Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[sgtbaker]

This was your claim I was responding to:



When in fact the dispatcher clearly told Z that "we do not need you to [follow M]". Sure sounds like a request to me.

Whoever wrote the affidavit for arrest agrees:



Z was given a very serious sounding suggestion to stop following M by a police dispatcher. This suggestion was given during Z's pursuit of M and was within several minutes of the fatal shot being fired. Z responded to this suggestion with the word "Okay".

He was told not to follow AFTER he was already following. The *possible* misinterpreted request was BEFORE he started following. He responded to the statement, "we don't need you to do that," with an okay. 15 seconds later, he is no longer walking. Listen to the recording. At exactly 2:43 seconds, you no longer hear wind. He does not sound like he is following anymore. It sounds like he is standing somewhere, distracted, hitting something. "In my minds eye" D) I see him hitting a flashlight, the way everyone seems to do, when the flashlight won't stay on. For all I know, he could be loading his gun. He is standing still, doing something.

The case the prosecution is going to put out, of course, is going to say Zimmerman continued to follow, otherwise, they don't have a case. The prosecution (whether they have evidence that we do not know or are purely sympathetic to the family, or are politically motivated) are using Trayvon's girlfriend's account because that is what the case is resting on. This is why there is a trial, though, the prosecutor will have one version and, you should be sitting down for this; the defense is going to have a different account.

 

[This is The End]

Again, don't take the detective's statement of probable cause as gospel for anything except clearing the 'more than an articulable suspicion' threshold.

I agree that the detective might add some "spin" to the PC, but "spin" to the extent that some people are claiming? I don't think that would be allowed.

 

[This is The End]

He was told not to follow AFTER he was already following. The *possible* misinterpreted request was BEFORE he started following. He responded to the statement, "we don't need you to do that," with an okay. 15 seconds later, he is no longer walking. Listen to the recording. At exactly 2:43 seconds, you no longer hear wind. He does not sound like he is following anymore. It sounds like he is standing somewhere, distracted, hitting something. "In my minds eye" D) I see him hitting a flashlight, the way everyone seems to do, when the flashlight won't stay on. For all I know, he could be loading his gun. He is standing still, doing something.

The case the prosecution is going to put out, of course, is going to say Zimmerman continued to follow, otherwise, they don't have a case. The prosecution (whether they have evidence that we do not know or are purely sympathetic to the family, or are politically motivated) are using Trayvon's girlfriend's account because that is what the case is resting on. This is why there is a trial, though, the prosecutor will have one version and, you should be sitting down for this; the defense is going to have a different account.

Well that scenario would require M going back to Z. I really don't want to go through all of that again!

I agree that would be the case if it turned out to be true.

If M went back and confronted Z then lots of things change, not just what we are talking about.

 

[sgtbaker]

In my eyes it is very mis-leading for you to say that. Just like how I used the word "that" in the first sentence of this post. You know what I meant by "that"; I meant your quote.

The word "that" in "we do not need you to do that" literally means "follow M" in that context. For you to bring up that technically the dispatcher does not say the word "follow" in that sentence (it was used by the dispatcher in the immediately previous sentence) is disingenuous and goes against the proper use of the English language.

I think we got tangled.

because nowhere does the dispatcher actually use the word follow

This is going to be very confusing so try to stay with me and I swear that is not an insult or a condescending tone. I was going back to you saying that there was no way he could misinterpret "let me know if does anything else," as following because you said that the dispatcher never specifically said to follow him.

I know the dispatcher meant don't follow when he said, "we don't need you to do that." and I wasn't trying to twist that part.

 

[crimresearch]

I agree that the detective might add some "spin" to the PC, but "spin" to the extent that some people are claiming? I don't think that would be allowed.

No spin involved.

Probable cause is '*any* information, observation, communication, or set of circumstances...' that a crime is being has been or will be committed. It isn't meant to be all that compelling.

It just explains why they took in Zimmerman, and not the kid walking his dog, or the woman who argued with the 1st detective.
That narrative throws everything up against the wall so that enough will stick even if half of it turns out to be flawed.

Seriously, no need to read it as anything more than 'he said, they said'.

 

[sgtbaker]

Well that scenario would require M going back to Z. I really don't want to go through all of that again!

I agree that would be the case if it turned out to be true.

If M went back and confronted Z then lots of things change, not just what we are talking about.

But that's exactly what I am talking about. The entirety of the case rests on a big IF. With the facts that we are currently aware of, we don't know for sure. We can't just sit back and say, "oh well the prosecution says so," because sometimes the prosecution is flat out wrong.

