Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[tyr_13]

You assume my issue with Zimmerman is his race? Why?

Probably for the same reason people assume that Zimmerman's problem with Martin was his race.

To me the most (darkly) amusing thing about this case has been the race craziness (as opposed to actually valid concerns about mistreatment of black people in the justice system).

We have people who would normally be looking to a man like Zimmerman to back up observations about how minorities are mistreated in the US calling him a white racists on one side. On the other side we have people ardently defending Zimmerman who would normally be calling him a dirty Mexican.

And in the middle there are people trying to have meaningful and useful discourse who can't get a word in.

 

[triforcharity]

I'm reminded of the time that my son, who was 2 at the time, fell out of his pushchair* and banged his forehead on the pavement. Blood was streaming down his face, it looked really serious. But when I cleaned him up the injury was only about a millimetre in diameter. I think his head hit a tiny piece of gravel on the pavement, causing a little puncture mark which led to all that blood.

*He had just learned how to undo the safety buckle on the reins keeping him in...

Head wounds bleed. Sometimes it seems that bleed a WHOLE LOT, and for.....nothing. I've had it happen to me on numerous occasions.

(my son was playing on the couch, when he fell backwards and cluncked his head on the corner of the coffee table. pretty hard hit. Little cut, nothing major, but blood EVERYWHERE!)

This was my wife, when my son was about 3?ish.....

"BABE!! BABE!!! We gotta take him to the hospital! NOW!! Get your ******* **** and get in the car NOW!! He's bleeding EVERYWHERE!!!! AAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!! Sweet Jesus save us!!! (Ok, that last part is just an exaggeration)

Me: "Babe, calm down, let me see.......oh, look, it's just a little tiny cut.

Wife: "But look at all the blood!!

Me: He's fine. Look, it's already stopped bleeding.

 

[curi0us]

Yes, it is ideal for head lacs. However, most fire departments don't use them, because of a few reasons Skeptic Ginger and I have already pointed out.

(I'd find the link, but I am drunk and too lazy!! )

Your memory of the previous exchange between Skeptic Ginger and myself may be faulty:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8176118&postcount=5216

It's absolutely plausible. I will absolutely agree. However, probable? No.

Cheers!

That works for me. Thanks for taking the time to respond.

 

[johnny karate]

I think you heavily embellished what Zimmerman's father said, also.

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".

And this is my description of his account:

And the story Zimmerman's father tells of a relentless beating at the hands of the vicious Trayvon Martin.

In what way do you feel I embellished?

Relentless and vicious.

re·lent·less

• showing or promising no abatement of severity, intensity, strength, or pace

Trayvon Martin got on top of him and just started beating him...

After nearly a minute of being beaten...

He continued to beat George...

vi·cious

• spiteful; malicious

Trayvon punched him in the nose...

Trayvon Martin got on top of him and just started beating him in the face, in his nose, hitting his head on the concrete...

Trayvon Martin said something to the effect of ‘you’re going to die now’ or you’re gonna die tonight’...

He continued to beat George...

I can play the "what words mean" game with you all day, and - spoiler alert - I'm going to win every time. That's because I don't just randomly choose my words. I select them with careful consideration. But please, I encourage you to continue to try. This is fun for me.

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.

Yes, obviously Zimmerman's father was just weaving a fantastical tale straight from his imagination with no intent of anyone ever thinking it was factual.

But that's irrelevant to the point as it doesn't follow from your accusation:

I think you are continually making things up, that people didn't actually say.

Maybe at this point, the best thing for you to do is simply offer a retraction since you seem unwilling or unable to substantiate that accusation.

 

[johnny karate]

That works for me. Thanks for taking the time to respond.

So did you want to stick with the improbable, or maybe admit to the possibility that the claims regarding the severity of Zimmerman's injuries were exaggerated?

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Article about George Zimmerman. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0421/George-Zimmerman-Social-justice-activist-with-a-gun

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Problem here NBS. A juvenile would NEVER be housed in the same building with adults. Ever. It would never happen.

