Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Kaosium]

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.

That's pretty much where this all started, so that would be an excellent place to begin any sort of investigation.

It also alleged knowing what some of these participants were actually thinking.

Were you aware that one of the requirements for finding someone guilty is being able to 'read their mind' in more or less the same manner? It's called mens rea to establish a 'guilty mind.'

There are also those who can employ certain techniques and who've education and training in certain fields who can in a general sense sometimes divine within a reasonable probability what someone might have, is, or will be thinking. Look at it this way, everyone can guess what someone might think if they tell them something, like if someone cheats on their wife they might be able to guess just how that conversation might go, depending of course on the woman involved because people are different. There's some who can do that easier operating on more limited information, James Randi and others like him would be another example.

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

Of course it is, that's an absolutely true statement. It could also be considered a 'weapon.'

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

Correct me if I'm wrong, but officially he was disciplined for the graffiti incident instead, wasn't he?

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

This answer is one indication. Do you know why?

Other than that, it can be derived from the context and circumstances of the report to a high probability.

Because people are sometimes unaware that they 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?

Perhaps they did, but there's no 'jewelry database' in which to cross reference and match the merchandise with the claim. The people may not have reported it to the police station that has it because Traymon committed it out of town.

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?

Depends on the school official; one might have been a hardass and done so, and Traymon have been in jail and still alive. Another may have thought it better to avoid getting him enmeshed in the criminal justice system for a non-violent crime.

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.

Frankly I don't consider it that serious of a crime, I brought it up because I'd not seen much mention of it lately and it indirectly corroborated part of GZ's story.

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.

I don't believe the worst about Trayvon Martin, but I suspect that jewelry was stolen.

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

Actually there is, George Zimmerman. That's is evidence in a courtroom.

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.

It's not disingenuous at all, it's the most accurate in my estimation.

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.

OK, that's what I needed to know. It really is that silly and irrelevant. I will have fun with this one I think, not at your expense in this post though.

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.

Why would George Zimmerman be considered irresponsible for walking around in his own neighborhood? If Traymon has every right to be there, which of course I agree with, then how can George Zimmerman be denied the same courtesy? If it's the concealed carry permit, that's his legal right and considering the crime statistics in his neighborhood a rational response to his environment.

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.

It's Murder 2 now, so no he doesn't. The state has to prove him guilty of murder. Regarding that self-defense claim in other states of having to prove self-defense, the fallout from this case may be that has to be changed as this shows how easy it is to pervert the current strictures. It may very well turn out that it would be wise to federalize Stand Your Ground so this doesn't happen again. It's obviously too damn easy in this day and age for people to get their hands on evidence and turn it in to 'evidence' and construct a low-probability scenario and take it to the press, (or perhaps just a gullible prosecutor) and convince them of their fantasy and potentially ruin someone's life, or take it completely.

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.

However he called police at the time, that's something that corroborates his story, this isn't something he made up after the fact. Before there was a shooting and this became a tragedy George Zimmerman thought there was something suspicious about Traymon Martin's behavior and when he was spotted by TM that caused TM to take off running, another thing suggestive that he may have been up to something.

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.

We have an idea of what they consider the most damning evidence already, we also know how the case came to be made, both are highly suggestive of a gross miscarriage of justice already which is only occurring because of outside influence that they ought to start investigating now before it gets out of hand. They probably won't though, because it's politics.

When is the discovery dump going to take place? As I understand it, under Florida Sunshine laws this ought to be completely public, is that correct?

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

The fact that anyone at this point would continue to try to suggest that the jewelry and screwdriver suggests anything but an extremely high probability that TM was involved in some type of thievery, or at a minimum involved with stolen goods reveals a complete absence of intellectual honesty and an inability to think objectively on even the basest level.

The hilarious thing is it's completely unnecessary to deny the obvious because it has little to no bearing on the important facts of the case.

 

[Xulld]

The fact that anyone at this point would continue to try to suggest that the jewelry and screwdriver suggests anything but an extremely high probability that TM was involved in some type of thievery, or at a minimum involved with stolen goods reveals a complete absence of intellectual honesty and an inability to think objectively on even the basest level.

The hilarious thing is it's completely unnecessary to deny the obvious because it has little to no bearing on the important facts of the case.

Well said. Martin can be a thief and still have been murdered. He can be a pot head, and still have been wronged.

Our sensibilities really have little to do with it.

 

[Dancing David]

In a recent decission, possession of a screwdriver was found not to be a violation and the school officials themselves were remanded for over reacting.

I appreciate that, but districts vary on implementation of ZTP

It seems there was a legitimate reason for them to have the clasp knife and lighter,and it was in their gear.

I always consider pencils to be a very effective weapon.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Looks like the judge was not as outraged as Crump claims he should be:
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/04/27/justice/florida-zimmerman-money/?hpt=us_c2

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Looks like GZ is a big spender. From the link in previous post:

Although Zimmerman spent some of the contributions on living expenses, about $150,000 remains, O'Mara said Friday.

"He asked me what to do with his PayPal accounts, and I asked him what he was talking about," O'Mara told CNN's Anderson Cooper on Thursday. "He said those were the accounts that had the money from the website he had. And there was about ... $204,000 that had come in to date."

Since supposedly only $5000 went to legal expenses, I'd be curious to know where 50K went in a period of a couple weeks. I'm sure I'm not the only one that is going to raise that question! For his sake he better have a good explanation and not have gone on a Sarah Palin clothes spending spree.

 

[Xulld]

Looks like GZ is a big spender. From the link in previous post:


Since supposedly only $5000 went to legal expenses, I'd be curious to know where 50K went in a period of a couple weeks. I'm sure I'm not the only one that is going to raise that question! I sure hope he has a good explanation and didn't go on a Sarah Palin clothes spending spree.

I would hope it would be for securing any bills throughout what will assuredly be a long legal process.

But, who knows. Personally so long as the money is not used by him to flee I see no problem with using donations how you see fit. At this point it would be very stupid to use it for anything frivolous.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I would hope it would be for securing any bills throughout what will assuredly be a long legal process.

But, who knows. Personally so long as the money is not used by him to flee I see no problem with using donations how you see fit. At this point it would be very stupid to use it for anything frivolous.

Well that really depends on the wording used to solicit donations. Did he stipulate they were donations towards his legal fees, or general donations to help him through this time?

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

I would hope it would be for securing any bills throughout what will assuredly be a long legal process.

But, who knows. Personally so long as the money is not used by him to flee I see no problem with using donations how you see fit. At this point it would be very stupid to use it for anything frivolous.

He asked for money for living and legal expenses. I think when people donate money there's an implicit assumption that "living expenses" means mortgage, food etc., not a new car etc. I'm just wondering where 50K went in a period of a couple of weeks if only 5K went to bond. There could be a perfectly legit explanation, or it could be a typical thing where the entire story wasn't reported. It could mean nothing more than he took 50K out of the Paypal account and into a savings account.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Well that really depends on the wording used to solicit donations. Did he stipulate they were donations towards his legal fees, or general donations to help him through this time?

He was quite open that it would be used for his living (as well as legal) expenses, since no one will employ him now.

 

[Rare Truth]

Z's attorney said it was "just an oversight" that Z didn't disclose the 200,000.00+ in the Paypal account, as he was trying to get Z declared indigent in his Bond hearing.

My my, how many people 'oversight' nearly a quarter million dollars that just rained down from the heavens for ya?

 

[Kaosium]

Looks like GZ is a big spender. From the link in previous post:


Since supposedly only $5000 went to legal expenses, I'd be curious to know where 50K went in a period of a couple weeks. I'm sure I'm not the only one that is going to raise that question! For his sake he better have a good explanation and not have gone on a Sarah Palin clothes spending spree.

Did you get that $5k figure from this?

About $5,000 from the website contribution was used in making bond, O'Mara said. The rest came from a loan secured by a family home.

If that's correct, then that doesn't address his legal liabilities which no doubt are piling up much faster than the $400/hour Mara makes. He will probably need consultants and the like as well, and no doubt round the clock security if it's not being 'provided' by the state.

My guess is the prosecution wants to keep him as cash-poor as possible, they are vulnerable on a number of points and don't want him to be able to defend himself as well as might be alarmed at the prospect of a well-financed defense. They also might want to use anything they can get which they can make to appear damning in order to keep a negative image of him in the minds of the public, and perhaps also to be able to file additional charges in the event they fail miserably on the murder charge and need a face-saving conviction on something minor, perhaps to placate the potentially angry masses.

I cannot help but suspect that soon we will be hearing a lot of negative things about the prosecution, because it appeared to me from a cursory inquiry there's a lot there to be concerned about! At the same time we'll find out that Zimmerman has hired a PR firm and the prosecution will be accusing them of a 'PR campaign' to smear the prosecution. Some of that will contain a kernel of truth, but the reality is more that he's going to need someone to help him deal with the deluge of media demands, and from the little of what I read on the periphery about a website, some advice on how to conduct himself lest he draw their ire.

It will of course be totally forgotten that this whole thing was precipitated by a media campaign which also hired a PR firm to promote their cause as well; that had the effect of actually helping to create the image of GZ as a scary thug and TM as an innocent little boy. On the other hand his may be used as a 'counterpoint' to pretend that everything positive about GZ is nothing but the machinations of his PR firm while the prosecution is nothing but the soul of integrity and restraint.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

If that's correct, then that doesn't address his legal liabilities which no doubt are piling up much faster than the $400/hour Mara makes. He will probably need consultants and the like as well, and no doubt round the clock security if it's not being 'provided' by the state.
<...>

Another well stated post.

 

[Roadtoad]

I give up. There's more and more speculation, and not enough fact.

The story isn't what we're being told it is, but it sure as hell isn't what certain people would have us believe.

Somewhere along the line, someone needs to shut up and stick to facts.

 

[Kaosium]

Z's attorney said it was "just an oversight" that Z didn't disclose the 200,000.00+ in the Paypal account, as he was trying to get Z declared indigent in his Bond hearing.

My my, how many people 'oversight' nearly a quarter million dollars that just rained down from the heavens for ya?

O'Mara, who said he charges $400 per hour for family law cases, estimated Zimmerman's defense costs could reach $1 million.

"You can really go through a lot of money on a case like this, with the intensity of it," he said.

When you're facing potential liabilities on the order of a million dollars, 200k doesn't mean you're not indigent. What's more interesting is that the prosecution is making hay over this, have you ever heard of such a thing before? Why is the prosecution looking to keep him as cash-poor as possible?

 

[Rare Truth]

When you're facing potential liabilities on the order of a million dollars, 200k doesn't mean you're not indigent. What's more interesting is that the prosecution is making hay over this, have you ever heard of such a thing before? Why is the prosecution looking to keep him as cash-poor as possible?

I think it's more about the fact his lawyer spent the better part of the morning in the Bond hearing trying to declare Z near indigent, and questioned his family even about being able to liquidate to get funds up for bail....etc. etc..

and all the while knowing there was 200,000k+ that was not disclosed.

That's sort of an issue.

Part of the reason he was able to get a low bond was because of his sadly lil financial status.

Courts don't like that kind of ****.

It's worthy of a sanction, in the opinion of many.

Some judges would revoke bond (though I doubt this one, he appears very sympathetic to the defense) .

It's not a problem that he had the money - it's that he didn't disclose the amount.

Get it?

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Did you get that $5k figure from this?

Yes. And I quoted this part:

Although Zimmerman spent some of the contributions on living expenses, about $150,000 remains, O'Mara said Friday....

And there was about ... $204,000 that had come in to date."

If that's correct, then that doesn't address his legal liabilities which no doubt are piling up much faster than the $400/hour Mara makes.

Absolutely, and Omara has already said the defense could cost as much as one million. But nowhere did it say the 49K that is the difference between 204K -5K for bond -150K remaining was put towards that. So 49K is a lot to spend in a matter of a week or two for a middle income person. Again, it could be perfectly innocent and the fact that "150K remains" could simply mean that 49K was taken out of Paypal and put into bank accounts. But absent that info it piqued my curiosity as unusual.

 

[eeyore1954]

Looks like GZ is a big spender. From the link in previous post:


Since supposedly only $5000 went to legal expenses, I'd be curious to know where 50K went in a period of a couple weeks. I'm sure I'm not the only one that is going to raise that question! For his sake he better have a good explanation and not have gone on a Sarah Palin clothes spending spree.

I thought the same thing when I read that article.

 

[Kaosium]

I give up. There's more and more speculation, and not enough fact.

Perhaps you made a mistake in the first place following a discussion in which the complete set of facts have not yet been established? This happens sometimes with evolving issues.

The story isn't what we're being told it is, but it sure as hell isn't what certain people would have us believe.

How could you possibly know?

Somewhere along the line, someone needs to shut up and stick to facts.

Then ante up and kick in the facts you're interested in, and others will speculate. It is interesting that you don't think you've enough facts, yet you dismiss speculation out of hand. What do you suppose speculation is, pure imagination? Maybe for some, but for others it's hypothesizing with some data in hopes of revealing the possibility of additional data necessary to form a more complete picture which can then be rigorously evaluated and thus validated.

There's whole fields of study that employ this or a similar method, could you name them?

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

I think it's more about the fact his lawyer spent the better part of the morning in the Bond hearing trying to declare Z near indigent, and questioned his family even about being able to liquidate to get funds up for bail....etc. etc..

and all the while knowing there was 200,000k+ that was not disclosed.

1. He did not spend the "better part of the morning"...it was a small part of the hearing.

2. He did not know about the 200K, and I seriously doubt he's lying when he says that, this guy is not going to risk his legal career over this. It's much more believable that GZ had not disclosed it to him. Unless you mean GZ in which case yes he should have disclosed this to his attorney. Hard to know what takes place in these communications though, how much time they had spent together up to that point, etc. Still, should have been disclosed to him.

Part of the reason he was able to get a low bond was because of his sadly lil financial status.

This is also inaccurate even though some people keep saying it. In fact, his bond was fairly typical considering the charges, and bond is not chosen by a judge merely based on how much money someone has. Whether GZ was a millionaire or homeless, that is likely what the bond would have been set at based on the charges as long as he was not deemed a flight risk.

It's worthy of a sanction, in the opinion of many.

Oh boy, here we go. I'm sure you've already done a poll on this.

Get it?

I think I do get what you're trying to do here .