Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[curi0us]

I want to use one example of this case in regards to GZ's head wounds.

WARNING! Anecdotal data head!

Years ago, when I was a stupid young woman, I dated a man that became abusive after he lost his job. He was also an alcoholic. I was so sure I could fix him!

One night, he got pissed cuz I didn't jump up fast enough to get him a beer. When I came back with it, he smacked me upside the head with the bottle. He slammed my face into the wall, shattering my cheekbone and knocking out a tooth. He then threw me down on the stone tile floor and beat my head against the floor for I don't really remember how long.

Anyway, I had at least a 2 dozen small cuts on my head and one area split open from the pounding. I had waist length hair at the time and at the emergency room, I became hysterical because they wanted to cut my hair to get to all the wounds. I was covered in blood. No cellphones back in the 70s so no pics but I know what I looked like a couple days later. They had to cut parts of my hair to stitch the small wounds and shaved a small area around the split open area to clean it, stitch and bandage it. I was in the hospital overnight for observation because of fear of serious concussion.

I feared for my life until the moment I passed out. He also outweighed me by about 100 pounds so there was definitely reasonable fear.

I do not think the pictures/video we've seen demonstrates injuries consistent with reasonable fear for one's life. If medical professionals are willing to release him at the scene, I would think they didn't see evidence of serious injury. Until medical reports are produced indicating GZ had serious injuries, I don't believe he had reasonable fear. JMO

I appreciate you sharing your experience as I have often wondered about prior events that might be coloring peoples perceptions of this case.

You didn't mention it, but did the abuser go to jail for his crime? I hope so.

Clearly your story illustrates that it is possible for a person to be beaten and have such obviously severe injuries that there would be no need for debate about the severity of what happened to them. In your case the injuries made it obvious, I'm just inclined to extend consideration to less obvious instances as well. I think an interesting question to consider from your experience is how early into the assault did you start fearing for your life? I really don't mean to presume here, but I think it would have been reasonable to do so when it became clear you were dealing with a violent irrational psycho. If you had somehow shot him at that point I'd have been fine with that, even if you had almost no injuries.


It's a little off topic but your story reminded me of one of my favorite (kind of) fights. It starts off when a 230LB NFL linebacker sucker punches a young lady and . . .

a lightweight (155lb) professional fighter (Roger Huerta) just happens to see it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmfXN588F98&feature=youtube_gdata_player

There are five interesting things to me in that altercation all of which kind of relate to some issues in this thread:

1)Why did the guy throw that punch that knocked the girl out in the first place? At the time of the video I looked around in various stories and nobody seemed to know the reason.

2)The lack of crowd reaction, Huerta's actions obviously excepted.

3)The question of recklessness in regards to the Huerta confronting the guy and being willing to fight right away.

4)The ethics of pursuing the NFL guy after he runs and then the ethics of continuing the attack (briefly) when he is down.

5)That nobody involved was charged with any crime.

 

[WildCat]

Based on what I do understand, or believe I understand about the SYG law, I don't think it's right to pen a law that allows someone to start a confrontation and when they begin to lose the fight can pull out a gun and shoot someone. If this is not the case in the matter we are discussing, then it's irrelevant to GZ.

You don't understand the law.

 

[johnny karate]

I hilited the part you just made up.

Uh, no... you didn't. I purposely added the qualifier "potential" as in "possible". I couldn't have made something up that I never asserted in the first place.

And the school official describes the jewelery as being 12 pieces with at least on being a set of diamond earrings. Grand larceny is anything above the value of $400. Doesn't seem like too much of a leap to think that that cache of jewelery might have been valued at over $400 and therefore a felony if in fact it was stolen. And yet, Trayvon was not turned in to the police, nor was he even suspended for having the jewelry.

Clearly, the school notified the police. Perhaps the police didn't request TM be turned over. IDK - why does it matter ? Because you think that really wasn't stolen jewelry ?

