Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[johnny karate]

100% serious question. If that is the case, why was he not immediately arrested, if he was obviously lying ?

Despite the fact that so many in this thread have assumed it as fact that the Sanford Police performed a thorough investigation, consider it this way:

Sanford Police arrive to find an unidentified dead black male and the neighborhood watch captain who shot him. The neighbor watch captain tells a plausible story of self-defense. Evidence supports the broader strokes of his story.

At this point, to what degree to do think the police are viewing Martin as a homicide victim as opposed to just some random thug who attacked Zimmerman? And how hard do you think they would try to disprove Zimmerman's story?

Remember, no one even knew who this kid was until the next morning. I would bet dollars to donuts, that up until Martin's parents raised a fuss, everyone from George Zimmerman to the police who investigated him assumed that Zimmerman's initial assumption about Martin was correct.

 

[Freddy]

I think the statement overall is supportive of Zimmerman. I expect it to be used in his defense.

I would agree that it tends to support Zimmerman. At least it shows that the police did not initially see sufficient evidence to arrest. In itself that isn't very strong support for the defense, but it will help the defense paint a narrative of charges being pressed not based on evidence of guilt, but in order to appease an angry mob. But I would have to brush up on Florida's rules of evidence to see if there would be any admissibility issue. The statement itself is hearsay, but the defense can call the cops and ask them why they didn't make an arrest. That would accomplish the same goal.

 

[RandFan]

There is, but that provision isn't really in play here. If Zimmerman is telling the truth, then he clearly could not have gotten away at the time he fired.

AIU, under SYG Zimmerman did not have a duty to avoid conflict. If Zimmerman followed Martin to the point of/and imitating contact, then, IMO, it was reckless. I believe that some have argued that under SYG, the law cannot take Zimmerman's decision to follow Martin to the point of/and initiating contact into account.

BTW: We can call the law whatever we damn well please. SYG is a popular usage, we know what it means. I'll keep using it. I'm sure others will also.

 

[Unabogie]

100% serious question. If that is the case, why was he not immediately arrested, if he was obviously lying ?

One, he wouldn't have been obviously lying as it takes investigation and follow up to piece together what really happened. If the SPD followed up as they should have, then it took them a while to figure out where Zimmerman was lying and where he wasn't. This seems to be why the prosecutor thinks Zimmerman told at least 3 different versions of events. They asked him his version, they looked at the scene, asked more questions, looked again, etc.

At some point, investigators concluded he was lying. At that point, who knows why they didn't arrest him? DA's hate losing. Maybe he just didn't think he could make it stick? Maybe he's chummy with somebody and didn't want to upset them? Maybe he's just bad at his job? Maybe he hates black people? Maybe he thinks Zimmerman was telling the truth and the SPD got it all wrong? Maybe none of these things? I don't know. If you find out, alert James Randi and collect your prize.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Despite the fact that so many in this thread have assumed it as fact that the Sanford Police performed a thorough investigation, consider it this way:

Sanford Police arrive to find an unidentified dead black male and the neighborhood watch captain who shot him. The neighbor watch captain tells a plausible story of self-defense. Evidence supports the broader strokes of his story.

At this point, to what degree to do think the police are viewing Martin as a homicide victim as opposed to just some random thug who attacked Zimmerman? And how hard do you think they would try to disprove Zimmerman's story?

Remember, no one even knew who this kid was until the next morning. I would bet dollars to donuts, that up until Martin's parents raised a fuss, everyone from George Zimmerman to the police who investigated him assumed that Zimmerman's initial assumption about Martin was correct.

So, IOW, although Unabogie finds it to be an obvious lie, that observation escaped notice of entire SPD. For weeks.

And even then, the obvious lie wasn't enough evidence to arrest GZ.

But now, it's suddenly a problem for him ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

One, he wouldn't have been obviously lying as it takes investigation and follow up to piece together what really happened. If the SPD followed up as they should have, then it took them a while to figure out where Zimmerman was lying and where he wasn't. This seems to be why the prosecutor thinks Zimmerman told at least 3 different versions of events. They asked him his version, they looked at the scene, asked more questions, looked again, etc.

AFAIK, they questioned him that evening and the next day. That's all. At that point, shouldn't trained professionals realize ...
"Hmm, the body is not close to the sidewalk, arrest GZ !"

At some point, investigators concluded he was lying. At that point, who knows why they didn't arrest him? DA's hate losing. Maybe he just didn't think he could make it stick? Maybe he's chummy with somebody and didn't want to upset them? Maybe he's just bad at his job? Maybe he hates black people? Maybe he thinks Zimmerman was telling the truth and the SPD got it all wrong? Maybe none of these things? I don't know. If you find out, alert James Randi and collect your prize.

IOW, hand wave away the fact that they didn't arrest him.

Hand wave away the lead investigator:
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com..._chief-bill-lee-federal-review-federal-agency
"The best evidence we have is the testimony of George Zimmerman, and he says the decedent was the primary aggressor in the whole event," Serino told the Sentinel March 16. "Everything I have is adding up to what he says."

