Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[curi0us]

Hey curi0us, did you see how GZ's wife has come out and said he is not a violent man? But a GF about 5 (10?) years ago got a restraining order against him. Which one of those do you think proves GZ is innocent or guilty?

I don't even think it's a genuine interest in guilt or innocence for some people. It's more like a variation of Orwell's Two Minutes of Hate with a goal of emotional satisfaction(?) rather then intellectual understanding.

 

[RandFan]

I don't even think it's a genuine interest in guilt or innocence for some people. It's more like a variation of Orwell's Two Minutes of Hate with a goal of emotional satisfaction(?) rather then intellectual understanding.

I don't think there is any question that there is an element of truth in what you are saying for most, regardless of which side they are on. It is simply human nature. I do think however that at some point the better angels of our nature should kick in. I've been rather taken aback with the attitude that bad guys deserve to be killed, vigilante, revenge side of the equation. The idea that one would retreat in order to save the life of a "bad" person is incomprehensible to some.

I think the problem lies, in part, when we think that we as individuals are above our nature. I don't know about others but I know that emotion plays a very big part in my view of the world and I must work hard to try and recognize it and try to be rational. Sadly I often fail.

 

[Dan O.]

A few more O'Mara vs Gilbreath moments along the lines of the ones Cylinder's great post already quoted:

O'MARA: Since. Today. Do you have any evidence that conflicts with his suggestion that he had turned around and went back to his car?

Is that what O'mara said? Given his tactic in court, I would expect him to be more precise in his language.

Here is an interesting moment where O'Mara isn't just grilling Gilbreath but also going after his "collaborative" team:

O'MARA: Why did you use the word profiling rather than noticed, observed, saw, or anything besides the very precise word profiled? And by the way, was that your word?

Is there anyone besides O'mara that doesn't accept that George had profiled Trayvon as someone that didn't belong in "his" neighborhood?

 

[Cylinder]

Is there anyone besides O'mara that doesn't accept that George had profiled Trayvon as someone that didn't belong in "his" neighborhood?

Uhhh...this guy?

O'MARA: OK, I appreciate the answer. Did you consider it to be some specific type of profiling?

GILBREATH: No.

O'MARA: Why did you use the word profiling rather than noticed, observed, saw, or anything besides the very precise word profiled? And by the way, was that your word?

GILBREATH: I don't recall. This was a collaborative answer -- excuse me, collaborative document.

O'MARA: Between who in addition to the two people who signed it as being true?

GILBREATH: Detective Osteen and I prepared the majority of this. It was reviewed by our supervisor. There were several mistakes in it. They were corrected.

O'MARA: Do you know whose word profiling was?

GILBREATH: No, I do not.

 

[sgtbaker]

And here's some pretty slimy behavior by the WaPo.

[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/IuODE.png[/qimg]

I think it was on Thursday or Friday morning, my fiance and I were laughing at Central Fl news 13. They were trying to make a news story out of Zimmerman's potential release using the scary angle of releasing a killer onto the streets. They said something to the effect of some people calling it justice at work but not everyone is comfortable with the idea of Zimmerman being out of jail. They interviewed people and none of them sounded remotely bothered by his potential release. The only time anyone had anything negative to say was a guy who said he is concerned for Zimmerman's safety, saying there were a lot of irrationaly people. It was the most unimportant "update in the Trayvon Martin shooting case" I've seen, second only to what he is buying in jail.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

A few more O'Mara vs Gilbreath moments along the lines of the ones Cylinder's great post already quoted:

Sanford PD had TM's dad do a voice ID for the 911 screams and he said it wasn't TM.

OK, maybe the voice ID, and the injuries/medical records were not Gilbreath's focus since the primary issue in the case is really wether or not GZ's version of events is true, but Gilbreath doesn't know of any evidence to contradict that either:

WTF kind of investigation was Gilbreath a part of?

I was thinking about that too. It's pretty bizarre that we here on a message board can know about facts that the lead investigator doesn't know about.