I was going by what I read in an article somewhere that said that. Either way I find her attempt to try this 12-year old as an adult repulsive considering the facts of the case.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Probably for the same reason people assume that Zimmerman's problem with Martin was his race.

To me the most (darkly) amusing thing about this case has been the race craziness (as opposed to actually valid concerns about mistreatment of black people in the justice system).

We have people who would normally be looking to a man like Zimmerman to back up observations about how minorities are mistreated in the US calling him a white racists on one side. On the other side we have people ardently defending Zimmerman who would normally be calling him a dirty Mexican.

And in the middle there are people trying to have meaningful and useful discourse who can't get a word in.

Good post. See the article I just posted about GZ as well.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

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.

I'm sure we will know if that's her from other sources. If it is, we may have been told quite a pack of lies.

If it's not her, then we can expect that site to be in trouble.

They only published the name associated with a twitter account.

If you believe that is her, it appears Crump has told numerous lies.

And the official story is Tracy Martin contacted her 2 weeks after TM death. after he saw the phone records. She did not attend any services for TM.

I waded through that too, especially her Twitter feed. IF that is her, to say that Crump has told lies does not sufficiently communicate what he's done. And IF that is her, the Twitter feed is amazing, as it appears she was about as traumatized by TM's death as a rock. She spent the day posting on Twitter about going to the beauty parlor etc. One passing mention of TM's death.

 

[curi0us]

So did you want to stick with the improbable, or maybe admit to the possibility that the claims regarding the severity of Zimmerman's injuries were exaggerated?

Strawman. I never denied the possibility that the claims regarding the severity of the injuries were exaggerated. I was arguing for the possibility they weren't exaggerated. You just make things up and attack people.

You are also confusing two issues, none of the discussion about bandaging of the head lacerations actually was very relevant to the severity of GZ's injuries in my view. I have been consistent since very early on in arguing that GZ's best claim to a serious injury would be a concussion. The true significance of the bleeding wounds on the back of his head has never been wether or not he needed stitches, it's the the force to his head implied by such wounds. It's not easy to make someone head bleed by smashing it into pavement, yet it is very easy to rattle someone's brain without making them bleed at all.

My view on the case has always been centered on the ID of the screamer. I previously mentioned that the scream 5 seconds before the gunshot and the description Cutcher gave of GZ being non responsive and then acting confused while holding his head is evidence GZ was concussed. Add bloody photos of the back of his head to that evidence now.

 

[sgtbaker]

IMO: The problem lies in the fact that Zimmerman will not likely be convicted even if his actions were reckless. If the simple fact is that he decided to follow and confront Martin while he had a gun believing Martin to be suspicious, that would not be considered reckless. I think it should be. If the premise is correct then I think it painfully obvious that Zimmerman substantively contributed to the death of Zimmerman and his actions were unnecessary. And the message I'm getting is that it simply doesn't matter. Zimmerman has a right to act in such a way as to increase the likelihood of harm or death unnecessarily. He has no duty to try to avoid a confrontation.

I think if it became evident that he did, in fact, follow and confront Martin and got a not guilty (at the very least of manslaughter), that would be a horrible miscarriage of justice. That is reckless and that is aggrivating the circumstances. He was armed and in that scenerio is acting reckless.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

I think if it became evident that he did, in fact, follow and confront Martin and got a not guilty (at the very least of manslaughter), that would be a horrible miscarriage of justice. That is reckless and that is aggravating the circumstances. He was armed and in that scenario is acting reckless.

"Confront" is a loaded word. What IF he just said "what are you doing here"? Do you consider that "reckless and aggravating"? (I'm unsure how someone being legally armed makes the question reckless) To me it would seem to be a non-violent inquiry that also makes it quite obvious the person asking the question is likely just making sure you are not up to no good.