See, here's the beauty. It doesn't matter what I think or can prove. I'm not the one making a positive claim. If the jewelry was stolen, and Trayvon was guilty of stealing it, prove it. Short of that, you are making allegations without substantiation the kind of which that if they were being made about Zimmerman, half the people in this thread would have apoplectic fits over.

Did someone claim he had a criminal record ? I missed that. And you are absolutely jumping through hoops to avoid the obvious conclusion that when a boy in highschool has a wedding band and other womens jewelry, along with a screwdriver in his backpack, it's because he stole it or is holding for a friend.

Is that the same way some people in this thread are "jumping through hoops" to "avoid the obvious conclusion" that George Zimmerman took a gun, chased down Martin and confronted him? Or do such loose standards of evidence only apply when incriminating Martin?

Unsubstantiated ? That word ... I do not think it means what you think it means.

No, I checked. I still means "without substantiation". Like the way saying "Trayvon Martin stole a bunch of jewelry and was using a screwdriver as burglary tool" is without substantiation.

I don't think it's important to acknowledged. My whole point was it is unimportant to the case ... yet you still go to great lengths to make excuses. I only went down the drug use path in relation to GZ claiming TM was on drugs - he might actually have been.

I think GZ 'violent offender' history was adequately addressed by the Judge. Despite the fact GZ was a 'violent offender' and shot and killed someone (!) he still set bail at 150,000.

That price tells me how important GZ violent offender history is. That is to say, hardly at all.

Great. And we'll see just how important it is that Martin once had a screwdriver or a baggie with marijuana residue or was in the vicinity of a fight. I'm guessing in a court of law, not very.

But in this thread, these particular topics seem to be very important, while the discussion of Zimmerman's history of violence, not so much.

 

[KatieG]

I appreciate you sharing your experience as I have often wondered about prior events that might be coloring peoples perceptions of this case.

You didn't mention it, but did the abuser go to jail for his crime? I hope so.

Clearly your story illustrates that it is possible for a person to be beaten and have such obviously severe injuries that there would be no need for debate about the severity of what happened to them. In your case the injuries made it obvious, I'm just inclined to extend consideration to less obvious instances as well. I think an interesting question to consider from your experience is how early into the assault did you start fearing for your life? I really don't mean to presume here, but I think it would have been reasonable to do so when it became clear you were dealing with a violent irrational psycho. If you had somehow shot him at that point I'd have been fine with that, even if you had almost no injuries.


It's a little off topic but your story reminded me of one of my favorite (kind of) fights. It starts off when a 230LB NFL linebacker sucker punches a young lady and . . .

a lightweight (155lb) professional fighter (Roger Huerta) just happens to see it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmfXN588F98&feature=youtube_gdata_player

There are five interesting things to me in that altercation all of which kind of relate to some issues in this thread:

1)Why did the guy throw that punch that knocked the girl out in the first place? At the time of the video I looked around in various stories and nobody seemed to know the reason.

2)The lack of crowd reaction, Huerta's actions obviously excepted.

3)The question of recklessness in regards to the Huerta confronting the guy and being willing to fight right away.

4)The ethics of pursuing the NFL guy after he runs and then the ethics of continuing the attack (briefly) when he is down.

5)That nobody involved was charged with any crime.

ROFL! That's funny. Never underestimate the power of feistier and smaller!

Yes, he did go to jail. For 60 days, 2 years probation. Judge wouldn't allow a restraining order, so I had to move to another town.

I knew I was in trouble when I saw the bottle coming towards my head. I had no idea he would go that far in the assault. Lucky for me, my next door neighbor called the cops.

 

[WildCat]

I guess the best place to start is to explain there is no law called Stand your ground.

The second thing to understand is that the basic fundamentals of lawful self defense are past down from the supreme court which guides ALL state laws. So Florida is not different in this regard from any other state, and SYG is not the determining factor.

The portion of the law that is regularly refereed to as stand your ground removed the burden of retreating from the standard self defense law. That is it, it does not outline the requirements of prosecution, that is already laid out by the supreme court.

