Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[johnny karate]

I just read it, I agree it's amazing. I would have assumed an affidavit is supposed to be strictly factual and present a narrative for why the person is being arrested. That reads more like a press story, and one that a good defense attorney is going to be all over.

I think I figured it out!!!

1. She WANTS GZ to get off and knows there is no evidence to convict! But she couldn't not charge him because the pressure was too high. So she's putting forth a presentation she knows will be torn apart.

2. Johnny Karate wrote it.

Those are me two theories . And at the moment I'm trying to decide if 1 might not be that far out there.

Quoted for posterity and reported.

 

[sgtbaker]

Quoted for posterity and reported.

There's no smiley, are you serious?

Oh NVM, I misread the post.

 

[Drs_Res]

Seriously ? I would like to know why he did not run home, that is what I think most 17-year olds would do. But I don't find a young black make not calling 911 to be unusual, not to mention this is a kid who was on suspension from for marijuana at school. I doubt he saw police officers or authority figures as the person he's going to go to in need.

Ah, good point. I forgot about the marijuana thing.

 

[triforcharity]

You honestly think TM knocked himself out by hitting a tree, or simply ran around in circles. And then you call me a conspiracy theorist.

No, I didn't say that. Don't put words into my mouth, it's rude.
I said it's PLAUSIBLE. Not "I think this is what happened."

In fact, I even SPECIFICALLY said PLAUSIBLE!!

Reading for comprehension isn't your strong point, is it?

I never called you a conspiracy theorist. In fact, I said it was LIKE (which means not exactly, but similar) dealing with a CT'ist.

Because we don't know that, it makes the entire exercise useless ?
I disagree.

Well, you're free to disagree, and that's fine. I have no problem with hypotheticals. But don't try to pass it off as some kind of factual, most plausible scenario, especially since we have NO IDEA where any of the events occurred, EXCEPT the killing of an unarmed teenager in a place he was allowed to be.

Feel free to continue your discussion, I think I will stick to known facts.

 

[johnny karate]

Alternative that make zero sense and have zero evidence.

I hate to break it to you, but there's no evidence for any of these scenarios.

And what makes sense is clearly subjective. For instance, it doesn't make sense to me that George "These a******* always get away" Zimmerman suddenly exhibited restraint and began to walk back to his truck, while simultaneously, Martin stopped running away from him and decided to attack him.

 

[Checkmite]

Evidence of injury that would have knocked hiom out for two minutes?

What is this "two minutes" silliness? Unless you're contending the first 911 call was made precisely when the fight began, which is speculative.

It doesn't need to have been some incapacitating injury. If Trayvon stopped running when he lost sight of Zimmerman and continued his "slow suspicious walk", Zimmerman could've caught up to him by walking faster. There's your "two minutes".

 

[sgtbaker]

What is this "two minutes" silliness? Unless you're contending the first 911 call was made precisely when the fight began, which is speculative.

It doesn't need to have been some incapacitating injury. If Trayvon stopped running when he lost sight of Zimmerman and continued his "slow suspicious walk", Zimmerman could've caught up to him by walking faster. There's your "two minutes".

There's two minutes in between when GZ's call ended with 911 and TM's call ended with his girlfriend. The call is said to have ended as soon as the altercation began so I think that is where the timing is coming from. I believe, and I may be misremembering the girlfriend's account, that right before the confrontation, TM said, "he's behind me again."

 

[triforcharity]

I just read it, I agree it's amazing. I would have assumed an affidavit is supposed to be strictly factual and present a narrative for why the person is being arrested. That reads more like a press story, and one that a good defense attorney is going to be all over.

I think I figured it out!!!

1. She WANTS GZ to get off and knows there is no evidence to convict! But she couldn't not charge him because the pressure was too high. So she's putting forth a presentation she knows will be torn apart.

2. Johnny Karate wrote it.

Those are me two theories . And at the moment I'm trying to decide if 1 might not be that far out there.

No, that's called (In Florida) a 923 (I think, I could be wrong)

What this is, is basically a warrant for his arrest. Or, a Capias Ad Respondendum, or "That you take and respond."

It's issued to a sheriff to take said person into custody, and bring him to the court of law to respond to charged.

It's not a notice of information.

 

[Unabogie]

Honestly, I stopped valuing what Derschowitz had to say when he started advocating "torture warrants" after 9/11. He seems to have lost his way.

But on the substance, probable cause hearings are the lowest threshold possible. All you have to prove is that it's reasonable if you view everything "in the light most favorable to the prosecution".