Maybe that's why it's either a) not his body or b) not a problem in that location

 

[Unabogie]

So, IOW, although Unabogie finds it to be an obvious lie, that observation escaped notice of entire SPD. For weeks.

And even then, the obvious lie wasn't enough evidence to arrest GZ.

But now, it's suddenly a problem for him ?

It's a problem for him because they charged him with murder and mentioned it as part of their evidence against him.

In the short hearing, they mentioned that the location of the body didn't match up with the cement part, didn't they? Perhaps this was obvious and was one of the main reasons they began to doubt his version of events?

 

[johnny karate]

So, IOW, although Unabogie finds it to be an obvious lie, that observation escaped notice of entire SPD. For weeks.

And even then, the obvious lie wasn't enough evidence to arrest GZ.

But now, it's suddenly a problem for him ?

Well, "obvious lie" is your term, not Unabogie's. I think he's satisfactorily explained how the lie wasn't necessarily "obvious".

And again, ask yourself: In a situation in which the Sanford police believed a neighborhood watch captain shot and killed a random thug who attacked him, how hard are they looking for evidence to disprove that narrative?

 

[johnny karate]

AFAIK, they questioned him that evening and the next day. That's all. At that point, shouldn't trained professionals realize ...
"Hmm, the body is not close to the sidewalk, arrest GZ !"

So no police department in the history of human civilization has ever performed a shoddy investigation? That we must assume infallibility on the part of the Sandford PD is nonsensical.

And by the way, since we're talking about the fallibility of "trained professionals", a trained medical professional on the scene took a look at Zimmerman's supposedly severe injuries and decided they didn't warrant bandages. But no one seems to have a problem in believing that particular lapse in judgment.

Hand wave away the lead investigator:
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com..._chief-bill-lee-federal-review-federal-agency
"The best evidence we have is the testimony of George Zimmerman, and he says the decedent was the primary aggressor in the whole event," Serino told the Sentinel March 16. "Everything I have is adding up to what he says."

You don't see a problem in citing the lead investigator in establishing the quality of his own investigation?

 

[Freddy]

AIU, under SYG Zimmerman did not have a duty to avoid conflict. If Zimmerman followed Martin to the point of/and imitating contact, then, IMO, it was reckless. I believe that some have argued that under SYG, the law cannot take Zimmerman's decision to follow Martin to the point of/and initiating contact into account.

Legally, I don't think the duty to retreat would have required Zimmerman not to follow. I agree that it was a poor decision, and can reasonably be described as "reckless" as that word is understood in common usage. But, even though I also toyed with this idea early in this thread, upon more careful consideration I don't think it rises to the legal definition of recklessness. Ex ante, from Zimmerman's perspective I would not consider a physical fight to be the likely result of following Martin, even in the event of a confrontation (unless I intended to start a physical fight, in which case it would be intentional, not reckless). I also don't think the evidence establishes that Zimmerman ever intended to get that close to Martin, and that would also be relevant (since recklessness requires the intentional disregarding of a substantial risk of serious harm). The duty to retreat generally comes into effect once one finds oneself in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury. The duty of retreat doctrine holds that when one finds oneself in such fear, one must retreat if it is possible to do so safely, and only failing that can deadly force be used.

BTW: We can call the law whatever we damn well please. SYG is a popular usage, we know what it means. I'll keep using it. I'm sure others will also.

I do think that the interchangeable uses of "stand your ground" can be confusing to readers. Precision is always a worthy goal.

Also, being supportive of robust protection from prosecution for those who use force in legitimate self-defense, I don't want to see the "stand your ground" provision unfairly blamed for what many see as a profound injustice, and thus brought into disrepute.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Well, "obvious lie" is your term, not Unabogie's. I think he's satisfactorily explained how the lie wasn't necessarily "obvious".

Apologies to Unabogie, I thought he used the word obvious, but he didn't. Otherwise I wouldn't have bolded it.

And again, ask yourself: In a situation in which the Sanford police believed a neighborhood watch captain shot and killed a random thug who attacked him, how hard are they looking for evidence to disprove that narrative?

If I had a situation where some angry Hispanic guy with a history of violence murdered an unarmed young sweet innocent black boy, I would move heavens and earth to uncover any evidence of his guilt in order to ensure no racial strife engulfed my fair city.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

So no police department in the history of human civilization has ever performed a shoddy investigation? That we must assume infallibility on the part of the Sandford PD is nonsensical.

That we must assume incompetence on a massive scale by all parties involved is likewise nonsensical.

You don't see a problem in citing the lead investigator in establishing the quality of his own investigation?

Fill in the blank as best you can. Serino was likely appointed the lead investigator in the case because: _________________

 

[dirtywick]

Let me ask you a question, if GZ had attacked Dominick Cruz, UFC, who do you think would show signs of a fight?

It's possible to do a piss poor job in an attack and get your head handed you. Having wounds would not demonstrate that you have been attacked.

