Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[KatieG]

Whether or not it was meant to do it, it did do it, thus it would be interesting to know why it was selected. Ity appears you are uninterested in learning why.



Because walking towards a car with a person on the phone in it, staring at them and then turning and running off is not exactly normal behaviour.



Your point? It wasn't the direction TM ran off in that was suspicious, it was that he ran in the first place. As is often said in cop shows... innocent people don't run.

Maybe not but scared people certainly do. And just because a cop show says something, doesn't make it true. Not like they don't have an agenda in keeping the public controlled.

And from another post but still about this case, maybe the picture of TM that media started flashing was the only one they found. It's a simple matter to find a yearbook picture online. Do you have any evidence the Martin's provided that pic instead of a more current one? Isn't it possible the media got it elsewhere?

 

[KatieG]

Since it was established very early on that he was not part of any official Neighbourhood Watch group, it would seem irrelevant what the NW think he should or shouldn't have done, he wasn't bound by their rules.



Have you listened to the 911 call? GZ states several times that TM ran off. The first time is 6 secs before GZ exited the vehicle. This can be determined by the sound of the car door.




There was no evidence that he wasn't planning to commit one either, and I don't recall any law that says you can't follow someone unless there is evidence of imminent danger. Can you provide one? Finally, he didn't "chase" TM, he followed him after TM ran off, and headed for the back gate where he (GZ) believed TM was going (something he told the Dispatcher during the 911 call.) Since it seems fairly certain that TM turned south along the path while GZ continued east to the gate, this isn't exactly "chasing" TM. The reality of it was that GZ lost sight of TM almost as soon as he ran for it, and didn't find him again for nearly two minutes, but that doesn't sound as good as that he got out of the truck and chased TM down till he caught him.



The evidence is already out there, listen to the 911 call.

About the NW thing? Funny, Frank Taafe, a friend of GZ's and a resident of that community, claims GZ was a an active member of their NW.

Alas, who to believe? Can't have it both ways.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I've already conceded that it did. Now, could you answer my questions?

I do try to answer all questions, but with multiple people firing posts back other based on misunderstanding of my position, it takes a lot of time and as you can see, I'm well behind. As such I may miss posts as I try and go back and figure where I got to replying too.

To what end? What good could come of the answer? Would it illuminate why TM is dead?

Why does it have to be about illuminating why TM is dead? Why can't it ba about illuminating how and why the misbelief about the events after started, and whether that misbelief and media report influenced subsequent witness statments?

Okay, and? Do you know what the word "aspersion" means? What possible conclusion would not result from your "strange" feelings? While I don't at all find it "strange" I don't give a damn I did find it strange. Their son is dead. What is it that is so hard to get about that? The photo created a false impression. Life's a bitch. We don't need to figure out irrelevant minutiae of the case. Like I said, even if they consciously chose to mislead, so what?

I guess to me it holds a similar interest to the "Pink Bathroom" Knox photo. Regardless of why it was released, it created a false impression and in the end may have affected the result of the first trial. Determining how it occured could help prevent it occuring again.

 

[Dcdrac]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf
There was no evidence that a crime wasn't being planned, and at least to GZ reason to believe it might be.

That is like saying we had better imprison them now just in case they will commit a crime at some point

 

[curi0us]

Some jewelry and a screwdriver were found in his locker. The screwdriver was labeled a burglary tool. Under that definition, my husband and I must be world class burglars based on the number of screwdrivers we own.

That detail shouldn't be overlooked.

It was a described as a large flat head screw driver which is a common basic burglary tool for prying things open and it was found along with a bunch of women's jewelry that TM couldn't explain why he had or where he had gotten from. It's an incredible coincidence that the person that GZ reported to 911 for acting kind of like a burglar had recently been caught with some very suspicious items suggesting he was a burglar. I am not saying it is proof of anything at all, but I think some consideration has to be given to the idea that GZ's calling the police about TM may have been based on something more then just paranoid fantasy.

 

[KatieG]

That detail shouldn't be overlooked.

It was a described as a large flat head screw driver which is a common basic burglary tool for prying things open and it was found along with a bunch of women's jewelry that TM couldn't explain why he had or where he had gotten from. It's an incredible coincidence that the person that GZ reported to 911 for acting kind of like a burglar had recently been caught with some very suspicious items suggesting he was a burglar. I am not saying it is proof of anything at all, but I think some consideration has to be given to the idea that GZ's calling the police about TM may have been based on something more then just paranoid fantasy.

But GZ didn't know anything about TM's past activities the night this happened. So what is the justification for GZ reporting him to be suspicious on that night, at that time? Nothing either man did before that night, the time of confrontation and the shooting is relevant to this case.

 

[a_unique_person]

That detail shouldn't be overlooked.

It was a described as a large flat head screw driver which is a common basic burglary tool for prying things open and it was found along with a bunch of women's jewelry that TM couldn't explain why he had or where he had gotten from. It's an incredible coincidence that the person that GZ reported to 911 for acting kind of like a burglar had recently been caught with some very suspicious items suggesting he was a burglar. I am not saying it is proof of anything at all, but I think some consideration has to be given to the idea that GZ's calling the police about TM may have been based on something more then just paranoid fantasy.

No, it was a paranoid fantasy. TM was not equipped to rob anything, he was unarmed, he was scared because he was being followed.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Which part?

Why does it have to be a part rather then the totality of it? Seeing a pig might not be unusal, seeing someone surfing might not be unusual, but seeing a pig surfing?

Walking at night

Certainly not uncommon by itself, though rarer than during the day. Most people don't walk about poorly lit areas after dark. (and yes just having street lighting counts as poorly lit)

walking when it's raining

Again, rarer than when it's not raining. Most people don't go out in the rain and dark unless it's something urgent and when they do they tend to wear clothing that keeps them dry, not clothing that will get soaked with a few minutes of walking, especially when it's only 11 degrees C.

wearing a hoodie

Again, it's not unusual as and of itself, but wearing a hoodie in the cold rain rather than a rain jacket or having an umberella, that's a bit strange. Doing in the dark, that's getting very strange. Walking along looking at houses while doing it, that's suspicious. Doing all that as a stranger in a gated community where there have been recent burglaries, expect someone to call the cops to check you out.

which of these is unusual?

As stated, it's not just one thing, but the total of them all.

 

[Mumbles]

That detail shouldn't be overlooked.

It was a described as a large flat head screw driver which is a common basic burglary tool for prying things open and it was found along with a bunch of women's jewelry that TM couldn't explain why he had or where he had gotten from. It's an incredible coincidence that the person that GZ reported to 911 for acting kind of like a burglar had recently been caught with some very suspicious items suggesting he was a burglar. I am not saying it is proof of anything at all, but I think some consideration has to be given to the idea that GZ's calling the police about TM may have been based on something more then just paranoid fantasy.

Actually, we have no report of stolen jewelry, and Martin was apparently interested in mechanics, so having a screwdriver isn't that much of a shock.

In any case, as others have said, this is irrelevant to the case, even if it were verified. "walking around, looking about" is not suspicious behavior, so there was little reason for Zimmerman to so much as call 911, much less for him to pursue Martin, either in his car or on foot.

 

[Dcdrac]

No, it was a paranoid fantasy. TM was not equipped to rob anything, he was unarmed, he was scared because he was being followed.

He was armed with a dangerous bag of skittles

 

[PhantomWolf]

No matter what an innocent is dead, someone who was merely gunned down becasue someone else thoguht he was suspicious and ratcheted up the situation instead of using their common snesne net result an innocent person hass been killed by someone who patently is unfit to carry out a policing role and should not be let near firearms.

In the UK we call this manslaugther, I do not beleiive Zimmeramn set out to murder but has committed manslaughter.

Unless of course he really did attack Zimmerman for following him, at which point he's not quite so innocent is he?

 

[curi0us]

But GZ didn't know anything about TM's past activities the night this happened.