For example (This is CO):

http://www.boulder-bar.org/bar_media_manual/procedures/7.1.html

The evidence presented must be viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution. If testimony conflicts, the trial court must draw an inference in favor of the prosecution. If more than one inference can be drawn from a particular piece of evidence, the court must draw the inference that is most favorable to the prosecution.

So on that basis, I don't know what the hell he's talking about, unless Florida has some sort of defendant coddling statutes (which I doubt). The prosecution is not going to present their strongest evidence until trial.

IANAL

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Because you haven't explained where he is lost for two minutes, so that he wasn't headed home, and GZ couldn't see him, and he was in a position to be found shortly after GZ hung up the phone with 911.

Laying on the ground, knocked the **** out?

Running in circles, trying to find his way?

Holy *** man, it's like dealing with a CT'ist.

We also don't know when Zimmerman got sight of him again, so your speculation is as useless as a screen door on a submarine....

No, I didn't say that. Don't put words into my mouth, it's rude.
I said it's PLAUSIBLE. Not "I think this is what happened."

In fact, I even SPECIFICALLY said PLAUSIBLE!!

Reading for comprehension isn't your strong point, is it?

Nice way to have a productive discussion, thanks.

I quoted what you replied to. If you said PLAUSIBLE 3 posts before that I apologize I didn't keep everything in that context.

I never called you a conspiracy theorist. In fact, I said it was LIKE (which means not exactly, but similar) dealing with a CT'ist.

Oh, that makes all the difference

Well, you're free to disagree, and that's fine. I have no problem with hypotheticals. But don't try to pass it off as some kind of factual, most plausible scenario, especially since we have NO IDEA where any of the events occurred, EXCEPT the killing of an unarmed teenager in a place he was allowed to be.

Actually, we have more info than you admit. We know GZ went past the clubhouse, and past the mailboxes. We know where TM destination was. And we can reasonably infer, for the purposes of discussion, a lot more.

Feel free to continue your discussion, I think I will stick to known facts.

I don't know why you think you need to grant permission for me to continue the discussion, but thanks, I will.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

In defense of the mother, she said on the Today show, this morning that she would accept it as justice if Zimmerman was found not guilty. She seriously seems to feel like the law just cast this one off and just wanted to feel like he was held accountable. I don't blame her. I don't know how I would feel if I were in her shoes. I know you don't blame her, either. I just wanted to chime in and let you know that she answered for that possibility.

I am finding these statement by the mother incredible (not in a bad way), and they make me wonder. We know the prosecutor has been in touch with the family and is allowed to discuss certain things with them. I almost wonder if in her discussions with the family she has told them off the record that it may be very tough for her to get a conviction. That might explain some of the statements by the mother.

BTW, thanks for the link to the affidavit.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

No, that's called (In Florida) a 923 (I think, I could be wrong)

What this is, is basically a warrant for his arrest. Or, a Capias Ad Respondendum, or "That you take and respond."

It's issued to a sheriff to take said person into custody, and bring him to the court of law to respond to charged.

It's not a notice of information.

Thanks, I get that, I just would have expected something more convincing, and less flawed. It just does not seem very lawyerly or even well written to me. Seriously, I think I could have written something more convincing then that. Maybe it doesn't matter, since it's just a document to get the case moving, but when a famed attorney like Alan Dershowiz is mocking it, that says something.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Honestly, I stopped valuing what Derschowitz had to say when he started advocating "torture warrants" after 9/11. He seems to have lost his way.

I believe that's a misrepresentation not to mention misunderstanding of what he was arguing. In fact, he was one of the few people that approached the issue with intellectual honesty. His position was that IF we were going to use the ticking time bomb argument as a justification for torture, that we should be honest and open about it instead of torturing people and doing it in secrecy and claiming it (water boarding for instance) really wasn't torture. That someone should have to go to a judge, prove the ticking time bomb scenario, and get a warrant.

His position was that IF we were going to do it, and we clearly DO do it, we should do it with openness, require a warrant for it, and not play games about it. It's easy to see that his position might actually result in less torture, as he wanted to stop the government secrecy and games, and force the discussion.

Besides, why would you stop "valuing" (seems like what you really mean is you just reject anything he says) what someone like him has to say just because you don't like one of his positions. I don't like a lot of what the positions of guys like him but they are some of the finest legal minds in our nation and their viewpoints have value.

 

[crimresearch]

Honestly, I stopped valuing what Derschowitz had to say when he started advocating "torture warrants" after 9/11. He seems to have lost his way.

But on the substance, probable cause hearings are the lowest threshold possible. All you have to prove is that it's reasonable if you view everything "in the light most favorable to the prosecution".

For example (This is CO):

http://www.boulder-bar.org/bar_media_manual/procedures/7.1.html
So on that basis, I don't know what the hell he's talking about, unless Florida has some sort of defendant coddling statutes (which I doubt). The prosecution is not going to present their strongest evidence until trial.