The very fact that Zimmerman has now been arrested and charged with 2nd degree murder should in and of itself PROVE that Florida law does not prevent the PA from filing charges if they think they have a case, really almost without regard to the actual evidence.

It is possible through the actions of the PA, and police that a person arrested without probable cause could file a civil rights violation, but that is a different story.

Yes, I think people (even media lawyers) are using SYG to refer to the entire Florida self defense statute, and pedants like me are using it only in reference to a single clause in that statute regarding duty to retreat.

 

[Freddy]

Just where in this story does SYG come into play, and why isn't it just a classic self-defense case?

SYG is used both to describe the specific provision concerning lack of a duty to retreat, and it was also the popular name of a bill containing several amendments to Florida's self-defense statutes that passed the Florida legislature and was signed into law. This ambiguity is probably the reason for confusion. While the duty to retreat does not factor here, other provisions that were part of the same public law do come into play in classic self-defense cases, such as limited immunity from arrest and prosecution, which is what the police cited in explaining why Zimmerman was not arrested sooner. The "Stand Your Ground" bill did more than just eliminate the duty to retreat. I do agree that using the phrase "Stand Your Ground" to refer to other language that was added by the same Public Law is confusing and potentially misleading.

 

[KatieG]

You don't understand the law.

That's why I asked for more information earlier up thread.

 

[RandFan]

I appreciate you sharing your experience as I have often wondered about prior events that might be coloring peoples perceptions of this case.

You didn't mention it, but did the abuser go to jail for his crime? I hope so.

Clearly your story illustrates that it is possible for a person to be beaten and have such obviously severe injuries that there would be no need for debate about the severity of what happened to them. In your case the injuries made it obvious, I'm just inclined to extend consideration to less obvious instances as well. I think an interesting question to consider from your experience is how early into the assault did you start fearing for your life? I really don't mean to presume here, but I think it would have been reasonable to do so when it became clear you were dealing with a violent irrational psycho. If you had somehow shot him at that point I'd have been fine with that, even if you had almost no injuries.


It's a little off topic but your story reminded me of one of my favorite (kind of) fights. It starts off when a 230LB NFL linebacker sucker punches a young lady and . . .

a lightweight (155lb) professional fighter (Roger Huerta) just happens to see it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmfXN588F98&feature=youtube_gdata_player

There are five interesting things to me in that altercation all of which kind of relate to some issues in this thread:

1)Why did the guy throw that punch that knocked the girl out in the first place? At the time of the video I looked around in various stories and nobody seemed to know the reason.

2)The lack of crowd reaction, Huerta's actions obviously excepted.

3)The question of recklessness in regards to the Huerta confronting the guy and being willing to fight right away.

4)The ethics of pursuing the NFL guy after he runs and then the ethics of continuing the attack (briefly) when he is down.

5)That nobody involved was charged with any crime.

Interesting. I think some other things to consider is that no one is dead. Also would a gun likely have made things worse or better?

 

[WildCat]

Let's start with this one:


Show me evidence that this happened.

Not a bunch of connect-the-dots, circumstantial nonsense, but actual evidence.

Why did Cutcher call him a "little boy"? Did he look like a "little boy" in any of his recent photos?

 

[applecorped]

GZ walks, riots ensue, Obama loses, race relations sink.


Have a nice day!

 

[johnny karate]

I already did supply evidence. You are just in CT/troll denial mode.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8193892&postcount=6151

I don't see evidence in that post, merely a bunch of connect-the-dots, circumstantial nonsense. Which, if memory serves, is explicitly what I asked you not to provide.

This isn't that difficult. Here is your claim:

Crump's PR use of the underage photo were critical to getting Mary Cutcher to say she Knew GZ was guilty...

Show me actual evidence that this is true. And again, I'm not interested in the dubious theories that you concocted based on the facts, but rather the facts themselves.

Show me the evidence that I'm wrong!

