• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

Status
Not open for further replies.
If he did, in fact, do that, then TM is on solid grounds no matter what because, remember, the Stand Your Ground idea applies to TM as well as GZ. If some guy is following him for no apparent reason and then the guy came up to him and started to give him a ration of **** then TM could rightfully claim to feel threatened and would be within SYG even if he did initiate physical action.

In which case you could say both were right to do what they did, though I seriously doubt that even under SYG it is acceptable to visciously attack someone for following and yelling at you.

The problem one faces here is even if you go with TM attacking because he feared for his life, that doesn't then nullify GZ fearing for his without realising why TM attacked him. If I think you are coming to kill me, so I pull and knife and charge you causing you to pull a gun and shoot me, my belief that you were going to kill me doesn't nullify your right to act in self-defence against my attack. Likewise even if TM did believe that GZ was going to attack and rob him, that belief does not nullify GZ's right to defend himself against any attack.
 
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?
The picture was from the family's PR rep. This isn't a disputed issue, they gave the picture to media and didn't tell anyone how old it was was. They also underreported TM's weight and massively over reported GZ's weight. Here's a link:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2012/03/30/national/a124959D75.DTL&tsp=1
 
When those calls are coming from someone playing pretend at being a "neighborhood watch captain"? Yes I do.

Sounds like more confirmation bias to me. GZ is a nutcase so instantly disbelieve anything he says to would cause issues with the narrative he hunted TM down and shoot him in cold blood.
 
you still cannot get away from the fact that at no point did GZ report that criminal activity was actually occuring, he had no hard and solid grounds for taking the action he did.
 
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..
What constitutes "paranoia" is subjective. I'd personally argue that someone being followed for several miles in the dark and getting scared is not "paranoia', it's survival instinct and it would actually be stupid not to go into high alert. As far as your statement that you're sure their intent wasn't to scare me, I'd argue they had to be idiots if they didn't see that as a possibility. As far as not getting to "blame" people for our bad choices, I simply find that statement too absolute/simplistic. If I run at a woman alone on the street at night with a crazy look on my face because I think it's funny to scare her and in the process of doing so terrify her to the point that runs straight into traffic and gets paralyzed, would you argue that she doesn't get to blame her bad decision on running into traffic on me?
 
Last edited:
Holy crap... what?!?

You have a strange guy in concealing clothing, walking about in the rain on a cold night (yes 11 degrees is cold, and in Florida probably gets to very cold, and that was the high, it was more likely 8-9 degrees C at the time) looking at houses in a gated community where there had been a number of recent burgaries.

I put that exact senario to my partner and then asked two questions.

1) Is that suspicious behaviour?
2) What would you do?

She answered yes, and call the police. This is without knowing what the case was, or anything about the race or the person. While it is true that TM had not been commiting a crime, to expect GZ to know this at the time, rather than suspecting he was casing the place, is either 20/20 hindsight, or expecting GZ to be a mind-reader.
 
I take it for fact thaT GZ believed he was acting suspiciously and since I don't believe that one 911 call every 5-6 weeks is the sign of someone that finds everything suspicious, plus the reasons he said he was suspicious, added to the conditions at the time. I'd have been suspicious of TM had I been out checking the neighbourhood for possible crime. Anyone walking about in those conditions would be worth a look, someone walking about looking at the houses? That'd really get my attention, if on seeing me watching they took off, heck I'd be positive they were up to no good.

Phantom Wolf, you've referenced Zimmerman's history of suspicious activity calls a few times. IIRC, per the police records he'd made 7 or 8 such calls in the previous year - all but one of them was about a black male (the off call was about an open garage door). You don't wonder why the only people Zimmerman found deserving of suspicion to the extent it warranted a call to law enforcement were black? And might that history speak to his state of mind when making a judgement in this specific instance, both about the activity itself and later about the level of threat posed by Martin?

My inclination is that a white kid in the same circumstance as Martin would have been unlikely to draw Zimmerman's eye. And then none of this would have happened.
 
And also the fact as based on the transcript alone indictates that GZ had not reported any criminal activity and therefore should not have acted.
 
Really? You were there? You saw what happened? You better get on the phone and let the FL authorities in on this valuable information. Oh wait, you weren't there? So you have no flipping idea whether TM ran or not, that's just what GZ says. Pardon the hell out of me if I doubt his complete version of the story.

So GZ lied to the 911 dispatcher when he said that TM had run?

Even if TM attacked GZ first, that's not the definition of self defense. Just because someone hits you, you don't get to then shoot them dead. GZ's brother claimed he was down on the ground, with TM covering his mouth and nose and his nose was broken. GZ was swallowing copious amounts of blood! Again, really? How then was GZ able to scream for help for 40+ seconds
.

