• 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.
Cylinder said:
So the Sanford police did not recommend manslaughter charges?
Click to expand...

They did not. There is no affidavit with a recommendation of any charge from the Sanford PD.

Some news agencies have reported that Sanford's lead investigator, Chris Serino, wanted Zimmerman charged with manslaughter that night but Wolfinger's office put a stop to it. The city of Sanford issued a statement saying that is not true.

Police did that night prepare an incident report that lists "manslaughter" as the possible crime being investigated, but in every case in which an officer prepares an incident report, he or she fills in that spot with some crime and statute number to allow the agency to properly report crime statistics to the FBI.
Click to expand...
 
In his letter Monday to Roy Austin, deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, Crump wrote, "We look forward to your thorough and comprehensive review of the suspicious circumstances surrounding this meeting, and the decision to disregard the recommendation of the lead homicide investigator, Mr. Serino, who felt compelled to prepare an affidavit memorializing his recommendation to arrest the shooter George Zimmerman."
Click to expand...
Crump used this made up affidavit in his letter to the DOJ.
 
LTC8K6 said:
They did not. There is no affidavit with a recommendation of any charge from the Sanford PD.
Click to expand...

Police did that night prepare an incident report that lists "manslaughter" as the possible crime being investigated, but in every case in which an officer prepares an incident report, he or she fills in that spot with some crime and statute number to allow the agency to properly report crime statistics to the FBI.
Click to expand...

OK - so do we know what happened to the incident report? Was the State Attorney contacted? I just want to get an idea of a timeline for the investigation.
 
SPD also interviewed Martin's girlfreind, right? Who else do we know that they interviewed in this matter?
 
Unabogie said:
That site makes me I'll. The racism drips. Stalking kids?
Click to expand...

It does.

As for stalking kids ... I don't think it's stalking. I think it's digging up dirt on a potential witness Crump had a giant press conference about. Yes, likely for racist reasons.

But to save others the pain of going to that site, below are the claims based on 'deedees' tweets. They all certainly seem to follow from the tweets. Let me summarize it this way - she may have been on the phone with TM at the time of the attack - but I doesn't appear as if all the rest of Crumps claims about her may be true:

  • DeeDee and Trayvon did not talk for 400 minutes on 2/26 the day he was shot.
  • DeeDee did not go to the hospital on 3/2 and 3/3 and that was NOT the reason for not attending the viewing or memorial.
  • DeeDee and Trayvon were not Boyfriend/Girlfriend. They were close, platonic best friends.
  • DeeDee was not devastated, destroyed, or an emotional wreck. She was sad that her best friend was shot. She notified others, including her cousin who is also a prolific tweeter, but (the cousin) did not know immediately who Trayvon was.
  • DeeDee did not miss school.
 
LTC8K6 said:
Well okay, the lawyer didn't say what you claimed he said, in my opinion.
That one is pretty blatantly made up, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

The lawyer said what he said. I didn't make that up. What's in dispute is the significance of what he said.

LTC8K6 said:
I think you heavily embellished what Zimmerman's father said, also.
Click to expand...

This is the story as Zimmerman's father tells it:
At one point, he said, Trayvon approached him saying, ‘Do you have an ***** problem?’ George replied no and reached for his cell phone.

Trayvon “punched him in the nose, his nose was broken, and he was knocked to the concrete.” Robert Zimmerman said. “It’s my understanding Trayvon Martin got on top of him and just started beating him in the face, in his nose, hitting his head on the concrete.”

“After nearly a minute of being beaten,” Robert Zimmerman said George tried – with Trayvon still on top of him – to move away from the concrete onto the grass. In doing so, the gun he kept in a holster on his waist was exposed.

“Trayvon Martin said something to the effect of ‘you’re going to die now’ or you’re gonna die tonight’ -- something to that effect,” he said. “He continued to beat George".
Click to expand...
And this is my description of his account:
johnny karate said:
And the story Zimmerman's father tells of a relentless beating at the hands of the vicious Trayvon Martin.
Click to expand...

In what way do you feel I embellished?

LTC8K6 said:
Those posts just made me voice that opinion I have had of your posts in general.
Click to expand...

It seems to me you have more of a problem with the tone of my posts rather than their factual content. Which is fine, but just say so. Because when you accuse me of "making things up" without being able to substantiate that accusation, it comes across as dishonest.
 
johnny karate said:
The lawyer said what he said. I didn't make that up. What's in dispute is the significance of what he said.



This is the story as Zimmerman's father tells it:
And this is my description of his account:


In what way do you feel I embellished?



It seems to me you have more of a problem with the tone of my posts rather than their factual content. Which is fine, but just say so. Because when you accuse me of "making things up" without being able to substantiate that accusation, it comes across as dishonest.
Click to expand...

Relentless and vicious.

Robert Zimmerman said "It is my understanding..."

Even he was careful not to claim the version was factual.

And of course a father is going to defend his son.
 
triforcharity said:
A sprinkler maybe. I dunno, I am watching the video now. It does seem very odd.
Click to expand...

There is also a dog poop deposit station very close to where things happened. There is some speculation that might have been what GZ hit. Alternately, GZ might have slipped in the wet grass, fell and hit his head, was pissed off and went after TM.

There are several theories about how GZ might have been hurt. We won't know until the evidence is released.
 