In fact, it's an inquiry that I've been asked on a couple of occasions, and it never needed even come close to escalating to violence. It was abundantly obvious I was being asked by someone who just wanted to make sure I was not someone that was up to no good. I find it strange how people keep trying to make out that such an inquiry, in and of itself, suggests recklessness or aggressiveness.

 

[johnny karate]

Strawman. I never denied the possibility that the claims regarding the severity of the injuries were exaggerated. I was arguing for the possibility they weren't exaggerated. You just make things up and attack people.

Fair enough. You did allow for the possibility of Zimmerman's injuries being exaggerated. I apologize for suggesting you didn't.

So with all the information that's been presented what do you think is the most likely regarding Zimmerman's scalp wounds: exaggeration or Celox? Or is there now a third alternative you'd like to offer?

You are also confusing two issues, none of the discussion about bandaging of the head lacerations actually was very relevant to the severity of GZ's injuries in my view.

I'm not sure where you think the confusion lies. You introduced the Celox theory to specifically address the nature of the lacerations cuts on Zimmerman's scalp. Concussions and screams never entered into the conversation.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

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. [n]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[/b], 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.

My view on the case has always been centered on the ID of the screamer.

Me too, though the identity of the screamer, if GZ, does not prove that he was not the initial aggressor. However if it is GZ it's compelling evidence that at a minimum, he was in a serious struggle and genuinely in great fear. And for the reasons stated in Freddy's excellent post above, I think it likely that the screamer was GZ. I doubt he managed to invent that fact on the night of the shooting.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

BTW sgtbaker, adding to my previous post in response to you, it just seems to me that people focusing excessively on whether GZ "confronted" TM are missing the forest for the trees. "Confronting" him, in and of itself is not reckless, but the manner in which it happened could well be. For me the huge question is and continues to be, why the hell did this EVER escalate to violence?

That's where some people seem absolutely convinced about who the "logical" culprit has to be. I also keep wondering if this was one of those situations where two different people thought two different sets of events were unfolding. I do understand the argument that GZ is more responsible if that's what happened but still think it rests on how the final confrontation started.

 

[triforcharity]

I was going by what I read in an article somewhere that said that. Either way I find her attempt to try this 12-year old as an adult repulsive considering the facts of the case.

If the article is clearly wrong about something as simple as kids being housed with adults, what else could be wrong?

Sounds like there is some poisoning the well WRT that article.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

If the article is clearly wrong about something as simple as kids being housed with adults, what else could be wrong?

Sounds like there is some poisoning the well WRT that article.

I said I read it in an article somewhere, not in the article that I posted. The facts of the case are widely reported and not in dispute. As for the prison issue I looked it up, she had him being housed in an adult jail, but with other juveniles charged as adults.

There is no way in hell this kid should be being charged as an adult or facing life in prison.

 

[oody]

The States has 2,800 children in adult prisons while in the rest of the world there are none; this is a crime, a serious violation of The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. And the state of Florida contributes with an alarming figure: 80% of U.S. juveniles incarcerated without parole for non-homicidal crimes are locked in Florida’s prisons. The sunshine state –along with California- has the largest populations of minors in adult prisons.

link

 

[sgtbaker]

"Confront" is a loaded word. What IF he just said "what are you doing here"? Do you consider that "reckless and aggravating"? (I'm unsure how someone being legally armed makes the question reckless) To me it would seem to be a non-violent inquiry that also makes it quite obvious the person asking the question is likely just making sure you are not up to no good.

In fact, it's an inquiry that I've been asked on a couple of occasions, and it never needed even come close to escalating to violence. It was abundantly obvious I was being asked by someone who just wanted to make sure I was not someone that was up to no good. I find it strange how people keep trying to make out that such an inquiry, in and of itself, suggests recklessness or aggressiveness.

That was my lack of clarity. By confront, I meant started the altercation.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

That was my lack of clarity. By confront, I meant started the altercation.

Oh sorry, then we agree 100%.