I know, that is what makes it such an interesting coincidence.

So what is the justification for GZ reporting him to be suspicious on that night, at that time?

He gave one in the 911 call, it is just too vague to be clear if it is valid. More detail is definitely needed.

Nothing either man did before the time of confrontation and the shooting is relevant to this case.

I think there is some middle ground there, putting too much into past events is wrong but I don't think the past can just be ignored either.

 

[PhantomWolf]

That Stand your ground law looks like a blank cheque as long as other withnesses are not about to counter the argument of the killer

If there is no one around to witness it, any claim is a blank cheque. In this case there is a witness that saw the attack and stated that the guy in red (GZ) was under TM and getting beaten and that GZ was calling for help.

The issue is that no one saw what started the fight.

 

[Dcdrac]

If there is no one around to witness it, any claim is a blank cheque. In this case there is a witness that saw the attack and stated that the guy in red (GZ) was under TM and getting beaten and that GZ was calling for help.

The issue is that no one saw what started the fight.

It is also clear that GZ got out of his car and approached the person based on nothing but a suspicion while not reporting that nay criminal act was occuuring he did this on suspcion alone, which is nto an intelligent thing to do, the intelligent thing to do would have been to keep TM under surveillance and wait for the Police to arrive, instead he does the stupid thing and sets up a lethal confrontation, he was the one armed with a gun remember.

If someone got out of a car and came at me with a gun I would have tried to defend myself too.

 

[PhantomWolf]

At this point, many of them have touchscreen phones, where you can't do much of anything without looking at the screen. And in fact, martin is supposed to have had an iPhone - which has special help for the hard-of-sight specifically because it's native setting is effectively impossible to use blind.

Fair enough, but if he truely feared for his life and didn't want to show his phone, he could have gotten his gf to ring 911 easy enough.

I don't think any of this is really in evidence at this point. We don't actually know, in any specific term, where Martin or Zimmerman were at any point, aside from where the fight took place.

We know where the truck was parked, and where GZ first saw TM as well. We know how much time passed from TM running, and GZ leaving the truck, the shooting occured a very short distance from there, and considering that 3-4 mins passed between then and the shooting during while time both were running at some point, it's all but impossible too have only gotten to the shooting site, unless they both stopped halfway and crawled there.

Again, at the memento there's no reason to suspect that Martin doubled back at all, and I doubt Zimmerman moved around nearly that far.

He either doubled back, or he stopped and waited, it wouldn't take him near enough to four minutes to get from GZ's truck to where the fight occured if he had walked it, let alone run.

I'm still of the opinion that Zimmerman's behavior, even in the 911 call, was bizarre, and that if he got hit, it was because he had already given Martin strong reason to fear for his safety.

Sounds like confirmation bias to me.

I can see a very simple reason - Zimmerman's very poor at describing things accurately. Among other things, he completely failed to describe any reason to think that Martin was on drugs, or any reason why Martin was suspicious.

Funny thing about 911 calls, callers don't go into breath taking detail about things, they have one goal, get the cops there, then they can deal with the details. A number of years back when I called 111 because we had an intruder in the house, I didn't spend time telling what the guy was wearing and what he was doing, I told them there was an armed intruder in the house, gave them the address and headed back to protect my mother.

 

[curi0us]

Actually, we have no report of stolen jewelry,

I choose my words carefully, I said he couldn't explain where he got the jewelry but I am also aware it was never confirmed as stolen by the police. As is it's just very fishy.

and Martin was apparently interested in mechanics, so having a screwdriver isn't that much of a shock.

Didn't hear that excuse before. So what mechanical project was he working on that TM needed a single large flat headed screw driver for?

In any case, as others have said, this is irrelevant to the case, even if it were verified.

Seems relevant to me. I think GZ's past is relevant too.

"walking around, looking about" is not suspicious behavior, so there was little reason for Zimmerman to so much as call 911, much less for him to pursue Martin, either in his car or on foot.

