Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[lane99]

Not likely

I am betting though, that if the judge has descreation he is not going to allow cameras in the courtroom for this case.

You're on. How much would you like to bet?

p.s. I'm assuming you meant "discretion" where you wrote "descreation".

 

[Moss]

Yea - he didn't really "lose contact" with his attorneys - he fired them. Zimmerman turned himself in last night and is in custody.

Ah, sorry, missed all that. Too much work makes Moss a dull... bryophyte.

 

[lane99]

...If there is no evidence that he was attacked, or in any way had his life threatened, he will end up with 2nd deg. Murder charges...

Wow, I was right.....Thanks!!

Not really. Since he was charged with murder in spite of the fact that there is not no evidence that he was attacked and in some way had his life threatened.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

I think they picked their angle and went with it. There have been quite a few dishonesties in the media, NBC being the worst example. There were other's such as the snipping of 2 minutes out of the dispatcher calls, editing out the part where GZ said, "I don't know where he is." There has been the repeated "armed with a bag of skittles and an ice tea." They continued to quote up to the part where the dispatcher said, "we don't need you to do that," and never quote Zimmerman saying, "Okay." The fact that some counter claims have become available does benefit them because hey, more headlines.

Great post.

 

[johnny karate]

Zimmerman doesn't need solid evidence to back his claim. The prosecutor needs solid evidence to bust it. That's the way I look at it. Zimmerman's story is not implausible or immediately dismissible as a lie, so it has to be broken with evidence/proof, imo.

No, Zimmerman doesn't need "solid evidence" in a legal sense. I don't deny that. I am talking about personal belief. Zimmerman is quite clearly making a positive claim. For me - as far as what I believe - that requires a hell of a lot more proof than "Because I say so". And I don't think that's an unreasonable standard of proof. As a matter of fact, it's fairly common around these parts.

What solid evidence do we have anyway? We have a dead 17 year old with a GSW to the chest, and an admitted shooter with injuries to the back of his head, and a claim of self defense. We also have several 911 calls, with various interpretations. We have a few witnesses, the biggest of which seems to support Zimmerman's story.

I think a couple of your claims are dubious. We have little evidence to support Zimmerman's claim of head injuries, especially in regard to their nature. "Enhanced" stills from a surveillance video don't cut it.

And I'm not sure what you mean by "biggest" but that one witness might partially corroborate Zimmerman's account isn't very compelling. I don't think anyone denies an altercation took place. Show me someone who saw how that fight began, or who saw Zimmerman fire the fatal shot.

The one piece of solid evidence we do have - and the one that most sways me against Zimmerman - is the fact that the last verified account prior to the altercation places Zimmerman in pursuit of Martin, who was running away from him.

That Zimmerman suddenly stopped chasing him and Martin suddenly decided to turn around and attack Zimmerman strikes me as significantly less probable than a scenario in which Zimmerman continued to pursue Martin and the altercation ensuing from Zimmerman eventually catching him.

We also have a first investigation, which apparently did not result in charges.

That could quite easily be taken as an indication of just how sloppy and incomplete that investigation was.

If the prosecutor has good evidence of 2nd degree murder, then she will win her case, but I haven't seen or heard of such evidence.

If her evidence consists of statements like "Trayvon's Mother said it was Trayvon screaming.", I just don't think that will go very far.

Time will tell.

 

[sgtbaker]

I won't deny the media has spun this story, and usually not in Zimmerman's favor. But again, they are going with the narratives most likely to draw viewers or garner hits on their respective websites. The media has and always will sensationalize news stories. I just don't think it's been done in some concerted, conscious effort to demonize George Zimmerman.

And what's hilarious about the idea that the media is out to get Zimmerman because of racial bias is that this comes just 15+ years after the O.J. Simpson case and all the same claims being made regarding him (e.g. the infamous Time magazine cover).

So either the media has done a complete 180 in their collective opinion on race in the last two decades, or they're just generally full of s***.

It's not about favoring one particular race over another, it's about the angle they picked for each individual story.

She might. But again, her opinion won't factor into the factual establishment of the crime

No but if the prosecutor is painting a picture of a murderer, the defense will paint a picture of a man with good intentions and the situation got out of his control. The mother later claims that she meant something else but the words she used describes a situation where a man made a mistake, not a that of a murderer. A lot of statements made to the media will probably get into the trial. They won't be admitted as evidence but as an alternative theory.

 

[AlBell]

I'm waiting with baited breath ...

Earthworm? Chicken-liver? Plastic worm? Crab? Other?

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

This link below was posted on the last page, but it was mainly with regard to TM's mother retracting/clarifying here statement. For those that did not see it there is an interview with GZ's new attorney at the end. My impression is that this guy is GOOD, and in an entirely different league than the first jokers. He's also an attorney who does not come off as a spinster, which is how the first two jokers came off, as well as the jokers who are representing the TM family. Watch it and you'll see what I mean.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...-says-zimmerman-killed-him-in-cold-blood?lite

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Earthworm? Chicken-liver? Plastic worm? Crab? Other?

OK, at least that's much better than the other guys breath joke .

