Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[LTC8K6]

Nope. Sorry, I'm not discussing Zimmerman's account to the police. I'm discussing your laughable account of what happened, in this thread. I have to admit, though, that I'm amused by the absurd defenses that people are giving for Zimmerman, especially since they only manage to confirm him as a hot-head who thought Martin was suspicious due entirely to skin color.

ETA: and this is why I keep saying that Zimmerman's account has not been released yet. His defenders are doing a horrible job, so it's best to let him give his own account of what happened.

I already laughed at my own "account" of what happened when I posted it.

It's okay for you to let your biases out, though. It's good. Most people hide them.

So Zimmerman doesn't like black youts and was looking for an excuse to pop one?

Cool. That is indeed one possible version of events.

 

[curi0us]

I already stated I think his whole description of events makes little sense, and I think the GF is not at all what he makes it to be. Even without talking about her possible twitter account or any of that.

I know. I was just being openly conversational to encourage discussion of what I think are critical aspects of this case that are being overlooked.

It's pretty interesting to me how heavily scrutinized GZ and his attorney's comments have been while Crump has just been getting a total pass on what look like whopper lies like the claim that GZ had started following TM at 6:54.

 

[lane99]

Unless Zimmerman knew about it, it has no bearing on whether or not he had good reason to be suspicious of Martin...

This is wrong. Independent of whether or not the shooter knew it of it, the relative probability that the victim indeed was acting suspiciously is greater, the greater was his past history of criminal behaviour.

So, from a logical and rational perspective, there is some marginal benefit in knowing the victim's past when assessing the probability that he was acting suspiciously here. And the more likely it is that the victim *was* acting suspiciously, the more likely that the shooter had good reason to be suspicious.

...although the only question that is really going to matter at trial is whether Zimmerman reasonably feared death or serious injury when he fired the shot...

You've taken the question into the courtroom now. But, even from a strictly legal point of view, this is also wrong. Other questions are going to matter. And matter a lot. So don't be surprised when at trial all manner of them are addressed and hotly contested.

In this case, merely showing that at some point the shooter came to be reasonably in fear of death or serious injury will not, by itself only, be sufficient to absolve him of all legal responsibility in this shooting death.

 

[crimresearch]

This is wrong. Independent of whether or not the shooter knew it of it, the relative probability that the victim indeed was acting suspiciously is greater, the greater was his past history of criminal behaviour.

So, from a logical and rational perspective, there is some marginal benefit in knowing the victim's past when assessing the probability that he was acting suspiciously here. And the more likely it is that the victim *was* acting suspiciously, the more likely that the shooter had good reason to be suspicious.




You've taken the question into the courtroom now. But, even from a strictly legal point of view, this is also wrong. Other questions are going to matter. And matter a lot. So don't be surprised when at trial all manner of them are addressed and hotly contested.

In this case, merely showing that at some point the shooter came to be reasonably in fear of death or serious injury will not, by itself only, be sufficient to absolve him of all legal responsibility in this shooting death.

You need to let the Supreme Court know that you've overruled them, then.

 

[lane99]

Oh, I didn't know the Supreme court had already ruled on the specifics of this case. If so, then I stand corrected.

Thanks for letting me know.

 

[RandFan]

This is wrong. Independent of whether or not the shooter knew it of it, the relative probability that the victim indeed was acting suspiciously is greater, the greater was his past history of criminal behaviour.

• Probative.
• Prejudicial.

You can lead a horse to water.

 

[RandFan]

Oh, I didn't know the Supreme court had already ruled on the specifics of this case. If so, then I stand corrected.

Thanks for letting me know.

The Supreme court has ruled on Rules of Evidence that this case must abide by.

 

[johnny karate]

So is it rhetorical, or are you really asking?

I find it very curious that you would excise the part of my past that clearly explained my point:

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 quoted you, and took you literally. Those are good traits, being rhetorical is not exactly considered honest dialog, it is a manipulative tactic.

Just be straight up Johnny and stop with the circus tricks.

I'll tell you what, since you've already lied about what my original claim was and then conveniently edited my posts to better reflect your narrative, spare me the lecture about honesty and manipulation.

If you're interested in having a discussion based on the arguments I've made, I'm game. But if you'd rather have a discussion with your imaginary version of my arguments, I don't feel my participation would be constructive.

 

[Xulld]

since you've already lied

So you can prove this claim? It seems to me you are having a bit of fun playing both sides while trying to avoid staking any claim on either side.

Either it is reasonable to carry a firearm for defense, or its not. Reasons have been given.
Either it is reasonable to carry a screwdriver, for what purpose we know not becuase he (Martin) would not say, or it is not.

Where you think I have lied in trying to determine what you actually think in regards to these two questions is beyond me to tell you. (this really is my intent)

I reread your posts and you do a lot of goal post shifting, and asking pointed questions out of context without answering any yourself.

I am asking you direct questions that can be answered directly. This is true regardless if I misunderstood your intent, and by answering you can clear up any misunderstanding. Something I find to be very basic forum etiquette.

By avoiding answering it makes it look like you are playing the very games you appear to be playing.

Hey maybe I have you pegged wrong, if so just answer the questions. Is a gun a reasonable tool for self defense to carry everywhere because you dont know when you may need it?

A screw driver is not commonly considered a defensive tool to be carried just in case you need it. So what do you think he needed it for? Why do you think when questioned about why he had it he refused to answer? Does it matter at all? If not then why all this drama?

Just trying to understand Johnny. Maybe your wit is just too deep for me, please forgive a hopeless, dull, trite and plain speaking stoic.

 

[johnny karate]

Well, I said "or not" and added a smiley. Most people wouldn't take the post that seriously.

However, that's what you might do if you are a young tough kid mad about a car following you.

