Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Xulld]

And I can't think of any particular reason why someone would arm himself to take a drive to the store.

Are you psychic? Are you able to know when and where you may need to defend yourself with deadly force?

Do you carry a fire extinguisher in your car? In your house? Why? Why not? Are there rational reasons to do so? Why not with a gun?

 

[curi0us]

I do. As does my wife. Every time we leave the house. Well, most of the time.

I've known a super liberal girl from Florida and sweet grandmother from Oaklakoma that both carried guns with them almost everywhere. In California (where I'm from) that is outlandish, it seems like there is a very strong regional aspect to how people view guns.

 

[BenBurch]

That actually makes sense.

It does, and as a prosecutor, that would be my closing argument.

The case lacks a lot of physical evidence and any witnesses at all, so you have to go to motive and history to establish the motive. Every single call he ever made to the police should be heard by the jury, in order.

Psychiatric witnesses can testify about "Batman's Syndrome" and he can be painted as a person with a history of failure to catch anybody who was not going to allow himself to fail again.

And the prosecutors should underscore; Who weighed more. Who was stalking whom. Who was armed.

And they will convict if they do it that way.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

It does, and as a prosecutor, that would be my closing argument.

And your closing argument would be torn apart by a competent defense attorney.

 

[BenBurch]

And your closing argument would be torn apart by any remotely competent defense attorney.

I've seen similar cases get convictions. When I speak with my lawyer tonight I shall ask him his opinion.

In any case, I'll bet you a dollar they convict on a lesser included charge.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

In any case, I'll bet you a dollar they convict on a lesser included charge.

I'll take that bet !

 

[Noztradamus]

~~~

Going to the trouble of writing and signing 'my father is a Supreme Court judge in Virginia' when he was nothing of the sort, is like saying 'My father is a General in the Army', when he is really a Sgt. Not a huge exaggeration,

~~~~

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/miljokes/blrank.htm

 

[TheL8Elvis]

It does, and as a prosecutor, that would be my closing argument.

The case lacks a lot of physical evidence and any witnesses at all, so you have to go to motive and history to establish the motive. Every single call he ever made to the police should be heard by the jury, in order.

Psychiatric witnesses can testify about "Batman's Syndrome" and he can be painted as a person with a history of failure to catch anybody who was not going to allow himself to fail again.

And the prosecutors should underscore; Who weighed more. Who was stalking whom. Who was armed.

And they will convict if they do it that way.

Wow. You aren't actually following this thread or the facts in the case, are you ?

 

[johnny karate]

Hiya Johnny!

I'm sure you won't believe this, but I complimented you and linked your posts elsewhere because I thought you were doing a fine job maintaining an even keel keeping up your end and doing the best you could with what you had. However I'm not exactly sure that this is an issue where you'd be best off suggesting those who disagree with you are conspiracy theorists. You might want to recall who raised this as an issue, what they alleged and what happened to the 'evidence' they offered in support of that.

Well, in fairness, I'm not making blanket "conspiracy theory" accusations against anyone who disagrees with me. There are plenty of people in this thread with whom I disagree for which I have the utmost respect. However, the one conspiracy theory charge that I did level was regarding a theory of a conspiracy that involved Martin's parents, their lawyer, at least one witness, and the mayor of Sanford. It also alleged knowing what some of these participants were actually thinking.

Not really in this case, unless you think there is something out there which is uniquely known as a 'burglary tool.' You'll find that everything else which can be described as a burglary tool could also be called something else. In fact, you will also find 'screwdriver' amongst the items that also might consist of 'lockpicking tools.' You may wish to investigate this for yourself, I don't expect you to believe me, and it would save us spending ten pages on it.

I completely believe you. But this idea that a screwdriver is automatically to be considered a burglary tool is nonsense.

Why do you suppose innocent screwdrivers were banned at his high school? Do you think it is an irrational fear of screwdrivers or something?

I'm not aware that they were banned. Martin received no disciplinary action as a result of having the screwdriver in his possession.

Then how on earth could they ever justify not returning TM his (or his 'friend's') merchandise? How dare they! Shouldn't the family of TM demand the return of the jewelry that was confiscated from his locker so they could return it to the 'friend?' Do you suppose that would be a wise idea? Or would it be more in their interests to avoid the jewelry getting media attention lest someone who might be able to prove it was theirs came forward?

And the evidence you have supporting the assertion that the jewelry went unclaimed is... ?