Yeah, I'll get right on that.

Cutcher while declaring GZ guilty called TM a "little boy" and a "child" and said that TM was "half the size" of GZ. She didn't actually witness any of those things though, so where do you think she got those ideas?

If there weren't explosives planted in WTC7, why do you think it collapsed in its own footprint?

If JFK and Connally were struck with the same bullet, why do you think that bullet was found in pristine condition?

See, it's not up to me to assume your premise and then do the work to disprove your theory.

It's up to you to prove your theory by providing actual, concrete evidence of its veracity.

 

[WildCat]

I'm not sure how believable that is. What is being described is tantamount to grand larceny, but he was only suspended for vandalism? Either that "investigator" is lying or he's terrible at the part of his job that requires actual "investigation". And the fact that he calls a screwdriver a "burglary tool" instead of just, you know, "a screwdriver" indicates a certain amount of bias.

No larceny can be charged if nobody has reported the jewelry stolen. Not all crime is reported, and it's possible little-used small items like jewlery are not yet even missed yet by the owners. Then a year later "Have you seen my diamond watch lately honey?"

 

[WildCat]

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 kind of like anyone who sees that 7 second video of WTC7 going down on 9/11 knows it was obviously a controlled demolition and inside jobby job.

Internet detectives watching the youtube, there's no one smarter than they are!

 

[WildCat]

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?

Wow, if that's true the prosecution's case is even weaker than it appears.

 

[Freddy]

I don't see evidence in that post, merely a bunch of connect-the-dots, circumstantial nonsense. Which, if memory serves, is explicitly what I asked you not to provide.

This isn't that difficult. Here is your claim:


Show me actual evidence that this is true. And again, I'm not interested in the dubious theories that you concocted based on the facts, but rather the facts themselves.

To be fair, any lawyer with experience in high profile cases understands the PR game and calculates accordingly. While it is possible that was the only picture available at the time, it is hardly far-fetched to suspect that the picture was chosen with an eye toward influencing public perception of the case to the benefit of the client. I'd say it's more likely than not, in fact. I have no idea whether it actually influenced the person in question, though. If that's what you're disputing, I have no opinion.

 

[johnny karate]

I think you are conflating 2 separate issues. GZ was legally allowed to carry a gun.

I'm fairly certain Martin was legally allowed to carry a screwdriver. The only difference here is that the guy who brings a gun to go to the store must be assumed to have done so for the most innocuous reason possible.

However, the kid who has a screwdriver in his possession must be assumed to have had it for the most nefarious reason possible.

And whether he did something illegal is the question.

And the same goes for Martin.

When it's found with women jewelry that isn't his, and he won't explain where the jewelry came from, yes.

Okay, then.

Now that the standards of evidence have been established, I put it to you that Zimmerman had nefarious intent in mind when he brought his gun to supposedly go to the store. And unless you can provide a good reason why he would have done so, I don't see how you can argue against that position.

Ah, Irony. I see.

No, I really think you don't.

 

[johnny karate]

To be fair, any lawyer with experience in high profile cases understands the PR game and calculates accordingly. While it is possible that was the only picture available at the time, it is hardly far-fetched to suspect that the picture was chosen with an eye toward influencing public perception of the case to the benefit of the client. I'd say it's more likely than not, in fact. I have no idea whether it actually influenced the person in question, though. If that's what you're disputing, I have no opinion.

That's exactly what I'm disputing. We can speculate all we want, but once we start making assertions, evidence needs to be provided.

 

[nadsat]

https://twitter.com/#!/Markomaralaw

 

[Unabogie]

he did "swung on a bus driver" though. Maybe the bus driver asked him what was he doing on the bus.

http://z6mag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/swung-on-bus-driver.jpg

You'll buy anything, as long as it paints Trayvon as a thug, eh?

Disgusting.

 

[nadsat]

You'll buy anything, as long as it paints Trayvon as a thug, eh?

Disgusting.

what does that tweet means to you then?