BTW, it's only been mentioned in passing, but I assume you caught that in another line of questioning the lead investigator acknowledged that the FBI voice experts could not shed any light on who was screaming? I guess they lack the magic ears of Mr. Primeau or don't have Mr. Owen's software .

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Misread something, deleted.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I was thinking about that too. It's pretty bizarre that we here on a message board can know about facts that the lead investigator doesn't know about.

BTW, it's only been mentioned in passing, but I assume you caught that in another line of questioning the lead investigator acknowledged that the FBI voice experts could not shed any light on who was screaming? I guess they lack the magic ears of Mr. Primeau or don't have Mr. Owen's software .

Since it has already come up a few times:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1204/20/cnr.02.html

O'MARA: Witnesses heard people arguing, sounded like a struggle. During this time, witnesses heard numerous calls for help. Some of this was recorded. Trayvon's mom reviewed the 911 calls and identified the cry for help and Trayvon Martin's voice. Did you do any forensic analysis on that voice tape?

GILBREATH: Did I?

O'MARA: Did you or are you aware of anything?

GILBREATH: The "Orlando Sentinel" had someone do it and the FBI has had someone do it.
O'MARA: Is that part of your investigation?

GILBREATH: Yes.

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

GILBREATH: No.

 

[GWCarver]

Well, we did hear this:

The prosecution tried to get it in there how many inconsistencies were found in Z's story, but "outside the scope of direct evidence" shut it off...however, I think the state was hinting at how many inconsistencies they found to his whole story, and with this snuck in:

"when you were questioned about the contradictions in your statements that the police didn't believe it, that you would say "I don't remember"?

He's saying that night the police didn't believe Zimmerman. Can the state lie about that?

It is a common interviewing technique by police to tell a suspect all manner of untruths in order to attempt to get incriminating information. Without a transcript of the actual interrogation, I would say the above assertion by police that they didn't believe Zimmerman is essentially meaningless.

 

[crimresearch]

Well, we did hear this:


http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1204/20/cnr.02.html

The prosecution tried to get it in there how many inconsistencies were found in Z's story, but "outside the scope of direct evidence" shut it off...however, I think the state was hinting at how many inconsistencies they found to his whole story, and with this snuck in:

"when you were questioned about the contradictions in your statements that the police didn't believe it, that you would say "I don't remember"?

He's saying that night the police didn't believe Zimmerman. Can the state lie about that?

Are you seriously not aware of that fact?

394 U.S. 731, 739 (1969)

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Are you seriously not aware of that fact?

394 U.S. 731, 739 (1969)

Answering someone like that who's just making an honest inquiry or observation is not helpful to engagement . I suspect he/she is aware of the fact that police can lie to trick a person, I don't think that's what he was asking. He said:

He's saying that night the police didn't believe Zimmerman. Can the state lie about that?

I think he's asking if they can lie about it now. Meaning, can the state claim the police did not believe him that night, now, even if that's not true (i.e. even if it was an act and they did not disbelieve him).

I watched that exchange and for those of is not involved in law enforcement it's easy to miss:

Isn't it true that when you were questioned about the contradictions in your statements that the police didn't believe it, that you would say "I don't remember"?

To any layman it sounds like that literally means "the police did not believe you", but what I suspect it means is "the police were pretending/saying they didn't believe you".

It's a huge difference actually, especially for the layman. Correct me if I'm wrong in my interpretations.

 

[crimresearch]

Answering someone like that who's just making an honest inquiry or observation is not helpful to engagement . I suspect he/she is aware of the fact that police can lie to trick a person, I don't think that's what he was asking. He said:


I think he's asking if they can lie about it now. Meaning, can the state claim the police did not believe him that night, now, even if that's not true (i.e. even if it was an act and they did not disbelieve him).