Incidentally, off the top of your head roughly what percentage of property crimes do you suppose are resolved with the items being returned to the owners? Do you think it possible that many police stations have piles of stolen items that they confiscated from criminals that they must relieve themselves of at auctions and the such on occasion lest they become buried in them? Why do you suppose that is?

Because people are sometimes unaware that the had something stolen and don't report it to the police. However, in this case, we're alleging that a house was burglarized as well.

How likely do you think it is that someone had their house broken in to and a bunch of jewelry - including a wedding band - stolen and didn't report it?

And how likely is it that this school official caught a student with obvious evidence of burglary - and even possibly grand larceny - and not only didn't turn that student over to the police, but didn't even turn in the cache of valuable stolen jewelry?

If we take this story at face value, it looks damning for Martin. However, if we examine it closely, it ultimately doesn't make very much sense. We are supposed to believe that Martin was guilty of a serious crime because that's what the evidence clearly indicates. And yet this serious crime that was committed did not directly involve the police.

So in the end we have this great story of criminal behavior for anyone who wants to believe the worst about Trayvon Martin that is credible right up to the point of actually being verified by law enforcement.

They ended up on the ground struggling, one of them had to have initiated violence. Do you think being followed is a justifiable reason to do that?

This assumes Martin initiated the violence. There's no evidence that he did.

It may also be because people suspect those terms will turn out to be most accurate in the long term, or describe more likely possibilities than what others are suggesting.

I agree that running after TM was a poor idea, if you live in a high crime area and call the police on someone who you think is acting suspiciously it would probably be best to let them take care of it.

It also happens to be more consistent with the evidence and circumstances. Being as he knew police were about to arrive on the scene momentarily it strikes me as highly likely GZ just wanted to tell them where they might find him or where he went.

I didn't say it wasn't consistent, just that it disingenuously paints a more innocuous picture of Zimmerman's actions. He had a gun and he got out his car to follow a suspected criminal. That is consistent with evidence, and is a full and honest account of what he actually did.

What does Neighborhood Watch really got to do with this case? What authority does that organization have over it's members? I'm truly puzzled here, it keeps coming up in my reading and I don't understand how it has anything to do with the case. If he was not a member of Neighborhood Watch how would this case be any different?

Zimmerman was the Neighborhood Watch Captain. You don't get to bestow such a title upon yourself without bearing the responsibilities of that title. At least not if you want to be viewed as a rational adult.

It's a different kind of reckless behavior in my view. Trying to follow someone secure in the knowledge the police would be there any moment is quite a bit different than attacking someone knowing the same thing. The idea that a man with a gun would initiate hostilities against a taller and more athletic opponent under those same circumstances seems damned unlikely to me. He might have gone 'full tilt,' I just don't see any real indications of that, either before or afterward. A snitch might sneak around hoping to catch the bully doing something bad secure in the knowledge teacher is nearby, but doesn't really want the bully to catch him alone with no teachers around!

However I will say this: I suspect it's less likely GZ would have followed if he wasn't carrying a gun. I also think the more people carrying guns is highly likely to lead to more people being shot, though it is possible ass-kickings and some crime might decrease somewhat. However any fight involving anyone with a gun by its very nature turns it into a potential life or death struggle.

And that's the point a few of us have been trying to make. The moment Zimmerman irresponsibly stepped out of his car with a gun - no matter what might have happened next - the stakes suddenly became much more serious.

The answer to that is not reversing the burden of proof in self-defense cases nor is it trying someone for murder. I honestly don't know what the answer is, but I do suspect we won't come up with it anytime soon. It's only going to lead to greater 'failures to communicate' which is why I did the 'bugout boogie.'

I'm not sure what you mean by "reversing the burden of proof in self-defense cases" - and I know under Florida law this probably doesn't matter - but if Zimmerman is claiming self-defense, then it's his burden to prove it.

Perhaps not, but it does support the suggestion that there might have been something about what he was doing which caused GZ to be suspicious and call the police to report his behavior.

Or like I said in another post: we could limit our discussion to that which will definitely or most likely be adduced as evidence of murder. I just suspect that would curtail the discussion somewhat.

You mean a place where he wasn't known and would be leaving, but temporarily had a safe haven? That might be the sort of circumstances that would temp a prospective burglar to 'multi-task.'

Sorry, but that's just nonsense. There is zero evidence that Martin was doing anything more sinister than walking home from the store. That Zimmerman might have thought he looked "suspicious" is a completely subjective opinion that should be treated as such.

It was basically inevitable when they filed murder charges on GZ and people started insisting GZ attacked TM. Election year politics and Obama making a statement regarding TMs character also possibly influenced that: this is potentially a plutonium boat anchor politically for him unless it goes away really soon, is there any chance of that incidentally?

Have you looked into this prosecutor? Just surfing around aimlessly on the issue I came across suggestions of highly dubious decision making on her part regarding a woman in a domestic violence case and a twelve year-old. I haven't yet run down the whole story on them, and what I read was so potentially damning I'm reluctant to accept it without further study, but even if what I read was just somewhat true it ought to be cause for concern, and might lend insight into how this ended up as a murder charge.

I know some of the self-appointed legal scholars in this thread will tell you otherwise, but the trial hasn't actually begun and the prosecution hasn't presented their case. They might have bupkis. They might have damning evidence. At this point, none of us know.

 

[crimresearch]

It does, and as a prosecutor, that would be my closing argument.

The case lacks a lot of physical evidence and any witnesses at all, so you have to go to motive and history to establish the motive. Every single call he ever made to the police should be heard by the jury, in order.

Psychiatric witnesses can testify about "Batman's Syndrome" and he can be painted as a person with a history of failure to catch anybody who was not going to allow himself to fail again.

And the prosecutors should underscore; Who weighed more. Who was stalking whom. Who was armed.

And they will convict if they do it that way.

Excuse me? Motive? Are you claiming that it needs to be established that it was GZ who pulled the trigger and not someone else? The charges don't include premeditation.

And why would a prosecutor make 'not guilty by reason of mental defect' part of their closing argument? (Not to mention ignoring the actual factors that need to be addressed).

I think you've successfully tipped this thread completely into the Nancygraceverse.

 

[curi0us]

http://corrinebrown.house.gov/images/Letter to Holder re Trayvon Martin with attachments.pdf
^Congresswoman Corrine Brown's March 16th letter to AG Holder where she states TM was half the size of GZ along with a bunch of other Crump/TM PR memes.

 

[sgtbaker]

I also saw on TV that he was a "magistrate judge", and it was explained that the title does not carry the meaning that most of us, or at least this layman, typically ascribe to it. Meaning I assume, that he's not a judge that sits on the bench with a gavel, for lack of a better way to describe it. Whether he was a supreme court magistrate judge I don't recall.

If it helps to clarify things, since my divorce was uncontested, I went before a magistrate. They sit in a court room, wear a robe, at a bench, with a gavel. The difference between a magistrate and a judge is basically that a magistrate works under a judge. A magistrate and hear a case and recommend an outcome but at the end of the day, a judge has to review and sign off on the magistrate's recommendation. It's similar to a PA working beneath a physician.

 

[johnny karate]

And I can't think of any particular reason why someone would arm himself to take a drive to the store.

Many concealed carriers carry pretty much anywhere they go. They don't arm themselves to go to the store. They just don't disarm themselves to go to the store.

I agree but is it that uncommon there.

Some people carry all the time, my friend does, in Idaho.

I do. As does my wife. Every time we leave the house. Well, most of the time.

I've known a super liberal girl from Florida and sweet grandmother from Oaklakoma that both carried guns with them almost everywhere. In California (where I'm from) that is outlandish, it seems like there is a very strong regional aspect to how people view guns.

No offense intended, but none of these responses are actual reasons. They are merely acknowledgments that other people arm themselves as well.

And since my original post was meant as a counterpoint to those that automatically assumed someone carrying a screwdriver was using it as a burglary tool, I could very easily have said "I carry one too" as response to the queries about why Martin would carry one. I doubt that response would have been deemed acceptable.

Are you psychic? Are you able to know when and where you may need to defend yourself with deadly force?

I am every bit as psychic as anyone who claims to know why Trayvon Martin might have had a screwdriver.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

George Zimmerman bond hearing: 5 new things we learned

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justic...in-Zimmerman-s-story-raised-police-suspicions

But during his turn on the stand, Gilbreath drew attention to Zimmerman's assertion to police that Trayvon was at one point running around Zimmerman's car. Gilbreath questioned why that should make Zimmerman fear for his life. “[Zimmerman] was so scared that he still got out of the car and chased Mr. Martin,” Gilbreath said skeptically.

Someone have a timestamp for the video or see this in the transcript ? (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1204/20/cnr.02.html)

I'm curious - we've still not really seen more than snippets of the entire story GZ told police.

I'd like to know if the story Tracy Martin was told - that TM went first to talk to GZ while he was in his car, then GZ followed him, indeed originated with GZ, or was perhaps misunderstood in the re-telling.