IANAL

There is no doubt in my mind that Derschowitz really does know the law, more so than some other 'celebrity' barristers.

But he seems to delight in playing the absurdist. I remember seeing him as a network commentator on some high profile case many years ago, saying that if it were his client, he would advise them to argue 'freedom of association' and refuse to associate with the police or the court. The news anchor nodded dutifully as though that were an obvious bit of common knowledge.

 

[Noztradamus]

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.

Taking up the "reconstruction" at 2:45, he has Zimmerman on Retreat View Circle, the furthest point from his truck, a postion he attained in 30 seconds. Martin is supposed to have nade it to his townhouse, from where he "doubles back" to encounter Zimmerman returning to his truck.

What this Zimminista does not examine is why it took Zimmerman 2 minutes and twenty seconds to cover a distance it would have taken about 10 seconds on the outward journey.

Add Zimmeramn can't arrange a location to meet the cops because he's moving around, it seems more likely that he was just walking around, looking about, than going to his truck.

Maybe Martin thought that was suspicious, didn't know what his deal was, and decided to keep a eye on him, just as a conscientious citizen would.

 

[crimresearch]

I believe that's a misrepresentation not to mention misunderstanding of what he was arguing. In fact, he was one of the few people that approached the issue with intellectual honesty. His position was that IF we were going to use the ticking time bomb argument as a justification for torture, that we should be honest and open about it instead of torturing people and doing it in secrecy and claiming it (water boarding for instance) really wasn't torture. That someone should have to go to a judge, prove the ticking time bomb scenario, and get a warrant.

His position was that IF we were going to do it, and we clearly DO do it, we should do it with openness, require a warrant for it, and not play games about it. It's easy to see that his position might actually result in less torture, as he wanted to stop the government secrecy and games, and force the discussion.

Besides, why would you stop "valuing" (seems like what you really mean is you just reject anything he says) what someone like him has to say just because you don't like one of his positions. I don't like a lot of what the positions of guys like him but they are some of the finest legal minds in our nation and their viewpoints have value.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/2007/11/07_dershowitz.html

 

[Unabogie]

I believe that's a misrepresentation not to mention misunderstanding of what he was arguing. In fact, he was one of the few people that approached the issue with intellectual honesty. His position was that IF we were going to use the ticking time bomb argument as a justification for torture, that we should be honest and open about it instead of torturing people and doing it in secrecy and claiming it (water boarding for instance) really wasn't torture. That someone should have to go to a judge, prove the ticking time bomb scenario, and get a warrant.

His position was that IF we were going to do it, and we clearly DO do it, we should do it with openness, require a warrant for it, and not play games about it. It's easy to see that his position might actually result in less torture, as he wanted to stop the government secrecy and games, and force the discussion.

Besides, why would you stop "valuing" (seems like what you really mean is you just reject anything he says) what someone like him has to say just because you don't like one of his positions. I don't like a lot of what the positions of guys like him but they are some of the finest legal minds in our nation and their viewpoints have value.

Bullcrap. The only moral reaction to hearing that Bush and Cheney tortured prisoners is loud and public revulsion, not envisioning a legal framework to make it "out in the open". This actually doesn't surprise me that you're saying this, though.

But Derschowitz was one of my heroes, actually. His coming out for "torture warrants" was a huge disappointment to, personally. So no, I don't discount anything he says. I've read his books. I used to respect him a great deal. Except I think he's gone wingnut, which is amazing considering his roots. I posted the standard for PC. It's apparently the same just about everywhere. All you have to do is say he did it and here's your theory why. The judge has to take it as if everything you're saying is true. That's the standard.

 

[crimresearch]

<snip> It's apparently the same just about everywhere. All you have to do is say he did it and here's your theory why. The judge has to take it as if everything you're saying is true. That's the standard.

That is not the standard for PC.

 

[Unabogie]

That is not the standard for PC.

You snipped my post for some reason. Please don't do that. Just bold whatever you want to respond to. I wasn't saying it was the standard for PC. It's the standard for the hearing that comes next, which is the preliminary hearing, which is what this affidavit was addressing. They lay out what their case is, and at the next hearing, they will have a very low threshold to meet. Everything taken in "the light most favorable to the prosecution". So if the DA says that's not Zimmerman screaming, the judge has to accept that and rule that as evidence for PC.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/2007/11/07_dershowitz.html

Thanks. BTW I just listened to the Dershowitz interview and you're correct, he certainly seems to be engaging in hyperbole. I had a hard time believing his was serious that a judge would throw out this affidavit. That seems highly unlikely to me.