Yeah cause so and so said that so and so said that something happened is reliable, while when a person states what they are seeing directly to a 911 dispatcher, that can't be trusted.

See, the problem is there so much we don't know. There's one side, there's the other side and then there's the truth. I'll wait for the facts.

Just because there is a lot we don't know doesn't mean that we should ignore that parts where we do know what happened. Yes there are major parts we don't know about, and that's why I refuse to join the GZ is guilty crowd, simply because there is no way that you have no reasonable doubt as to guilt based on the information currently available. But then I see things on our news like that according to the prosecution "The 911 dispatcher told him not to leave the car but he got out and went after MT anyway" when in reality he was out of the car for 11 seconds before the dispatcher told him that they didn't need him to follow. If this is true that the prosecution believe that sort of thing and it's the quality of the evidence against him, they're going to get shredded in court.
 
Waht we do know for sure is that GZ at no point reports any criminal activity on the part of TM and therefore had no grounds for igetting out of his car and initating action.
 
Although PhantomWolf does seem to think that someone walking in the rain with a hoodie on is very suspicious :rolleyes:. I happen to love walking in the rain on occasion and also taking walks in the dark so I must be really suspicious and dangerous in his eyes.

You walk through gated communities wearing a hoodie on a cold dark raining night looking at the houses? Cool. If you came near my neighbourhood you could expect to have a chat with the boys in blue about what you were up too.
 
You walk through gated communities wearing a hoodie on a cold dark raining night looking at the houses? Cool. If you came near my neighbourhood you could expect to have a chat with the boys in blue about what you were up too.

People live in gated communities, and have visitors. TM was a person visiting. He looked at a house. :eek: How do we even know he did. :con2:
 
So GZ lied to the 911 dispatcher when he said that TM had run?

.

Yeah cause so and so said that so and so said that something happened is reliable, while when a person states what they are seeing directly to a 911 dispatcher, that can't be trusted.



Just because there is a lot we don't know doesn't mean that we should ignore that parts where we do know what happened. Yes there are major parts we don't know about, and that's why I refuse to join the GZ is guilty crowd, simply because there is no way that you have no reasonable doubt as to guilt based on the information currently available. But then I see things on our news like that according to the prosecution "The 911 dispatcher told him not to leave the car but he got out and went after MT anyway" when in reality he was out of the car for 11 seconds before the dispatcher told him that they didn't need him to follow. If this is true that the prosecution believe that sort of thing and it's the quality of the evidence against him, they're going to get shredded in court.

How do you know what GZ said to the dispatcher is true? Just because he said it?

The other day I posted in another thread the exact quote from the dispatcher. I know GZ wasn't ordered not to follow TM. I just don't presume that what GZ told the dispatcher is the whole truth.
 
I actually disagree. I wouldn't let him do it with a gun, but then I have rather strong opinions on guns, they have a habit of leading to this sort of situation.

Absolutely wrong. I have no problem (per se) with your view on guns, that's perfectly fine. However, it's estimated that 1 in 4 people in the US own guns. Of those people whom own guns legally, one a VERY small portion commit crimes with them.

I suspect he likely wouldn't have been quite as brave had he not had one.

I would agree with this 100%.

Had TM not been acting suspiciously and then run for it, GZ wouldn't have even bothered with him.

Acting suspiciously? Walking is suspicious now? Holy **** man.....

It was the way TM acted that made GZ act as he did.

No, it was, without a doubt, Zimmerman act the way Zimmerman did. Martin cannot dictate what someone else does. Sorry, not buying that BS story.

It seems to have been lost in the "lynch Zimmerman" meme, but TM isn't perfectly innocent in this, he made a number of decisions that in my opinion were more catalyst to the event that those GZ did.

So, walking through the neighborhood is suspicious, and running away from some dude who is following you, then being chased by the person, and it's Martin's fault?

Please tell me you don't actually believe that load of horse excrement.
 
You walk through gated communities wearing a hoodie on a cold dark raining night looking at the houses? Cool. If you came near my neighbourhood you could expect to have a chat with the boys in blue about what you were up too.
You must live in a different part of America than I do. Where I live it's perfectly legal for people to take walks outside, even in hoodies! They even get to look at houses, or the stars or moon if they like. Now if they walk through peoples yards it might be a different story. Frankly I have not studied the maps like several people in this thread have, but I don' recall GZ's suspicion being because TM was in private yards but I may well be wrong about that, correct me if I am.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom