Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[johnny karate]

How so?

btw: Half of all burglaries take place without forced entry. In many cases the burglar used a "key".
http://www.seay-inspections.com/burglary_statistics.htm

I would think you see if the door is unlocked or a window wide open before you take out the screwdriver and force entry.

Awesome. How many burglaries go unreported? Especially burglaries that involve personal items like wedding bands? How many schools catch their students with evidence of a felony and do nothing about? How many coincidences need to pile up before you start to question the veracity of this story?

 

[LTC8K6]

The first time Martin approached him it might have just been concern or curiosity. The second time Zimmerman followed him, Martin might then have begun to fear for his safety. I certainly won't disagree that running away seems like the reasonable response, but then again, I wasn't there and I don't know the exact circumstances. It's quite possible that Martin felt somehow cornered.

If Martin fears for his safety, I would not expect him to seek out/approach GZ a second time.

I would expect him to go home, call 911, tell his girl to call 911, or tell his girl that GZ is scaring him, etc. If he saw a gun, I would expect him to say so on the phone.

I think TM is possibly already mad about his problems, and possibly already mad at authority figures, when this incident occurs. GZ bothering him may have been a "last straw".

Or, there's something major that we just don't know yet.

 

[curi0us]

But it's not proof that a crime had been committed, right? In fact, given there was no conviction (never mind there was no charge) then as far as this case goes it is not probative, right?

It is somewhat relevant to determining the validity of the claim that GZ was profiling TM.

The primary way to resolve the profiling claim would be to get very detailed description of what exactly GZ saw TM doing that made him seem suspcious. We have never had access to that and until GZ has at least been given a chance to defend himself in that regard it is prejudicial to just assume he was profiling.

In general prior acts can certainly be relevant even without a criminal conviction or arrest.

 

[tyr_13]

Awesome. How many burglaries go unreported? Especially burglaries that involve personal items like wedding bands? How many schools catch their students with evidence of a felony and do nothing about? How many coincidences need to pile up before you start to question the veracity of this story?

Without corroboration, it is just a story. That's all that really needs said to discount it at this time. It also won't be legally admissible in all likelihood and is only useful for speculation or if proven true, to combat the 'completely good kid' image. Which of course in itself says nothing of if the shooting was murder or not.

As for your questions, some, some, disturbingly many, and zero because questioning is the start of any analysis. I'm not convinced that the story is internally inconsistent. That is different from believe it is true.

 

[curi0us]

I didn't see in that article where it says the police investigated Trayvon Martin. Please provide a quote to support your assertion.

My "assertion" was the title of the article. Here is the first sentence:

"SANFORD, Fla. -- A Florida police department says women's jewelry found in Trayvon Martin's school backpack last year didn't match any that had been reported stolen."
http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_20267401/police-investigated-trayvon-martin-over-jewelry

Yes, they believed it so much that they didn't even bother turning the supposedly stolen jewelry over to the police, nor did Martin receive any disciplinary action as a result. Maybe he was just fortunate enough to attend a school that has a lax policy in dealing with felonies.

I had just posted two links that show what you just said is wrong but still you persist.

The school had the police investigate and the police couldn't match the jewelry to any crime.

 

[WildCat]

I didn't see in that article where it says the police investigated Trayvon Martin. Please provide a quote to support your assertion.



Yes, they believed it so much that they didn't even bother turning the supposedly stolen jewelry over to the police

Of course the police have them! Do you think the school gets to keep the jewelry?

 

[WildCat]

Awesome. How many burglaries go unreported? Especially burglaries that involve personal items like wedding bands?

Lots of burglaries go unreported. Once again, do you know why police have auctions?

How many schools catch their students with evidence of a felony and do nothing about? How many coincidences need to pile up before you start to question the veracity of this story?

Excuse me? How many times did Martrin get suspended from school?

 

[RandFan]

It is somewhat relevant to determining the validity of the claim that GZ was profiling TM.

I don't understand. Zimmerman didn't know anything about Martin.

The primary way to resolve the profiling claim would be to get very detailed description of what exactly GZ saw TM doing that made him seem suspcious. We have never had access to that and until GZ has at least been given a chance to defend himself in that regard it is prejudicial to just assume he was profiling.

Tying this to the screwdriver is at best prejudicial and at worst not probative. I've posted the definitions. Could you explain how you think the screwdriver is anything other than prejudicial?

I'm not a legal expert so the following is speculative. Even IF Martin had been convicted of burglary, it wouldn't prove that on this night he was acting suspicious. I seriously doubt that it would be allowed in because A.) even though it might have some probative value, it is also prejudicial. B.) Martin is not on trial.

The screwdriver theory? IMO, other than fueling speculation, it's meaningless.

In general prior acts can certainly be relevant even without a criminal conviction or arrest.

Relevant? Relevant to what? Martin is not on trial here. It can't and won't prove anything. It is prejudicial. Now, I could be wrong and the rules of evidence don't apply to victims. Perhaps Zimmerman's atty will be allowed to assassinate Martin's character without Martin being able to defend himself. One more benefit of Martin being dead.

 

[LTC8K6]

I don't understand. Zimmerman didn't know anything about Martin.

Tying this to the screwdriver is at best prejudicial and at worst not probative. I've posted the definitions. Could you explain how you think the screwdriver is anything other than prejudicial?

I'm not a legal expert so the following is speculative. Even IF Martin had been convicted of burglary, it wouldn't prove that on this night he was acting suspicious. I seriously doubt that it would be allowed in because A.) even though it might have some probative value, it is also prejudicial. B.) Martin is not on trial.

The screwdriver theory? IMO, other than fueling speculation, it's meaningless.

Relevant? Relevant to what? Martin is not on trial here. It can't and won't prove anything. It is prejudicial. Now, I could be wrong and the rules of evidence don't apply to victims. Perhaps Zimmerman's atty will be allowed to assassinate Martin's character without Martin being able to defend himself. One more benefit of Martin being dead.

I think where that is going is that if TM was indeed a small time crook, then GZ might indeed have indeed seen him doing something suspicious that evening, such as casing houses.

We have no evidence for that, of course.

 

[johnny karate]

You either live a sheltered life surrounded only by people of similar beliefs and values, or you live in a State where CCP's aren't issued to the masses.

According to these stats, most people don't own a gun. And according to this article, only about 2% of the population have a CCP. So I'm not sure how "sheltered" my life would have to be to not have ever interacted with any of them.

It's been either explicitly or implicitly acknowledged by a number of sources, so I don't think we are jumping to conclusions.

There was originally one source that the other media outlets then picked up on.

How many incorrect things about George Zimmerman were "either explicitly or implicitly acknowledged by a number of sources"? The issue of his race comes to mind.

I thought the jewelry and the failure to communicate how he got it was good evidence of a crime. It certainly could be he was just holding it for a friend, and didn't steal anything himself, though. I have tried to say he either stole it or was holding stolen stuff.

The police and school seemed to disagree with you on this point, as neither did anything about it.

But the police were notified.

The police were sent photos of the jewelry. That's it. Trayvon wasn't turned in, nor did they attempt to further investigate.

And if it was a collection of a ring from this locker, a pair of earrings from a backpack, etc .... well... it's not so hard to believe.

One of the items was supposedly a wedding band. So someone had their house broken into and - among other things - had a wedding band stolen. And they apparently didn't report it. I suppose it's possible, but seems unlikely, especially when Occam's Razor is being invoked to "prove" other aspects of this story.

It's much harder for me to believe they weren't stolen. Sorry if I am not properly skeptical. But - no one saw him steal it, and they couldn't prove it was stolen ... so there you go - that's why he wasn't arrested. Everything works as it should, right ?

Not only wasn't he arrested, but he wasn't turned in to the police, he wasn't investigated, and he wasn't even disciplined by his school.

TM seems to have provided some good ammunition himself for those who want to believe the worst about him.

And those who want to believe the worst about Martin seem to have no problem accepting this particular piece of ammunition at face value.

 

[johnny karate]

Lots of burglaries go unreported. Once again, do you know why police have auctions?

For unclaimed stolen property. But all stolen property isn't necessarily from burglaries. Burglary, just so we're clear, is when someone breaks into your home.

So again, how many people have their home broken into and then don't report it? You had stats before. I'd like to see some more to back up this particular claim.

Excuse me? How many times did Martrin get suspended from school?

For being caught with evidence of a felony? Zero times. Which, coincidentally, is the same amount of times he was turned into the police for that same felony.

 

[Coffee]

Martin is not on trial here. It can't and won't prove anything. It is prejudicial. Now, I could be wrong and the rules of evidence don't apply to victims. Perhaps Zimmerman's atty will be allowed to assassinate Martin's character without Martin being able to defend himself. One more benefit of Martin being dead.

For what it's worth:

From Florida Evidence Code Chapter 90.

90.404 Character evidence; when admissible

Character of victim.--

1. Except as provided in s. 794.022, evidence of a pertinent trait of character of the victim of the crime offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the trait; or
2. Evidence of a character trait of peacefulness of the victim offered by the prosecution in a homicide case to rebut evidence that the victim was the aggressor.

The entire Evidence code for Florida is here.

 

[johnny karate]

If Martin fears for his safety, I would not expect him to seek out/approach GZ a second time.

I would expect him to go home, call 911, tell his girl to call 911, or tell his girl that GZ is scaring him, etc. If he saw a gun, I would expect him to say so on the phone.

I think TM is possibly already mad about his problems, and possibly already mad at authority figures, when this incident occurs. GZ bothering him may have been a "last straw".

Or, there's something major that we just don't know yet.

There are definitely pieces of the puzzle we don't have, and may never get. But I'm not sure how constructive it is to apply our own standards of behavior on those involved.

For instance, I wouldn't expect an unauthorized person to take a gun and follow a suspected criminal. From my point of view, that seems like an incredibly bone-headed thing to do.

 

[curi0us]

Want to bet that it will come out that the call originated at 6:54, but it wasn't until much later that Martin said he was being followed?

I think while you were away you missed part of this discussion.

There is a 6:54 call and a 7:12 call.

(GZ called the police at 7:09 and TM ran at 7:11.)

There are major problems with the GF''s version in that it really doesn't make much sense and there has never been a good reason provided for why she didn't come forward sooner.

But another issue that I noticed is that the T-Mobile phone logs Crump provided say all times are Pacific Time. It seemed crazy to me that Crump could be that wrong so I checked the T-Mobile billing forums and found a post explaining the time zone issue to a non Pacific time customer.

So it seems like that 6:54 call might have actually been a 3:54 call.

 

[RandFan]

I think where that is going is that if TM was indeed a small time crook, then GZ might indeed have indeed seen him doing something suspicious that evening, such as casing houses.

We have no evidence for that, of course.

I understand the point. I should not have used the rhetoric that I did. Thing is, as it is, it doesn't even rise to the "more likely than not" standard. Had Martin been convicted I don't think it would rise to that level but I could respect someone who did think that.

As it is? No. It is meaningless. It is prejudicial and not probative.

 

[LTC8K6]

I think the case will boil down to the final confrontation and nothing else will matter.

I don't think GZ or TM do anything prior to the final encounter that will matter to the outcome. Plus, exactly what they did prior seems to be uncertain and we only have Zimmerman's account.

It will be just about who started the final fight, and did GZ have a reasonable fear for his life, imo.

 

[RandFan]

For what it's worth:

From Florida Evidence Code Chapter 90.

90.404 Character evidence; when admissible

Character of victim.--

1. Except as provided in s. 794.022, evidence of a pertinent trait of character of the victim of the crime offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the trait; or
2. Evidence of a character trait of peacefulness of the victim offered by the prosecution in a homicide case to rebut evidence that the victim was the aggressor.

The entire Evidence code for Florida is here.

Thanks. In which case I think conviction likely requisite to demonstrate such a trait. If not, does the screwdriver have an probative value? Is the screwdriver prejudicial?

 

[RandFan]

I think the case will boil down to the final confrontation and nothing else will matter.

I don't think GZ or TM do anything prior to the final encounter that will matter to the outcome. Plus, exactly what they did prior seems to be uncertain and we only have Zimmerman's account.

It will be just about who started the final fight, and did GZ have a reasonable fear for his life, imo.

I seriously doubt GZ can demonstrate he had reasonable fear for his life. I seriously doubt the prosecution can demonstrate that he didn't. The prosecutor must prove his or her case. Tie goes to the runner.

 

[LTC8K6]

There are definitely pieces of the puzzle we don't have, and may never get. But I'm not sure how constructive it is to apply our own standards of behavior on those involved.

For instance, I wouldn't expect an unauthorized person to take a gun and follow a suspected criminal. From my point of view, that seems like an incredibly bone-headed thing to do.

GZ did not do that, imo. So to me, that's not part of the story. Not sure where "unauthorized" fits in.

Claiming he "took" his gun is like claiming he "took" his wallet, imo.

Both are normally carried with him. One would not normally remove a concealed weapon in this case, imo.

It sounds uncomfortably like you think GZ did not have his weapon on him, but put it on and then got out of the truck to follow Martin.

Which, for all I know, may be true.

 

[RandFan]

The police and school seemed to disagree with you on this point, as neither did anything about it.

If the evidence is insufficient for the police to pursue then of what possible probative value could it have?