Cylinder said:
SPD also interviewed Martin's girlfreind, right? Who else do we know that they interviewed in this matter?
Click to expand...
Nobody knew about her till around March 18th. Not only did SPD never talk to her, she never communicated to anyone about the case! As the story has been told in the press the Martin Attorneys checked TM's phone records and realized that she had called TM just five minutes before he was shot. The Martin Attorney spoke to her first and in a manner very similar to Tawana Brawley said they weren't cooperating with SPD because they didn't trust them.

We've never heard her complete statement (which she later gave to the special prosecutor) but it is really hard to reconcile the version repeated in the media with some known facts of the case.
 
Last edited:
TheL8Elvis said:
It does.

As for stalking kids ... I don't think it's stalking. I think it's digging up dirt on a potential witness Crump had a giant press conference about. Yes, likely for racist reasons.

But to save others the pain of going to that site, below are the claims based on 'deedees' tweets. They all certainly seem to follow from the tweets. Let me summarize it this way - she may have been on the phone with TM at the time of the attack - but I doesn't appear as if all the rest of Crumps claims about her may be true:

  • DeeDee and Trayvon did not talk for 400 minutes on 2/26 the day he was shot.
  • DeeDee did not go to the hospital on 3/2 and 3/3 and that was NOT the reason for not attending the viewing or memorial.
  • DeeDee and Trayvon were not Boyfriend/Girlfriend. They were close, platonic best friends.
  • DeeDee was not devastated, destroyed, or an emotional wreck. She was sad that her best friend was shot. She notified others, including her cousin who is also a prolific tweeter, but (the cousin) did not know immediately who Trayvon was.
  • DeeDee did not miss school.
Click to expand...

DeeDee did not contact anyone because there was no reason to.
Click to expand...

That one also.

Your summary caused me to wade through that.

If she has the date confused about the call to Martin, that would explain
why SPD did not interview her, and all the complaints about SPD not looking through Martin's phone would be meaningless.

Big assumptions though, but very interesting.
 
RandFan said:
Let's be honest here, he only needs to claim to fear for his life to likely be cleared. If you have a gun and you shoot first, then even if the fear isn't reasonable, it's rather difficult to prove otherwise, how can Martin defend himself? Dead men tell no tales.
Click to expand...

I suspect that in most cases of bogus self-defense claims there will be substantial circumstantial evidence of guilt. For instance, there could be evidence that establishes a believable motive other than self-defense. There are often also non-trivial inconsistencies in the defendant's statements. A person who is truthfully asserting self-defense is typically going to give statements to police, because telling the truth keeps them from being arrested for murder. In order to appear innocent, a person falsely claiming self-defense will do the same. But it's really hard to (1) come up with a detailed story that is internally consistent and consistent with any other evidence there may be, and (2) remember every important detail you tell the police so that your story doesn't change, at least not in ways that indicate lying rather than understandable blurring of memory. (Some minor inconsistencies are expected even from a truthful person, so that's something that has to be assessed case by case. But depending on the particulars, an inconsistency can be compelling evidence of guilt.)

I think those who are claiming that the Stand Your Ground law is effectively a license to kill are mistaken. At least they are mistaken that the "stand your ground" aspect makes it significantly easier to get away with murder. Even if there's a duty to retreat, that just means that a person falsely claiming self-defense has to make sure he tells the cops he either tried to get away, or believed it would be impossible or unsafe to try to get away. Or tell a story such that no one would think retreat was an option. If there are no witnesses, there are no witnesses to dispute whether safe retreat was possible any more than to dispute whether the deceased was the aggressor.

Some of the procedural aspects of the law might make it more difficult to prosecute murders where the killer falsely claims self-defense, but even then, the procedural presumptions for those claiming self-defense will generally only be helpful in situations where the person would not be convicted anyway, guilty or not. Consider: All the prosecution has to do to get around the immunity from prosecution is to show probable cause. The presumption does not stop them from investigating, and they can question the shooter under the same rules as any suspect in any crime. If the state can show probable cause, then the defendant has the opportunity to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it was self defense. But if there is no probable cause, or if the defendant can show by a preponderance of the evidence that it was self defense, then how on earth could the prosecution ever prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self defense? So again, the immunity isn't going to protect a person who could be convicted at trial. There are no special rules unique to Florida that make the trial itself more favorable to the defense when self-defense is claimed, so the prosecution does not have to prove anything it doesn't have to prove in any self-defense case anywhere in the country. The standard of reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury is the law everywhere in the United States. If the state can't show probable cause, or can't prove something by a preponderance of the evidence in a pretrial hearing, then they aren't going to be able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.
 
Last edited:
LTC8K6 said:
No. It's unclear why they didn't know about her. She didn't tell her story to anyone until well after the incident, I believe.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. She was at the wake and was quite distraught. She has info that has not been released.

She is also a minor and I find the posting of her name and that disgusting website to be in very poor taste and judgement.
 
WildCat said:
Until someone demonstrates they can use voice recognition techniques under similar circumstances as the Martin tapes I'm calling woo.
Click to expand...


Or, as Det. Gilbreath put it,

GILBREATH: The "Orlando Sentinel" had someone do it and the FBI has had someone do it [a voice analysis].

O'MARA: Is that part of your investigation?

GILBREATH: Yes.

O'MARA: Has that given any insight as to the voice?

GILBREATH: No.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

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