 

[This is The End]

I know the dispatcher meant don't follow when he said, "we don't need you to do that." and I wasn't trying to twist that part.

Yeah I realized that when typing the post above yours.

I agree with your whole hypothetical now, but it does require M returning to confront Z.

 

[This is The End]

That narrative throws everything up against the wall so that enough will stick even if half of it turns out to be flawed.

Agreed. That's what I meant as normal "spin". Excessive "spin" would be making facts up out of nothing.

The detective might use the former, but not the latter.

 

[This is The End]

But that's exactly what I am talking about. The entirety of the case rests on a big IF. With the facts that we are currently aware of, we don't know for sure. We can't just sit back and say, "oh well the prosecution says so," because sometimes the prosecution is flat out wrong.

OK see the post below that one (I think). Stop ninja'ing me!

 

[sgtbaker]

Yeah I realized that when typing the post above yours.

I agree with your whole hypothetical now, but it does require M returning to confront Z.

Oh thank goodness. I was confusing myself trying to figure out a way of clearing that word web up.

 

[triforcharity]

Can you show me the source for that? The only place I can find anything about Trayvon covering George's mouth was from Tracy Martin telling an interviewer about his talk with the investigator. That version of the story also has Trayvon walking up to George in his truck and asking him why he is following. We know from the recorded call that this didn't happen.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/03/us-usa-florida-shooting-trayvon-idUSBRE8320UK20120403

Robert (?) Zimmerman, George's brother, said that on Pierce Morgan's show on HLN. I was flabbergasted to say the least.

 

[KatieG]

Can you show me the source for that? The only place I can find anything about Trayvon covering George's mouth was from Tracy Martin telling an interviewer about his talk with the investigator. That version of the story also has Trayvon walking up to George in his truck and asking him why he is following. We know from the recorded call that this didn't happen.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/03/us-usa-florida-shooting-trayvon-idUSBRE8320UK20120403

GZ's brother was being interviewed on one of the TV shows this last week. I don't remember whose show he was on, but I will find it and give the link to the show. It's not in print, unless it's a transcript.

BBS

ETA: Oh, duh. I see triforcharity found it already.

 

[curi0us]

Please tell me how someone, whom his brother said, was down on the ground, with a broken nose and his mouth filling with blood, while TM covers GZ's mouth and nose with his hand, scream for 40+ seconds?

Whoever is screaming in that recording may be up for discussion, but if you believe GZ's family members about one thing, how can you justify a statement that flies in the face of reality?

Do you ever watch any MMA? A person with a broken nose and much worse can still offer a lot of resistance for an extended period of time.

The over the mouth/nose trick is a real MMA technique used in ground fighting when one guy is on the top of the other and is usually mixed in with punches. It's an intuitive move that disrupts a persons breathing and it is easy to imagine how in a mugging like situation an attacker might use it also to try to muffle a persons screams.

An interesting detail is that I suspect you can actually hear some muffled screams in the 911 audio. Some yells are very loud and others are much quieter, it's possible the volume variation is due to TM sometimes having GZ mouth covered.

Now is also a good time to point out the ridiculousness of Mumbles declaration that if TM had covered GZ's mouth with his hand then TM hands should have bite marks. Just put your own hand over your mouth and try to bite it to see how easy it is.

 

[KatieG]

Robert (?) Zimmerman, George's brother, said that on Pierce Morgan's show on HLN. I was flabbergasted to say the least.

That's why I posted a while back that GZ's lawyers needs to get the family and friends under control. Frank Taafe continues to spout BS, as recently as today and GZ would be much better served if they all STFU.

GZ's brother is not helping him at all.

 

[KatieG]

Do you ever watch any MMA? A person with a broken nose and much worse can still offer a lot of resistance for an extended period of time.

The over the mouth/nose trick is a real MMA technique used in ground fighting when one guy is on the top of the other and is usually mixed in with punches. It's an intuitive move that disrupts a persons breathing and it is easy to imagine how in a mugging like situation an attacker might use it also to try to muffle a persons screams.

An interesting detail is that I suspect you can actually hear some muffled screams in the 911 audio. Some yells are very loud and others are much quieter, it's possible the volume variation is due to TM sometimes having GZ mouth covered.

Now is also a good time to point out the ridiculousness of Mumbles declaration that if TM had covered GZ's mouth with his hand then TM hands should have bite marks. Just put your own hand over your mouth and try to bite it to see how easy it is.

Do you have any info on whether or not GZ was an MMA fighter?