So Martin is to be criticized for asking the guy who's following him "Are you following me?" and then walking away? Sounds like a reasonable response to some guy sitting in his truck watching you and then following you around. I'm not sure why we have to assume Martin was acting "tough" or that he was "mad". He might have just been "concerned" or "curious".

But let's take a look at this narrative from Martin's point of view:

So that means GZ went back to his truck after the call he made.

Then TM came up to the truck. He said are you following me and GZ said no.

Then TM left, and GZ followed him or went in the same general direction.

Then was going back to his truck *again* when TM confronted him from behind .

Something like that ?

Martin is walking home from the store.

Some guy is sitting in his truck watching him and then gets out to follow him.

He asks the guy "Are you following me?". The guys says "No".

Then the guy starts following him again.

At what point is it reasonable for Martin to start fearing for his safety?

And if Zimmerman had verbal contact with Martin prior to the altercation why wouldn't he have simply said "I'm George Zimmerman and I'm with the neighborhood watch. Do you live in the area?".

 

[johnny karate]

So you can prove this claim?

Yes:

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.

I never said I thought having a gun was irrational. That makes the above statement a lie.

As the rest of your post was all about playing the game in which you rail against an argument I never made, I'm not going to bother with it. Any further discussion along this ridiculous tangent will likewise be ignored.

 

[Dancing David]

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

A friend of mine in Texas was in a convenience store when a gun fight broke out, he hit the deck and dragged his son down with him. Another fiend of mine in Idaho was backing out of his driveway and had to pull his weapon to end a stand off in the front yard.

 

[Dan O.]

You know that there is a transcript for a different interview that I referenced but did not specify ? What's the link, then ?

Sorry, there was supposed to be a question mark before the smile. I struggled to get that quote accurate when You indicated I could have just cut and pasted.

Yes, but I believe it's a .... colloquialism ? Do you think he meant it was LIKE the feet were at the sidewalk, but they weren't really ? What would that even mean ? Please explain.

I took "[like]" to be a term of impression or uncertainty like he was shown where Trayvon was laying much the same way Tracy indicated but was not explicitly told or shown the exact position.

 

[johnny karate]

A friend of mine in Texas was in a convenience store when a gun fight broke out, he hit the deck and dragged his son down with him. Another fiend of mine in Idaho was backing out of his driveway and had to pull his weapon to end a stand off in the front yard.

And I don't doubt there are legitimate reasons to bring a gun to the store. Just like I don't doubt that there are legitimate reasons to have a screwdriver in your backpack.

My objection is that we must assume the most innocuous of motives for Zimmerman, but the most nefarious motives for Martin.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

But let's take a look at this narrative from Martin's point of view:

Martin is walking home from the store.
Some guy is sitting in his truck watching him and then gets out to follow him.
Then goes back to his truck.
Martin approaches the guy in the truck and
He asks the guy "Are you following me?". The guys says "No".
Then the guy starts following him again.
Martin again approaches the guy
At what point is it reasonable for Martin to start fearing for his safety?

I added the bolded parts.

In this version where he approached GZ twice, I don't know.

I can't get past the thought that if TM feared for his safety, almost anything would be a better alternative than approaching the person worrying you.

Again, assuming this version of events has some validity, it means TM did not take advantage of the opportunity to make it home to safety, if he approached the truck. That says to me, he's not fearing for his safety.

And if Zimmerman had verbal contact with Martin prior to the altercation why wouldn't he have simply said "I'm George Zimmerman and I'm with the neighborhood watch. Do you live in the area?".

IDK. If GZ takes the stand, I bet he'll be asked that quesiton.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Sorry, there was supposed to be a question mark before the smile. I struggled to get that quote accurate when You indicated I could have just cut and pasted.

Oh, sorry. Misunderstood.

I took "[like]" to be a term of impression or uncertainty like he was shown where Trayvon was laying much the same way Tracy indicated but was not explicitly told or shown the exact position.

Hmm. Hard to see. I guess it's open to interpretation, but I heard it used like:
"So, I was like, standing her, and like, he was all like, you know ..." type of usage. Similar to when people say "you know" all the time when speaking to you, and I have to stop myself from constantly saying "no, I don't know"

 

[Dan O.]

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

It's not necessary to complete a full 360 degree circle to be said to be "running around" an obstacle. If George was parked between Trayvon and the cut-through, Trayvon may have to go around George's truck to reach the cut-through. If Trayvon started running before passing the truck, he would technically be running around the truck.

I had the impression that Trayvon was already past George before he started to run or walk away fast.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

My objection is that we must assume the most innocuous of motives for Zimmerman, but the most nefarious motives for Martin.

I think that's because it's easy to make the assumption that generally speaking, people with CCP carry everywhere, not because they intend to shoot anyone, and generally speaking, highschool kids with screwdrivers and jewelry stole it.

I think those are most obvious and reasonable assumptions, even based on what we know. I guess you don't find that reasonable, but I don't want to debate any more about the screwdriver with you.

 

[RandFan]

My objection is that we must assume the most innocuous of motives for Zimmerman, but the most nefarious motives for Martin.

Consistency would be nice. But then you and I might not be true skeptics.

 

[Cylinder]

Has Zimmerman officially made such a claim?

Zimmerman's first statement recorded by police was from Officer Smith, who overheard Zimmerman state "I was yelling for someone to help me, but no one would help me." while Zimmerman was being treated by SFD in the back of Smith's partol vehicle.

Later, while being interviewed by SPD, Zimmerman reiterated his claim:

O'MARA: Ok. And in those statements that you're aware of and were part of your foundation for coming up with this probable cause affidavit, what did he tell the officers?

GILBREATH: That he was the victim in this, and that it was Martin that confronted him and assaulted him.