Depending on how a person was moving and acting I could easily imagine a scenario where prior to them committing a burglary I became suspicious that was their intention. I am not saying TM was acting that way, I am just saying the description GZ gave is vague enough that it's not clear.

 

[KatieG]

If there is no one around to witness it, any claim is a blank cheque. In this case there is a witness that saw the attack and stated that the guy in red (GZ) was under TM and getting beaten and that GZ was calling for help.

The issue is that no one saw what started the fight.

Because no eyewitness report has ever been wrong? We don't know what the witness statements actually say so that can't be taken without a large grain of salt. Since the SP chose to charge GZ with 2nd degree, maybe that eyewitness was mistaken. Or they witnessed 5 seconds of a fairly long fight. Who's to say what the real story is but you seem to cherry pick only those things that are damning to TM. We don't know what his side of the story is because he's DEAD.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Of course it was a "choice". It was also affected by someones elses choice to follow me and turn with me for every street on dark streets for a couple of miles and scare the hell out of me.

I'm sure their intent wasn't to "scare the hell out of" you, that was a result of your own paranoia. They could have been following for a totally legitimate reason. In the end, all of our decisions are influenced by the decisions of other people, but we don't get to blame them for our bad choices even when we do something based on what someone else did. It reminds me of when I used to referee rugby. I pinged a player after he stood up and smacked an opposition player. His excuse? The guy was off-side. Yes the opponent was off-side, but that didn't excuse the player's decision to resort to violence.

In this case, TM's bad decision to run directly lead to GZ's bad decision to get out of the SUV and follow. What other bad descisions followed we don't know, all we know is that it lead to a fight between the two and Zimmerman firing. The point is that neither can be blamed for the bad decisions of the other, only their own.

Attempting to totally separate the two seems ridiculous to me as those who would blame homosexuality on all behavior or all environment.

Totally irrelevant and bad analogue

It is entirely possible that BOTH of these individuals bear some responsibility, and the main question from a legal standpoint is who bears the brunt of the responsibility for the confrontation and was GZ in fear for his life and being beaten at the moment he was shot.

Totally agree, this is exactly where I stand. I believe both individuals did things and made poor decisions that lead to them meeting. At that point something happened and there was a fight which lead to GZ firing. Not knowing who started the fight makes it hard to determine who was at fault. In my view whoever laid hands on the other first is the one responsible for the death.

Even if the answer to that is yes, and he is deemed not guilty, it doesn't mean his decisions or how he handled himself didn't possibly create a very dangerous and even predictable situation.

Agreed, though I would contest that the danger was to him. Unless GZ really attacked TM first, which would be a decision apart from the others, then the only person that was in danger from his decisions was GZ. If TM attacked GZ as GZ claims, then it was TM's decision that lead to him being in a dangerous situation.

I agree, never suggested otherwise unlike some here. However it IS a huge part of the puzzle so it's one of the factors to think about in wondering how this might have happened.

I agree, unfortunately unless there is evidence we don't know.....

 

[PhantomWolf]

I think instead of fiinding reasons to give a killer of an innocent an excuse we should be focusing on the issues it raises, a bad law and what type of people should be allowed to operate Neighbourhood watches.

Someone that attacks another person for following them is not "an innocent" no matter how many time you say it. If TM attacked GZ first, then his death is on his own hands no matter what GZ did.

ANd yes Zimmeran is a killer based on nothing but the suspcions he created for himself.

Unless he was telling the truth, at which point he is a killer because he was viscously attacked.

 

[Dcdrac]

The essential is, point based on the transcrpit evidence of the 911 call alone no criminal activity on the part of TM was reported by GZ all he said ws acting suspiciously whatever definition of suspiciously he was using he should have stopped there, it was he that got out of his car armed with a gun and approached someone he did not know and had not reported any criminal activity being carried out by that person.

GZ if he really had felt threatend should have driven to a safe point and provided surviellance for the police, he did not, he acted stupidly, based on thin air his own definiton of acting suspicously, remember in the transcript there is no indication of any ceiminal behaviour on the part of TM reportd by GZ, suspcion alone is not enough.