And, I just let my husband cover my mouth and nose with his hand, pretty firmly, and I was able to manipulate it to the point I could bite the side of his hand, below the little finger. Using no hands, which I assume GZ had at the time of the shooting.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Did you read the thread here and how we were making fun of the affidavit and how even it plays into the inaccurate media line of BS. That's an appeal to authority, it doesn't matter what the affidavit says, we have the recording which reveals what was actually said. The affidavit even identified the screaming voice as TM merely on the mothers statements about the recording, even though an eyewitness identified them as GZ, even though GZ said they were his, even though members of the other family said they were his. It's already been discussed that the affidavit doesn't have to even pretend to be even-handed. In fact it's rather obvious from reading it that it doesn't even have to be entirely factual.

Please tell me how someone, whom his brother said, was down on the ground, with a broken nose and his mouth filling with blood, while TM covers GZ's mouth and nose with his hand, scream for 40+ seconds?

Whoever is screaming in that recording may be up for discussion, but if you believe GZ's family members about one thing, how can you justify a statement that flies in the face of reality?

KatieG, read the part in bold. I was pointing out that the affidavit is not an objective document. An objective document would have said "the mother says it is TM screaming in the recording, GZ and an eyewitness say it is him, TM's father said it was not him", etc. I did NOT say I believe GZ's family members. I give very little credence to anything said by the family members on either side.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

When the police dispatcher realized Z was pursuing M, he instructed Z not to do that and that the responding officer would meeet Z. Z disregarded the police dispatcher and continued to follow M who was trying to return to his home.
Both of those quotes are reasonable summaries of the call.

When the police dispatcher realized Z was pursuing M, he instructed Z not to do that and that the responding officer would meeet Z. Z disregarded the police dispatcher and continued to follow M who was trying to return to his home.
Both of those quotes are reasonable summaries of the call.

No they aren't reasonable summaries. They are pathetic and purposely slanted. Even in my non-legal field I can't (shouldn't) put that type of crap into documents. For instance when we do a large contract we have to reread it several times and make sure it is as accurate and clear as possible. So don't be surprised when some of us are surprised that the affidavit seeking murder 2 charges is this poorly and inaccurately written.

If the affidavit wanted to be accurate or they cared about the truth, it would have said "when the police dispatcher realized Z was pursuing M, he instructed Z "you don't have to do that". The evidence suggests Z continued to pursue M" or something to that affect.

In fact, when you read that more accurate statement, it's interesting how much is changes the perception of the reader, isn't it? Maybe that's why the media and now the officers of the court prefer not to be accurate?

 

[KatieG]

KatieG, read the part in bold. I was pointing out that the affidavit is not an objective document. An objective document would have said "the mother says it is TM screaming in the recording, GZ and an eyewitness say it is him, TM's father said it was not him", etc. I did NOT say I believe GZ's family members. I give very little credence to anything said by the family members on either side.

So sorry, NBS. I didn't really mean to sound like I was attacking you.

I really wish we had the forensics. They are going to be the key to this case, nothing else can speak to the facts.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

No worries KatieG ! I agree there is a lot to come out yet. I believe a huge amount is going to hinge on the screams too (who's they were).

 

[crimresearch]

When the police dispatcher realized Z was pursuing M, he instructed Z not to do that and that the responding officer would meeet Z. Z disregarded the police dispatcher and continued to follow M who was trying to return to his home.
Both of those quotes are reasonable summaries of the call.


No they aren't reasonable summaries. They are pathetic and purposely slanted. Even in my non-legal field I can't (shouldn't) put that type of crap into documents. For instance when we do a large contract we have to reread it several times and make sure it is as accurate and clear as possible. So don't be surprised when some of us are surprised that the affidavit seeking murder 2 charges is this poorly and inaccurately written.

If the affidavit wanted to be accurate or they cared about the truth, it would have said "when the police dispatcher realized Z was pursuing M, he instructed Z "you don't have to do that". The evidence suggests Z continued to pursue M" or something to that affect.

In fact, when you read that more accurate statement, it's interesting how much is changes the perception of the reader, isn't it? Maybe that's why the media and now the officers of the court prefer not to be accurate?

Again, that Probable Cause statement from the detectives is nothing more than a collection of what they've found out or been told up to that point.

It isn't a contract, or an ICR, it isn't the results of an investigation, it isn't the prosecutor's affidavit of 2nd degree murder charges, it isn't even testimony or evidence at this point.

Finding 'inconsistencies' in it, or basing conjecture on it, is meaningless.