Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[RandFan]

To AlBell

deleted. I just saw your post. Thank you.

 

[sgtbaker]

The day after his wake, Trayvon's family attorney, Benjamin Crump, who had been conducting his own extensive investigation because cops had determined the shooting was in self defense, told Trayvon's girlfriend she was the last person to talk to him," a source close to the situation tells RadarOnline.com

Well, that is contrary what Ben crump himself said at the press conference. Sounds like a poor anonymous source to me.

If you linked this press conference, already, my apologies for not seeing it. This thread has a tendency to pick up with a vengence and things suddenly move really fast. I would like to see what Crump actually said because the article I was reading made very little sense. How could she possibly have not known, after a week, that she was the last person who spoke to him?

 

[KatieG]

I am at another forum following this case and have asked for assistance in finding a link to the comment I posted earlier about TM's gf.

There is indeed so much out there, it's difficult to know what's true and what somebody from either side said cuz they were flappin' their gums. As soon as I have the link(s), I will post them here.

 

[triforcharity]

I fixed #2 - although we all keep typing it - GZ called the non-emergency number, not 911.

They're the same people who answer both numbers.

 

[curi0us]

Here is a site that has link to video of the press conference:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/trayvon-...rence-phone-logs-completely-connect-the-dots/

Summary:

He further added that the friend, whose parents insist on her anonymity, has been deeply traumatized by the incident: “This was her really, really close personal friend. They were dating [...] She couldn’t even go to his wake. She was so sick, her mother had to take her to the hospital, she spent the night in the hospital.”

Before turning to details about the Feb. 26 incident, Crump noted that Martin’s family doesn’t trust the police department “with anything related to this case.”

He then pieced together what happened that day, based on the 911 call, phone logs and the girlfriend’s testimony: Martin was talking to his girlfriend as he was walking to the store, and phone logs show “without any doubt” that he was on the phone the entire way there and on the way back. He told her he wanted to make it home before it started raining. When it began raining, he ran to the first building he saw. Then he went back to walking, and back to talking to her. At that point, Martin told his girlfriend he thought a man was following her — and she told him to be careful and run home. The girl said she heard him catch up to Martin, and could tell an altercation occurred, before the call dropped.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

I fixed #2 - although we all keep typing it - GZ called the non-emergency number, not 911.

lol, thought of that afterwards. Thanks for the correction .

 

[Rare Truth]

They're the same people who answer both numbers.

No.

The 911 call center is run through the Seminole County Sheriff's Office, not the Sanford police department.

:::. Seminole County Sheriff's Office - Donald F. Eslinger, Sheriff .:::
http://www.seminolesheriff.org/external/InfoSitepage.aspx?pageID=53

"The Communications Division which operates the 911 call center and dispatches 24 hours a day, seven days a week. In addition to unincorporated Seminole County, service calls are also handled and dispatched for the cities of Altamonte Springs, Casselberry, Longwood, Sanford and Casselberry and their associated police departments;"

 

[TheL8Elvis]

If you linked this press conference, already, my apologies for not seeing it. This thread has a tendency to pick up with a vengence and things suddenly move really fast. I would like to see what Crump actually said because the article I was reading made very little sense. How could she possibly have not known, after a week, that she was the last person who spoke to him?

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1203/20/cnr.03.html

Actually, his whole narrative doesn't make much sense to me.

 

[johnny karate]

Based on the use of more negative words like hostile and facing a problem, in the definition; at it's most basic, the word confront is a loaded term. However, me using the word confront without any follow up also makes it an ambiguous word, as in confronting someone without the intent of assaulting them. That was the whole point of NBS questioning my post.

I don't deny "confront" can be an ambiguous term absent context.

But I do deny that "loaded" and "ambiguous" have even remotely similar meanings. That someone uses those words incorrectly doesn't make me the confused one for assuming they're smart enough to know the difference.

Also, I missed this earlier:

You mean like laceration?

Touche.

 

[johnny karate]

I know these discussions evolve at times to pissing contests, but you seem fairly willing to discuss facts and evidence.

