Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[KatieG]

Yes, of course it does! You can't just claim you were afraid, you have to prove you had reasonable ground to be afraid and defend yourself. I think it's quite safe to say that thinking you were being followed does not meet that bar.

(again, this makes no assumption that TM did in fact attack, it's simply responding to the theoretical)

You just made my case against GZ! He doesn't get to claim TM started the fight and was just defending himself.

This was a bond hearing, not a trial. The SA doesn't have to provide all the evidence he has. MO'M did a good job pulling out as much info as he did but only the SA has it all at this point.

 

[applecorped]

GZ walks.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Yes, of course it does! You can't just claim you were afraid, you have to prove you had reasonable ground to be afraid and defend yourself. I think it's quite safe to say that thinking you were being followed does not meet that bar.

(again, this makes no assumption that TM did in fact attack, it's simply responding to the theoretical)

You just made my case against GZ! He doesn't get to claim TM started the fight and was just defending himself.

Um, he sure does get to claim that. And just because you don't believe it, or don't want to believe it, doesn't mean it's not possible. So the state will have to prove his story is doubtful. I think they've got a tough haul in front of them.

BTW, am I the only one that thinks the fact that the state is staking so much on GZ following TM when advised not to do so indicates a very weak case? I expect all the typical fallacies to start as soon as I post this, but from a legal perspective, even if GZ showed poor judgment in following TM, it still does not impact his claim of self-defense, no?!

Edit: I guess they can use the following issue to try to indicate state of mind, or believability as to the rest of his story. And to no doubt create a narrative. But it seems to me a good attorney as well as the judges instructions are going to limit its value.

 

[nadsat]

That apology was a sorry piece of work. The Martins had already declined a meeting with GZ. For him to force that apology on them at the bond hearing was disgusting.

he was answering the 2 questions the mom asked in a separate interview

 

[RandFan]

he was answering the 2 questions the mom asked in a separate interview

So much difference between this atty and his previous attys.

 

[KatieG]

he was answering the 2 questions the mom asked in a separate interview

It was inappropriate for him to do that at the bond hearing this morning. The Martins declined to meet with him. How much clearer does that need to be?

 

[Giz]

BTW, am I the only one that thinks the fact that the state is staking so much on GZ following TM when advised not to do so indicates a very weak case? I expect all the typical fallacies to start as soon as I post this, but from a legal perspective, even if GZ showed poor judgment in following TM, it still does not impact his claim of self-defense, no?!

It appears so to me. A rash decision to follow someone (that didn't have to result in any confrontation) shouldn't result in forfeiting any self defense rights.

The prosecution needs something to show the following:
1) GZ caused the confrontation (I doubt that simply following someone at a distance qualifies)
and/or,
2) GZ was not in reasonable fear of grievous harm when he shot TM
and it would be powerful if they could show:
3) It was TM screaming

So far, there's no way that they are any where close to 'beyond reasonable doubt' (and maybe not even to 'probable') on any of those.

 

[KatieG]

Um, he sure does get to claim that. And just because you don't believe it, or don't want to believe it, doesn't mean it's not possible. So the state will have to prove his story is doubtful. I think they've got a tough haul in front of them.

BTW, am I the only one that thinks the fact that the state is staking so much on GZ following TM when advised not to do so indicates a very weak case? I expect all the typical fallacies to start as soon as I post this, but from a legal perspective, even if GZ showed poor judgment in following TM, it still does not impact his claim of self-defense, no?!

Edit: I guess they can use the following issue to try to indicate state of mind, or believability as to the rest of his story. And to no doubt create a narrative. But it seems to me a good attorney as well as the judges instructions are going to limit its value.

My use of the word claim was incorrect. GZ can claim whatever he wants, it doesn't mean it happened that way. And if you are counting on GZ walking because of testimony at the bond hearing, count again. There is a lot of evidence that hasn't been seen yet. The forensics will be the truth teller, not any of the people involved.

 

[Uncle Otto]

You should review what the judge had to say about that today.



It appears the judge took that all into consideration.



How is it you are aware of the particulars of the forensic evidence in possession of the authorities ?



No, we may not.

The forensic evidence they have so far as I know is the voice recording of the call from GZ to the police dispatcher, and the fact that according to the bond hearing, the analysis of it is so far inconclusive. As for the rest of it, the only other evidence so far is testimony by witnesses that they didn't see the fight, but only heard it. None of which addresses what happened in the time between when GZ stepped out of his car and when the shot was fired.

It's very nice that the judge took GZ's past record into account, as he should have. But that doesn't lend any credibility to Zimmerman.
GZ still has a huge problem with being believed, at least in my book, and I'm sure many others. The judge considered his past in order to determine the amount of bail to set. Not to establish GZ's character.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Speaking of the apology, I also found the statement that he did not know he was not armed to be strange. Assuming that the leaks that GZ claims there was a fight over the gun is true, why would he say that? Meaning, if he was reaching for GZ's gun, his actions were legit and whether he was armed is irrelevant.

