Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[TheL8Elvis]

Goodbye Mr. Lee ....

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/332074/20120423/trayvon-martin-case-bill-lee-sanford-chief.htm

Bill Lee, the Sanford, Fla., police chief who was criticized for his handling of the Trayvon Martin case, will resign from his post today.

ETA: I really have to stop linking to craptastic sources:
Despite a dispatcher's advice to stand down, Zimmerman pursued Martin. A struggle ensued and the 15-year-old was shot. Zimmerman claims he shot Trayvon in self-defense.

 

[LTC8K6]

Goodbye Mr. Lee ....

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/332074/20120423/trayvon-martin-case-bill-lee-sanford-chief.htm

Bill Lee, the Sanford, Fla., police chief who was criticized for his handling of the Trayvon Martin case, will resign from his post today.

Defense witness.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

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.

At the risk of repeating myself ... yes it's a pretty right-wing web site, and at least a little scary.

BUT ... I have tried 3 times to leave a comment to ask for evidence as to how DeeDee is demonstrated to be the same girl Crump is presenting, but my comments never get approved.
No, it's not really shocking that I question their narrative and it gets ignored.

There aren't that many obvious females that TM tweets to, and he does reference 'Daisha' as being in his class, but beyond that, I am unclear of other connections.

I thought it was worth staying on top of this to see if it turns into anything interesting or it's just a red herring.

 

[LTC8K6]

If he had a long time girlfriend, I would expect to see a lot of tweets between them. If you have his actual tweets, it should be easy to spot a girlfriend.

 

[sgtbaker]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...merman-released-bail-20120423,0,7571793.story


Not much there except that Corey wanted Zimmerman to appear in a prison uniform instead of a suit.

That was an issue in the 12 year old murder trial. Advocates were supposedly fighting so the 12 year old didn't have to be led in front of the jury in shackles. The judge, in that case, ordered the shackles be removed. I guess that's the part I don't understand. I wouldn't call that an unwarranted attempt to polish his image, I call the opposite an unwarranted attempt to be seen as guilty based on the image.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/evidence-that-trayvon-martin-doubled-back

I have always wondered why Brandy Green said that Trayvon was sitting on the porch.

Did he possibly make it back to her house and then go to see about Zimmerman when Zimmerman came around the corner? It looks like he could have seen Zimmerman come around the corner from Green's house.

Bah. I dunno.

 

[RandFan]

That was an issue in the 12 year old murder trial. Advocates were supposedly fighting so the 12 year old didn't have to be led in front of the jury in shackles. The judge, in that case, ordered the shackles be removed. I guess that's the part I don't understand. I wouldn't call that an unwarranted attempt to polish his image, I call the opposite an unwarranted attempt to be seen as guilty based on the image.

I agree.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/evidence-that-trayvon-martin-doubled-back

I have always wondered why Brandy Green said that Trayvon was sitting on the porch.

Did he possibly make it back to her house and then go to see about Zimmerman when Zimmerman came around the corner? It looks like he could have seen Zimmerman come around the corner from Green's house.

Bah. I dunno.

AFAIK, Mr. Martin and Ms. Green had already gone to dinner in Orlando.

All I have is implications, though.

If someone has a link to Mr. Martin talking about what time they actually left, that would be useful to put to rest Ms. Green implying he had made it home.

 

[LTC8K6]

It's pixelated, but it looks like a busted up nose to me, in case anyone hasn't seen it yet.

http://www.wagist.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/nose.jpg

 

[eerok]

Isn't the elephant in the room here that TM had no reason other than self-defence to interact at all with GZ? We know for a fact that GZ was wrong in targeting TM as a suspicious interloper—he was just some passerby who had every right to be in that neighborhood. We know for a fact that GZ aggressively followed up on his mistaken idea and confronted TM.

Are we to think that TM suddenly turned murderous for no reason at all? I don't even understand the theory here that would excuse GZ for messing with and then shooting some innocent kid that he was deluded enough to think was a criminal. There is no excuse.