The thing is, that the law says two very different things about the snenario where an armed Zimmerman is invloved in a confrontation and the scenario where Zimmerman is involved in a confrontation and then arms himself. I know that's not exactly your claim in that instance, but the disctinction is not meaningless all the same.

It's the same with the current iteration. Zimmerman confronted Martin is legally disctinct from Zimmerman and Martin were involved in a confrontation.

I don't disagree. But to say "Zimmerman decided to take a gun and pursue him" is factually and grammatically correct. I didn't say "Zimmerman "decided to take a gun to pursue him," which takes on an explicitly different meaning.

My whole point is that the lengths some people are going to take umbrage with "inflammatory" language is approaching Orwellian proportions, and is quite frankly tiresome in its misplaced pedantry.

 

[Cylinder]

I don't disagree. But to say "Zimmerman decided to take a gun and pursue him" is factually and grammatically correct. I didn't say "Zimmerman "decided to take a gun to pursue him," which takes on an explicitly different meaning.

Right. I may have been involved in that particular exchange. I should have, as I did in my more recent post make more clear the distinction between what you asserted and how I parsed it. But I do think it a meaningful point to make in response.

 

[BenBurch]

My god, the way some people play word games about this you'd think we were discussing Taco Bell's taco filling...

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

But I do deny that "loaded" and "ambiguous" have even remotely similar meanings. That someone uses those words incorrectly doesn't make me the confused one for assuming they're smart enough to know the difference.

Please quote where I said those two words have the same meaning. Or please quote how I used the words incorrectly.

Hint to help - the last time I put the word ambiguous in parentheses with quotes around it, it was to acknowledge to Sgt Baker, who unlike you seems to have at all times been perfectly capable of comprehending what was written, that we had previously discussed the use of the two words. It was not to indicate that the two words have the same meaning. That I earlier acknowledged that "ambiguous" would have been a better word to use than "loaded", your reading comprehension issues aside, should have given you even further clue that I did not at any point remotely suggest that the two words have the same meaning (assuming that is what you are now saying).

I'm beginning to think I was too hard on you and that this isn't entirely under your control. If I can, I'd like to help with your comprehension/lying issues that you seem to get called out on repeatedly. Perhaps here and here would be good places to start.

*Please note, I'm not saying that comprehension and lying have identical meanings, I just thought I'd clear that up for you in advance.

 

[johnny karate]

There was always an alternative and I had already mentioned it.

Well, I'm not asking you about alternatives. I'm asking you about likelihoods.

I previously said, "maybe they used gauze (regular or celox) and the wound stopped bleeding (for whatever reason) and the police wanted to take him to the station so they figured he was good to go."

Note that was before the bloody picture has even come out so now this is all silly to me. We now know for sure GZ did have bleeding head wounds and we also know they weren't bandaged in the police surveillance video so something stopped the bleeding. That part is now undeniable.

You know what you have to use to stop the bleeding when you have a minor cut? Nothing. It stops bleeding on its own. Clean it up and you're good to go. You don't even need a bandage.

I really don't see what the big deal about the bandages is at this point.

The importance of the bandages goes right to heart of Zimmerman's claims about the severity of his injuries. His lawyer told us he probably should have had stitches. His father spins a tale of a rather nasty beating. One would expect to see evidence of such injuries. You know, like maybe a bandage.

I believe the most severe of Zimmerman's injuries was a probable concussion. Not only has that not been exaggerated it's gotten little attention.

Maybe he didn't have one. And if we we're told he did, I probably wouldn't take issue with it. Concussions are a lot harder to prove or disprove.

The secondary injuries are the head lacerations and the broken nose. I will await the medical report on those but I've seen no reason to conclude either has been exaggerated at this point.

The EMT report is what's of most interest to me. I look forward to hearing just how many stitches Zimmerman should have gotten.

 

[johnny karate]

Please quote where I said those two words have the same meaning. Or please quote how I used the words incorrectly.

Gladly.

Here's you pretending the words are interchangeable:

You are correct, I could have also use the word ambiguous, and it may have been an even better choice than my use of the word loaded.

You can't simply switch out one word with another that has a different meaning without then changing the overall meaning of your entire statement. So either you thought "loaded" and "ambiguous" have similar meanings, or you were saying that your statement could be interpreted two distinctly different ways. Both choices are nonsensical.