I watched that exchange and for those of is not involved in law enforcement it's easy to miss:


To any layman it sounds like that literally means "the police did not believe you", but what I suspect it means is "the police were pretending/saying they didn't believe you".

It's a huge difference actually, especially for the layman. Correct me if I'm wrong in my interpretations.

I did interpret it differently, in light of previous questions my question was genuine.

I also hold a different interpretation of helpful. Offering cites to basic material should be helpful to someone who truly does not know how the US government works.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

OK, but do you think this interpretation on my part is correct? Was the prosecutor actually saying B?

A. To any layman it sounds like that literally means "the police did not believe you", but what I suspect it means is B. "the police were pretending/saying they didn't believe you".

 

[sgtbaker]

I was thinking about that too. It's pretty bizarre that we here on a message board can know about facts that the lead investigator doesn't know about.

BTW, it's only been mentioned in passing, but I assume you caught that in another line of questioning the lead investigator acknowledged that the FBI voice experts could not shed any light on who was screaming? I guess they lack the magic ears of Mr. Primeau or don't have Mr. Owen's software .

Maybe the FBI's mind's eye isn't 20/20.

 

[curi0us]

I think your confusion might lie in the fact that you're ignoring my first and primary question, and now pretending I didn't ask it.

Nope. You asked which of two options were more likely as if they were the only possibilities and then asked if I would like to offer an alternative as if I had never offered an alternative before. I posted a quote of me previously answering with an alternative.

The significance of my reply was that it showed how you had both a false dichotomy and straw man argument contained within your query to me.

Yes, because that's exactly what I asked you to do.

But I do find it interesting you have been more than willing to discuss this topic right up to the point that I asked that question.

It's not the topic, it's you. My patience with your word games is wearing thin.

Like why a medical professional wouldn't give a supposedly serious scalp laceration a bandage. Oh, wait... that's right. It was Celox.

More straw men.

I have never said they did use celox, I have just said they could have.

Your position was originally that it would have been impossible for GZ to have bleeding head wounds that had stopped bleeding by the time he was at the police station but later had butterfly bandages appropriately applied to them. Do you dispute that was your original argument?

Right. Because I'm sure the consensus among EMTs and other medical professionals is the treatment for a serious scalp laceration = no bandages. Because of Celox. No mystery there at it all.

So if it turns out that after GZ left the police station he received medical treatment where a medical professional put the butterfly bandages on his scalp wounds what will you say then?

Hasn't your argument been that GZ put the butterfly bandages on himself to exaggerate his injuries. Are you still confident that is what happened?

And since Zimmerman had neither by the time he got to the police station, what does that leave us with? Oh yeah, Celox. I keep forgetting.

It leaves us with the reality that his lacerations had stopped bleeding.

I repeatedly (in that very post even) have said Celox isn't the only way for that to happen.

Band aids, butterfly bandages, or stitches are often applied to wounds that have stopped bleeding. It's usually more to help facilitate healing then anything else. That a person in one picture didn't have bandages but later did have butterfly bandages really isn't proof that the butterfly bandages were some form of fraud.

Oh, I'm sure you already have. I mean, did you see those pictures of Trayvon they released to the press? OUTRAGE

But here's the thing, neither Crump nor anyone he represents was there on that fateful night, so I'm not sure why you would listen to what they have to say about it in the first place.

Crump is actually at the heart of this. Crump (in some manner) actually manipulated into existence the states two witnesses against GZ that are the core of the probable cause affidavit. Crump's PR use of the underage photo were critical to getting Mary Cutcher to say she Knew GZ was guilty, that was huge point in the media narrative. Crump is even the guy that got TriforCharity and TheL8Elvis fighting over the rain issue. Seriously, Crump is bad news.

Zimmerman was there. As a matter of fact, at this point in time he's the only one who can tell us what happened. And it just so happens, his freedom depends on his version being true. So I think it's reasonable to hold what he and his advocates say about the events of that night to a higher standard, at least on a strictly factual basis.