If someone like GZ came onto me in a threatening manner on the street at night, perhaps trying to restrain me forcibly for some reason I couldn't understand, I might break his nose because it would seem to me that he meant to do me harm, and if I saw he had a gun, I'd certainly at that point seek to disarm him—not to do him any harm, but to protect myself from being shot.

I think the only mistake TM made was not getting the gun first.

 

[curi0us]

So... conspiracy theory it is then. Good luck with that.

Just like you used the conspiracy theorist label against the people who disagreed with you about the forensic audio "experts" as well:

*shakes head*

The degree of evidence denial on this issue is staggering, and something I wouldn't have expected to see outside of a 9/11 conspiracy theory website.

Anyways, here is an article posted on Crump's own firm's website:

It’s likely that Martin’s death, which resulted in the arrest and indictment Wednesday of confessed shooter George Zimmerman, would never have crowded into the national consciousness had it not been for Martin’s family, its lawyers and an enterprising PR man.

For the most part, the Martin story found the media, rather than vice versa. Outraged by the lack of an arrest, the Martin camp lobbied news outlets to examine what had happened that night in Sanford. Eventually, the media did, and the story moved like a fast-burning fuse, leaping from traditional news sources to the blogosphere and social media.

A pivotal, if little-known, figure in the Martin story’s development was Ryan Julison, an Orlando public relations executive who began working with the Martin family at the behest of its attorneys, Benjamin Crump and Natalie Jackson.
http://parkscrump.com/trayvon-martin-story-found-the-media/

 

[LTC8K6]

Isn't the elephant in the room here that TM had no reason other than self-defence to interact at all with GZ? We know for a fact that GZ was wrong in targeting TM as a suspicious interloper—he was just some passerby who had every right to be in that neighborhood. We know for a fact that GZ aggressively followed up on his mistaken idea and confronted TM.

Are we to think that TM suddenly turned murderous for no reason at all? I don't even understand the theory here that would excuse GZ for messing with and then shooting some innocent kid that he was deluded enough to think was a criminal. There is no excuse.

If someone like GZ came onto me in a threatening manner on the street at night, perhaps trying to restrain me forcibly for some reason I couldn't understand, I might break his nose because it would seem to me that he meant to do me harm, and if I saw he had a gun, I'd certainly at that point seek to disarm him—not to do him any harm, but to protect myself from being shot.

I think the only mistake TM made was not getting the gun first.

Yeah, except that we don't actually know most of that stuff you claimed.

We don't know exactly what happened, except that it ended in a fight where GZ shot TM.

 

[crimresearch]

Isn't the elephant in the room here that TM had no reason other than self-defence to interact at all with GZ? We know for a fact that GZ was wrong in targeting TM as a suspicious interloper—he was just some passerby who had every right to be in that neighborhood. We know for a fact that GZ aggressively followed up on his mistaken idea and confronted TM.

Are we to think that TM suddenly turned murderous for no reason at all? I don't even understand the theory here that would excuse GZ for messing with and then shooting some innocent kid that he was deluded enough to think was a criminal. There is no excuse.

If someone like GZ came onto me in a threatening manner on the street at night, perhaps trying to restrain me forcibly for some reason I couldn't understand, I might break his nose because it would seem to me that he meant to do me harm, and if I saw he had a gun, I'd certainly at that point seek to disarm him—not to do him any harm, but to protect myself from being shot.

I think the only mistake TM made was not getting the gun first.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

 

[Giz]

Isn't the elephant in the room here that TM had no reason other than self-defence to interact at all with GZ? We know for a fact that GZ was wrong in targeting TM as a suspicious interloper

We don't know that. Who knows how Mr. neighborhood watch perceived TM.

We know for a fact that GZ aggressively followed up on his mistaken idea and confronted TM.