And here's you actually saying "loaded" = "ambiguous":

Reading from the post you quoted, it would appear he is confused and thinks that me referring to the word "confront" as loaded ("ambiguous")...

See how you placed "ambiguous" in parenthesis right after "loaded"? What that communicates is that the manner in which you are using "loaded" was to mean "ambiguous". The problem there, of course, being that "loaded and "ambiguous" are not synonymous nor interchangeable terms. If would have made just has much sense for you to have written "loaded ('ham sandwich')".

But you know what? We can end all this back and forth and settle this right now.

When you said this:

"Confront" is a loaded word.

By "loaded", did you mean:

a) charged with emotional or associative significance that hinders rational or unprejudiced consideration of the terms involved in a discourse.

or

b) open to or having several possible meanings or interpretations

I anxiously await your response.

 

[johnny karate]

My god, the way some people play word games about this you'd think we were discussing Taco Bell's taco filling...

Well, the ingredients of their taco filling are rather ambiguous. Or is it loaded? I always get those two confused.

 

[LashL]

First off, I was asked my professional opinion.

What profession is it that you claim to have expertise in, again? I'm sorry, but I don't see how your purported "professional opinion" tracks here without knowing what your purported "profession" is.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Gladly. Here's you pretending the words are interchangeable:

You are correct, I could have also use the word ambiguous, and it may have been an even better choice than my use of the word loaded.

See the part in bold? It was not meant to suggest they have the same meaning, and somewhat implicitly acknowledged that they don't have the same meaning. In fact, that was the entire purpose of the acknowledgement .

You can't simply switch out one word with another that has a different meaning without then changing the overall meaning of your entire statement. So either you thought "loaded" and "ambiguous" have similar meanings...

See above.

or you were saying that your statement could be interpreted two distinctly different ways. Both choices are nonsensical.

Your conclusion is nonsensical because it wrongly assumes that if the sentence uses one word, and I then acknowledge it would have been more precise to use a different word, that both sentences cannot be applicable. For instance, I could have also said "the use of the word confronted in this context is ambiguous and loaded". See how that works?

As an aside, even though it's not what happened here, statements can in fact often be interpreted two different ways due to the sometimes imprecise nature of language as well as the imprecise use of it. Therefore your conclusion is nonsensical on all fronts, or what I like to refer to as "Johnny Karate Nonsensical".

As for the rest of your post, it's just more of the same. I'm sitting here flogging myself for giving into temptation and looking at your last few posts. Back to sticking with ignore.

 

[curi0us]

Well, I'm not asking you about alternatives. I'm asking you about likelihoods.

That's a little confusing because you actually used the word "alternative" in your question I was replying to.

I'm not inclined to start going into Bayesian statistics over the bandage issue. The back of his head was bloody, later it was bandaged. Some specifics are uncertain, but there is no great mystery there.

You know what you have to use to stop the bleeding when you have a minor cut? Nothing. It stops bleeding on its own. Clean it up and you're good to go. You don't even need a bandage.

That's true, but people still use bandages on wounds that have stopped bleeding for a variety of reasons. People get stitches on wounds that have stopped bleeding as well.

The importance of the bandages goes right to heart of Zimmerman's claims about the severity of his injuries. His lawyer told us he probably should have had stitches.

Can I use Crump's false statements to prove GZ is innocent and impeach the Martins?

His father spins a tale of a rather nasty beating. One would expect to see evidence of such injuries. You know, like maybe a bandage.

I think I am stuck in a loop with you on this point but I will try again with a new approach.

At what point would you honestly feel like you were receiving a nasty beating?

Maybe he didn't have one. And if we we're told he did, I probably wouldn't take issue with it. Concussions are a lot harder to prove or disprove.

That's very fair minded out you.

The EMT report is what's of most interest to me. I look forward to hearing just how many stitches Zimmerman should have gotten.

I look forward to reading the EMT report as well.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Can I use Crump's false statements to prove GZ is innocent and impeach the Martins?

Why not? I mean, that goes right to the heart of the claim that TM was murdered by GZ doesn't it?