 

[Steve]

I'm not on either "side" at this point. I think he was justifiably charged, but if I were on the jury right now I'd have to vote to acquit. There's a reasonable doubt in my mind as to Zimmerman's guilt. Of course, my opinion will be subject to revision as the case progresses and more information comes out.

If you were on the jury right now you would be expected to form your opinion based entirely on the evidence provided in court, and to disregard the things you may have read in the media, or on these boards. Voting to acquit based entirely on what you have heard (read) so far would be extremeny unethical.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

The one piece of solid evidence we do have - and the one that most sways me against Zimmerman - is the fact that the last verified account prior to the altercation places Zimmerman in pursuit of Martin, who was running away from him.

That Zimmerman suddenly stopped chasing him and Martin suddenly decided to turn around and attack Zimmerman strikes me as significantly less probable than a scenario in which Zimmerman continued to pursue Martin and the altercation ensuing from Zimmerman eventually catching him.

Can you give me a plausible and probable explanation of how TM could not get away from GZ ? How it was something other than TM stopping and heading back towards zimmerman ?

http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/evidence-that-trayvon-martin-doubled-back
has a map and the unedited 911 call. Ignore what you may or may not think about the sites or the author - just explain to me how from 2:20 into the call , for almost an additional 2 more minutes TM could not manage to make it home, and was 'chased down' by GZ.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

I'm not on either "side" at this point. I think he was justifiably charged, but if I were on the jury right now I'd have to vote to acquit. There's a reasonable doubt in my mind as to Zimmerman's guilt. Of course, my opinion will be subject to revision as the case progresses and more information comes out.

If you were on the jury right now you would be expected to form your opinion based entirely on the evidence provided in court, and to disregard the things you may have read in the media, or on these boards. Voting to acquit based entirely on what you have heard (read) so far would be extremeny unethical.

It would also be extremely unethical for you to be on this message board advising a fellow juror as to what's ethical if you were on the jury. You should report it to the judge if you think he's doing something he shouldn't be doing.

 

[triforcharity]

You don't necessarily shoot to kill, but to stop the attack. You can intentionally shoot someone without the intent to kill them.

A woman being raped can pull out a gun and shoot the rapist. The intent isn't to kill the attacker, but to stop the rape the only way she can.

I think Zimmerman's lawyers would use a similar line.

They might say that Zimmerman could have shot Martin in the head if he intended to kill him, for example.

That will NEVER fly in ANY court.

Here's why. "when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another"

And shooting someone in the chest is not much better than the head. In fact, when you take your CWP class, they teach "shoot at center mass". Always.

 

[sgtbaker]

This link below was posted on the last page, but it was mainly with regard to TM's mother retracting/clarifying here statement. For those that did not see it there is an interview with GZ's new attorney at the end. My impression is that this guy is GOOD, and in an entirely different league than the first jokers. He's also an attorney who does not come off as a spinster, which is how the first two jokers came off, as well as the jokers who are representing the TM family. Watch it and you'll see what I mean.

Lol, I hate you for reposting that link. Now I have to retract the idea that Sabrina's statement might be brought up in court.

 

[Steve]

It would also be extremely unethical for you to be on this message board advising a fellow juror as to what's ethical if you were on the jury. You should report it to the judge if you think he's doing something he shouldn't be doing.

I don't get the hilite

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

I don't get the hilite

Well, informing someone that's offering an opinion on a message board that if they were on a jury they should not be basing their opinion on what they've read in the media and that's it's unethical to do so is frankly a silly non-point and stating the obvious. So I figured I'd be equally silly and make a similar point that if you were on the jury you shouldn't be talking with him.

 

[crimresearch]

Not really. Since he was charged with murder in spite of the fact that there is not no evidence that he was attacked and in some way had his life threatened.

Zimmerman's claims don't amount to enough evidence at this point. His apparently slight injuries and corraborating details aren't persuasive enough to not charge him with something.

In the intended context, TFC was quite right. What the media has reported so far isn't evidence for anything other]/i] than 2nd degree.

 

[triforcharity]

Do you think that she will testify as a character witness?

No. Character witnesses are brought in by the defense......

 

[triforcharity]

Not really. Since he was charged with murder in spite of the fact that there is not no evidence that he was attacked and in some way had his life threatened.

Assumes facts not in (our) evidence, and speculation.

The DA charged with Murder 2, which tells me, Zimmerman's claims don't add up, and that the DA has evidence that Zimmerman was the aggressor, or something else. Maybe the evidence shows that Martin never struck Zimmerman at any time, or maybe there is a witness that saw the fight, that hasn't come to our attention.

We don't know. But, for the most part, I was correct. Not that it matters really.

 

[triforcharity]

Can you give me a plausible and probable explanation of how TM could not get away from GZ ? How it was something other than TM stopping and heading back towards zimmerman ?

http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/evidence-that-trayvon-martin-doubled-back
has a map and the unedited 911 call. Ignore what you may or may not think about the sites or the author - just explain to me how from 2:20 into the call , for almost an additional 2 more minutes TM could not manage to make it home, and was 'chased down' by GZ.

Maybe he got lost and made a wrong turn? Extremely plausible, as he was not a full time resident there, and it was dark and rainy.

Maybe he ran into that tree and was stunned.......