Let's put it this way. That's the apology I would expect to hear from a police office who shot someone reaching for a cell phone when they thought it was a gun. Why would you say that if you in fact had life or death a struggle over a gun. Lastly, even if there was not a struggle over a gun, if you're getting beaten, don't you just assume the person does not have a weapon? The comment doesn't make much sense to me one way or the other.

I am really surprised that his lawyer did not advise him to stay away from any specific comment like he didn't know how old he was or did not know he was armed. Just make your forced apology and get on with it.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

And if you are counting on GZ walking because of testimony at the bond hearing, count again. There is a lot of evidence that hasn't been seen yet. The forensics will be the truth teller, not any of the people involved.

I'm not counting on anything, there is one hell of a lot that can still come out and still happen here, but my feeling based on what I have seen so far is the state is going to have a tough time on this.

 

[KatieG]

Well now you know. Although I wouldn't really call that an opinion that was fully formed. It was more like an amorphous glob.

Not bloody likely.

 

[BenBurch]

I am thinking this is going to end without a verdict ever being returned.

Just a feeling I have, but I think GZ will kill himself before trial.

 

[Noztradamus]

GZ may have initially thought TM was just a little bit younger than him, and only realized later that he was much younger.
~~~

"I thought he was only 9 years younger, but now I realize he was 11 years younger"

Hair-splitting or a lie?

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

But that doesn't lend any credibility to Zimmerman. GZ still has a huge problem with being believed, at least in my book, and I'm sure many others.

I've seen nothing so far to indicate that he should not be believed, though I certainly have doubt. It seems to me that most of the people that are pronouncing him a liar have no evidence to support that contention.

I think if he tells his story, and all the evidence comes out, it's going to make it a heck of a lot easier to determine how believable his story is. It's already quite clear that at least some of it is true, and that he really was in a rather serious altercation, even though the "i'm going to believe what I'm going to believe" crowd is already trying to dismiss the head bleeding and broken nose. Sadly, I think there's a really good chance we'll never know what really happened here.

BTW, here's the natural progression of the "I'm going to believe what I'm going to believe" crowd.

State of denial stage 1. Even though we haven't seen the evidence, he's making it up, he wasn't injured. There is no way he wouldn't still be bleeding at the police station. The video does not show him injured.

State of denial stage 2. The injuries aren't as bad as they appear.

State of denial stage 3. OK, maybe he was injured but it doesn't mean he had a write to kill TM, I think he started it and he's a liar and a murderer.

Stage 3 is entirely possible BTW, there's just no need to go through successive stages of denial 1 & 2 before arriving at 3 .

 

[Unabogie]

I am thinking this is going to end without a verdict ever being returned.

Just a feeling I have, but I think GZ will kill himself before trial.

Unpack this?

 

[sgtbaker]

Speaking of the apology, I also found the statement that he did not know he was not armed to be strange. Assuming that the leaks that GZ claims there was a fight over the gun is true, why would he say that? Meaning, if he was reaching for GZ's gun, his actions were legit and whether he was armed is irrelevant.

Let's put it this way. That's the apology I would expect to hear from a police office who shot someone reaching for a cell phone when they thought it was a gun. Why would you say that if you in fact had life or death a struggle over a gun. Lastly, even if there was not a struggle over a gun, if you're getting beaten, don't you just assume the person does not have a weapon? The comment doesn't make much sense to me one way or the other.

I am really surprised that his lawyer did not advise him to stay away from any specific comment like he didn't know how old he was or did not know he was armed. Just make your forced apology and get on with it.

*Speculation*

He may have not known he was not armed until a certain point. In the beginning of the phone call to the police, he stated that he had something in his hand at one point, and that he had his hand in his waistband, at a different point. Those are all completely innocent actions on behalf of Trayvon, but while Zimmerman was in the car, you can hear him gradually convincing himself that Trayvon was a threat.

 

[Giz]

... but while Zimmerman was in the car, you can hear him gradually convincing himself that Trayvon was a threat.

Now that is odd... It's one thing to follow a potential burglar who might be casing the neighborhood but it's quite another if you think that they might be packing too.

 

[Checkmite]

Now that is odd... It's one thing to follow a potential burglar who might be casing the neighborhood but it's quite another if you think that they might be packing too.

Superhero syndrome.

 

[crimresearch]

You can drop the 'tude. But here's your answer. My read on your statement is you think TM threw the first punch since he was the one being followed.

And your 'read' is not only wrong but completely unsupported by a single fact.

How about you 'drop' making up positions out of thin air, and pretending that other people have claimed them?