TM isn't a professional fighter though, let alone a champion. In fact, if anything, what is known about TM is that he's a nice kid who doesn't get into fights and GZ is short and out of shape.

I think a better question is what would I expect to see if a lanky teenager fought a little fat guy? A sloppy punch and two guys rolling around on the ground.

 

[johnny karate]

If I had a situation where some angry Hispanic guy with a history of violence murdered an unarmed young sweet innocent black boy, I would move heavens and earth to uncover any evidence of his guilt in order to ensure no racial strife engulfed my fair city.

And what scenario do you think the police were more likely going with that night, yours or mine?

That we must assume incompetence on a massive scale by all parties involved is likewise nonsensical.

Here's the kicker, I'm not suggesting we assume anything. Only allow for all reasonable possibilities.

And by the way, "massive"? What exactly about the initial investigation makes you think it was "massive"?

Fill in the blank as best you can. Serino was likely appointed the lead investigator in the case because: _________________

I don't know. Nor do I understand the point you're trying too make.

 

[RandFan]

Legally, I don't think the duty to retreat would have required Zimmerman not to follow.

I think it may, I think it should.

I agree that it was a poor decision, and can reasonably be described as "reckless" as that word is understood in common usage. But, even though I also toyed with this idea early in this thread, upon more careful consideration I don't think it rises to the legal definition of recklessness.

Thanks. I honestly don't know.

Ex ante, from Zimmerman's perspective I would not consider a physical fight to be the likely result of following Martin, even in the event of a confrontation (unless I intended to start a physical fight, in which case it would be intentional, not reckless).

Either I don't understand your argument or I don't understand your usage of the word "likely". Do you mean "more likely than not". A car accident isn't the "more likely than not" result of DWI/DUI. It's illegal none the less.

I also don't think the evidence establishes that Zimmerman ever intended to get that close to Martin, and that would also be relevant (since recklessness requires the intentional disregarding of a substantial risk of serious harm).

I don't think the evidence thus far shows us Zimmerman's intentions.

The duty to retreat generally comes into effect once one finds oneself in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury. The duty of retreat doctrine holds that when one finds oneself in such fear, one must retreat if it is possible to do so safely, and only failing that can deadly force be used.

This is particularly helpful to me. Thank you. I would like to see the duty to retreat restored and expanded to duty to avoid dangerous situations. Of course, I would need to see arguments against the notion. Clearly many people think SYG important and they obviously have reasons for that (none I yet to find compelling), so wanting to go in the other direction would reasonably require me to consider opposing arguments.

Besides, there are many decades if not centuries of case law for negligence so I ought to at least know what that is.

 

[RandFan]

TM isn't a professional fighter though, let alone a champion.

My purpose was to falsify the premise.

In fact, if anything, what is known about TM is that he's a nice kid who doesn't get into fights and GZ is short and out of shape.

I think a better question is what would I expect to see if a lanky teenager fought a little fat guy? A sloppy punch and two guys rolling around on the ground.

I'm not sure if you are being tongue-in-cheek.

 

[LTC8K6]

In your example, both men would show extensive injury. How would TM's body showing no signs of a fight, if indeed that's true, make him the attacker? I don't know, never been in a fight!

A sucker punch is what I think. A sudden punch to the nose, unexpected. That puts the other guy down and unable to respond for a bit, and leaves the puncher unmarked.

If you hit the teeth, your knuckles will be marked, but if you just get the nose, it's relatively soft.

A good shot to the head makes the legs turn to jelly and they go down right away.

You can then grab the head with two hands and go to town.

There wouldn't be a mark on you.

Assuming there actually isn't a mark on TM, of course.

There's also the fact that if TM was going to develop a mark or bruise somewhere, he was killed almost immediately, so maybe the marks don't show up, or show up differently.

 

[LTC8K6]

There's a little bit of evidence that TM participated in fights.

The video has been taken down, but I saw it when it was still up. Trayvon appears to be refereeing a fight, and fight videos were on his youtube channel.

http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/did-trayvon-martin-referee-school-fights

 

[LTC8K6]

TM isn't a professional fighter though, let alone a champion. In fact, if anything, what is known about TM is that he's a nice kid who doesn't get into fights and GZ is short and out of shape.

I think a better question is what would I expect to see if a lanky teenager fought a little fat guy? A sloppy punch and two guys rolling around on the ground.

GZ had lost a lot of weight and was in pretty good shape by the time of the incident, iirc.

 

[crimresearch]

TM isn't a professional fighter though, let alone a champion. In fact, if anything, what is known about TM is that he's a nice kid who doesn't get into fights and GZ is short and out of shape.

I think a better question is what would I expect to see if a lanky teenager fought a little fat guy? A sloppy punch and two guys rolling around on the ground.

We have no idea if Martin had taken up the 52 blocks or something over the past year and was a serious fighter or not... we literally don't know that one way or the other.

On the other hand we *do* know that the claim that Zimmerman was a short fat guy, is at odds with the facts.