Nope. We know he followed TM (and, based on 911 transcript, lost him). We have no evidence on whether the following was "aggressive" and no evidence on who initiated the final confrontation (or how they initiated it).

If someone like GZ came onto me in a threatening manner on the street at night, perhaps trying to restrain me forcibly for some reason I couldn't understand, I might break his nose because it would seem to me that he meant to do me harm, and if I saw he had a gun, I'd certainly at that point seek to disarm him—not to do him any harm, but to protect myself from being shot.

We don't know if GZ was being threatening. Would you attack a 'good neighbor' who was just keeping an eye out on a stranger from a distance? Break their nose?

You are assuming a scenario that may be true... but could be very wrong. The evidence to determine isn't available yet (at least not to the public).

I think the only mistake TM made was not getting the gun first.

Have you met Claus Larsen? Perhaps we could do a follow up to the "If I see someone with a gun on a plane" thread with "If I see someone with a gun on a sidewalk"?

 

[WildCat]

I haven't been paying attention to this story lately, I was pretty much off the grid for the last 6 days (ironically in Florida) but the timeline posted at Wagist is going to be a problem for the prosecution, especially if they claim that Martin was trying to get away from Zimmerman.

And I thought I heard on the news last week that the prosecutors decision to charge 2nd-degree murder was based (at least partly) on Martin's mother claiming she could identify the scream on the 911 recording? That's some pretty weak evidence.

 

[eerok]

Yeah, except that we don't actually know most of that stuff you claimed.

We don't know exactly what happened, except that it ended in a fight where GZ shot TM.

We do know that TM had no reason to interact with GZ that didn't flow from GZ's misapprehensions of the situation. We do know that GZ was wrong about targeting TM and aggressively pursued his mistake. That's the meat of what I claim. What do you think is wrong with it?

Assumes facts not in evidence.

No, what I offered as facts are indeed facts. TM was just a kid going home from a trip to the store, not a criminal casing the neighborhood. TM had no reason other than the aggressive actions of GZ to interact with him at all.

Do you have something to offer to the contrary?

 

[eerok]

Who knows how Mr. neighborhood watch perceived TM.

I'm going by what he said. You can go by whatever you like.

Would you attack a 'good neighbor' who was just keeping an eye out on a stranger from a distance? Break their nose?

No I wouldn't. Why do you think TM would?

 

[curi0us]

Have you met Claus Larsen? Perhaps we could do a follow up to the "If I see someone with a gun on a plane" thread with "If I see someone with a gun on a sidewalk"?

LOL
I wish I had thought of that line earlier.

 

[LTC8K6]

We do know that TM had no reason to interact with GZ that didn't flow from GZ's misapprehensions of the situation. We do know that GZ was wrong about targeting TM and aggressively pursued his mistake. That's the meat of what I claim. What do you think is wrong with it?



No, what I offered as facts are indeed facts. TM was just a kid going home from a trip to the store, not a criminal casing the neighborhood. TM had no reason other than the aggressive actions of GZ to interact with him at all.

Do you have something to offer to the contrary?

I don't know what TM was doing or if a NW person would consider TM suspicious.

I don't think GZ was ever going to go near TM that evening.

 

[RandFan]

You are assuming a scenario that may be true... but could be very wrong. The evidence to determine isn't available yet (at least not to the public).

I suspect that there is no evidence that will clarify much of anything. At this point in the game the only person who could shed further light on what happened is dead. The message I wish would be propagated now is this, justice is a system, not an outcome. If and when GZ walks because the case is dismissed, he is found not guilty or a mistrial then people need to live with that.

Turn your focus to the system. IMO: People should have a duty to try and avoid activity that will likely increase the risk of harm or death to another, especially if no crime has been committed and there is no imminent danger.

FWIW: I don't know that GZ acted recklessly, though I suspect he did. We may very well have sufficient evidence to find that much. But even then, doesn't look that his actions of following someone GZ thought suspicious while he was armed and initiating contact (assuming all of those premises), constitutes negligence.