Holding Zimmerman accountable for his actual words is fine. Trying to prove something against him because something an advocate of his said when that advocate had little contact with GZ and was later fired is unfair.

If it turns out a medical professional chose to put the butterfly bandages on Zimmerman's lacerations then that would actually be supportive of something very close to what Zimmerman's advocate said anyways.

At the point that I had injuries suggestive of a nasty beating. I hold Zimmerman to that same standard.

How would you know your injuries were suggestive of a nasty beating?

What if GZ's father thought that "nasty beating" was an accurate summary based solely on GZ accurately describing what had happened?

My question before was very serious and goes to the heart of GZ's defense and your ability to have empathy for another person. Judging the superficial appearance of wounds (on poor video) after the fact is not always a good way to assess the severity of an assault.

And by the way, before we get bogged down with what a "nasty beating" entails, keep in mind that that is merely my concise description of Zimmerman's father's rather detailed account. I've linked to it a few times upthread. Feel free to read it through and see how well you think it corresponds to Zimmerman's "no bandage required" injuries.

I made no objection to the term "nasty beating".

I've been arguing from the instant that I heard the 911 screams that someone was on the receiving end of a vicious assault. Those weren't just screams for help.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

“DeeDee” is revealed as Daisha Mitchell under the Twitter Handle @iAdoree_Dee ... and it goes on from there. About as far as I am willing to state about this site right now is ... it seems like a valid identification. They have her tweets out to TM twitter account. Maybe it's not deedee, but it looks like it is.

http://theconservativetreehouse.com...g-deedee-reveals-the-false-truths/#more-37932

Within that archived twitter feed, and those details, “DeeDee” is revealed as Daisha Mitchell under the Twitter Handle @iAdoree_Dee

I spent some time today wading through the tweets in these two links (from the quote above)
http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/26/the-daily-caller-obtains-trayvon-martins-tweets/#ixzz1qGztV3LT
http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/was-trayvon-martin-a-drug-dealer

I don't understand how they arrived at the conclusion @iAdoree_Dee is "deedee". It is stated as a conclusion in the article, rather then demonstrated. It certainly could be, but I don't see any definitive connection.

 

[curi0us]

I was thinking about that too. It's pretty bizarre that we here on a message board can know about facts that the lead investigator doesn't know about.

Very weird. Though a similar issues came up in the Amanda Knox case/thread. Two posters here who are often interested in wrongful convictions, Rolfe and Charlie Wilkes, have me convinced that these kind of incidents are part of a reoccurring pattern. Almost like a witch hunt where common sense goes out the window.

BTW, it's only been mentioned in passing, but I assume you caught that in another line of questioning the lead investigator acknowledged that the FBI voice experts could not shed any light on who was screaming? I guess they lack the magic ears of Mr. Primeau or don't have Mr. Owen's software .

Yeah. That made me feel better about voice ID forensics since the FBI clearly didn't support Owens view.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Crump is actually at the heart of this. Crump (in some manner) actually manipulated into existence the states two witnesses against GZ that are the core of the probable cause affidavit. Crump's PR use of the underage photo were critical to getting Mary Cutcher to say she Knew GZ was guilty, that was huge point in the media narrative. Crump is even the guy that got TriforCharity and TheL8Elvis fighting over the rain issue. Seriously, Crump is bad news.

That made me laugh. The CCT. Crump Conspiracy Theory.

 

[Dan O.]

Uhhh...this guy?

Why don't you show the whole exchange? O'mara was telling the detective that there was a "specific" word that he wanted to associate with the term profiling. Why was O'mara incapable of saying that word himself?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

One more thing I just picked up on reading the transcript:

O'MARA: Again, you say that he lived in a gated community, driving his vehicle. Zimmerman felt that Martin did not belong in the gated community and called the police. Did you get that from your conversations with Mr. Zimmerman?

GILBREATH: I have never spoken to him.
I guess I am just surprised the 'lead investigator' has never spoken to the accused.