I think 2 separate encounters, one at the car, then one on the sidewalk cast a bit of a different light on events.

ETA:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/03/us-usa-florida-shooting-trayvon-idUSBRE8320UK20120403
but here is how Martin recalls what Serino said: "He told me Zimmerman's story was that Zimmerman was of course following him and that Trayvon approached his vehicle, walked up to the car and asked Zimmerman, ‘Why are your following me?' Zimmerman then rolls his car windows down, tells Trayvon ‘I'm not following you.' He rolls his car windows up.
"Trayvon walks off. Zimmerman said he started running between the buildings. Zimmerman gets out of his car. He comes around the building. Trayvon is hiding behind the building, waiting on him. Trayvon approaches him and says, ‘What's your problem, homes?' Zimmerman says ‘I don't have a problem.'
"Zimmerman starts to reach into his pocket to get his cellphone, and at that point Trayvon attacked him. He says Trayvon hits him. He falls on the ground. Trayvon jumps on top of him, takes his left hand and covers Zimmerman's mouth and tells him to shut the F up and continues to pound on him.
"At that point Zimmerman is able to unholster his weapon and fire a shot, striking Trayvon in the chest. Trayvon falls on his back and says, 'You got me.'" The Martin family has been telling their story as part of a campaign to have Zimmerman arrested. He himself has kept quiet.

So no one can shed any light on Gilbreath saying about "running around the car?"

So we have Mr. Martin and Det. Gilbreath seemingly stating that TM came up to GZ in his car/truck. And GZ might or might not have said that, we don't have his entire statements.

I thought this would be way more relevant than a screwdriver, and whether it was a flat head or phillips.

 

[boooeee]

Interesting. therealgeorgezimmerman.com is now down.

1. Was the website never legit in the first place?
2. Or did his lawyer (wisely) tell him to shut it down?

From the AP:

The website that George Zimmerman set up to help raise money for his legal defense in Trayvon Martin's shooting has been disabled, a spokesman for his lawyer said Wednesday.

"It was taken down at Mark's request and he will not have any future online presence unless authorized in advance by Mark," Woods said in an email.

It looks like option 2.

 

[Xulld]

However any fight involving anyone with a gun by its very nature turns it into a potential life or death struggle.

This is a great reason to work to reduce incidence of violent aggression. Not a reason to strip people of their ability to defend themselves.

I am every bit as psychic as anyone who claims to know why Trayvon Martin might have had a screwdriver.

It is these kinds of non-answers that make this forum a very bad place to have an honest discussion.

My question was directed to why you think having a gun is irrational when not knowing when you might be attacked is a rational reason for always having defensive tools, pepper spray, tazer, gun, ect ect.

Not answering this question just makes you look dishonest.

 

[Xulld]

Double post.

 

[LTC8K6]

TM went up to GZ's car to confront him first. TM knocks on GZ's car window.

That's the first confrontation. GZ has been driving along, watching TM.

Then TM runs off and GZ gets out to see where he went, but he can't see him/find him.

GZ comes into view of TM and TM again confronts him and then punches him. TM was waiting somewhere to see if GZ follows him.

We have two conversations/confrontations, both of which are initiated by TM.

That's the basic story that will eventually come out, imo.

Or not.

 

[johnny karate]

It is these kinds of non-answers that make this forum a very bad place to have an honest discussion.

My question was directed to why you think having a gun is irrational when not knowing when you might be attacked is a rational reason for always having defensive tools, pepper spray, tazer, gun, ect ect.

Not answering this question just makes you look dishonest.

My original post was meant as a rhetorical device, not an actual inquiry into the phenomenon of people arming themselves to go to the store. I explained the point I was making in my previous post. I'm sorry if that point escaped you.

Also, it doesn't really help your case when you accuse someone of being dishonest in the same post in which you blatantly misrepresent their position. I never said I thought having a gun was irrational.

 

[sgtbaker]

This is kind of stupid and a bit off topic but...
I've notice quite a few Floridians are posting in this thread. I know of at least one other Central Floridian. I live about an hour and a half SE of Sanford so I am not quite at the epicenter. However, I've read multiple blogs and articles, even seen a few news clips making reference to the "constant" chatter in the streets about this case. To be perfectly honest, in my day to day life, since this case went national, I've only had one incident where someone else brought it up to a group of people and it really didn't last that long. Has anyone else seen anything suggesting that the public conversation is/was consumed by this case or is that another hyperbole?