I am not 'excluding' adding any additional information. I'll stop with this now, as you are correct, it doesn't add much.

I'm sorry but your characterization of what JK said isn't, IMO, correct. And you do exclude something rather important and that is the implications of having a gun and deciding to pursue someone who you deem suspicious while you have a gun.

JK's statement, "decide to take a gun" includes the act of being aware that one has a gun, understanding the ramifications of taking the gun, and then taking the gun. That's very different from taking an SUV.