Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Natural Born Skeptic]

So, you want to paint everyone with the same broad brush ? I think, rather, the idea is to try to be fair in applying standards of evidence and skepticism to different scenarios or circumstances.

Exactly, well said.

 

[crimresearch]

Thanks for the cite. Yes, I didn't think the poster was correct. It would have been very peculiar for a defendent to have free reign to say whatever he darn well pleased without being liable to impeachment.

Except that 'other poster' was correct about the statute:

By statute, Zimmerman's testimony at the bond hearing is inadmissible against the defendant in all cases except perjury causes. I'll have to look the specific statute up (I've seemed to have lost it) but I believe it's linked earlier in the thread at the point we were discussing the bond hearing...

You must be mistaken. And I'm guessing you are referring to a statute that either doesn't exist, or that you've misunderstood.

The testimony the shooter gave at the bail hearing may well be available to be introduced to a jury at trial. The judge would rule, at that time, on any motion to do so.

The fact that there may be a special case (and the editing out of the relevant parts) doesn't alter the reality.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

This case is much like the Amanda Knox case in that the media constantly skews any information against Zimmerman, just like it did against Knox. That means it takes some effort to find the truth.

For example, the big "scoop" by the Orlando Sentinel yesterday was headlined, "Source: Zimmerman says Trayvon circled his SUV, frightened him". Then, when you start reading the actual article, you see "the teenager was circling his vehicle on foot". Sorry I can't put up the URL, but the article goes from "circled" in the headline to "circling" in the first sentence, a substantial difference. A huge difference.

Now, one would think that if TM was "circling" Zimmerman's truck, that could be seen as a provocative action on the part of TM. But, not according to the author, who goes on to say part of Zimmerman's "inconsistencies" is that although he consistently told the same story during his interviews, he did not tell "911" (actually non-emergency response) about the "circling". Then, the source goes on the say that Zimmerman's claim that he and TM fought for control of the gun is "not corroborated by other evidence". What does that even mean?

Now, what is this all about? Who knows? But if you read the article, the Sentinel goes on to include the "circling" into the "911" transcript So, now we have this:

"Zimmerman spotted Trayvon, called a nonemergency police number and began describing the teenager. While he was doing that, Trayvon came toward his vehicle and began to circle it.

"Zimmerman, though, never described that to the dispatcher."

So, TM is circling Zimmerman's truck, scaring Zimmerman so much that he rolls up the window, but it is just more proof that Zimmerman is guilty!

Interesting. Since the Orlando Sentinel is the one that went out and found the two voice experts to give them woo, without a single serious examination of whether the woo meisters were offering something of scientific value, I would give very little credence to anything they write at this point.

Going back to the woo meisters, one of the things I can't help but wonder is if those two morons were likewise so influenced by the initial media stories that they had already convicted GZ in their mind. Thereby leading them to conclude that it was TM that was screaming. Or I wonder if the sentinel somehow gave them a clue that's the conclusion they wanted.

Because I think at the end of this the evidence is going to be pretty strong that it was GZ that was screaming.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

For example, the big "scoop" by the Orlando Sentinel yesterday was headlined, "Source: Zimmerman says Trayvon circled his SUV, frightened him". Then, when you start reading the actual article, you see "the teenager was circling his vehicle on foot". Sorry I can't put up the URL, but the article goes from "circled" in the headline to "circling" in the first sentence, a substantial difference. A huge difference.

LINK:

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...secutor-angela-corey-source-police-department

ETA: this is an interesting article and worth reading for the claims its 'sources' make

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Interesting. Since the Orlando Sentinel is the one that went out and found the two voice experts to give them woo, without a single serious examination of whether the woo meisters were offering something of scientific value, I would give very little credence to anything they write at this point.

Going back to the woo meisters, one of the things I can't help but wonder is if those two morons were likewise so influenced by the initial media stories that they had already convicted GZ in their mind. Thereby leading them to conclude that it was TM that was screaming. Or I wonder if the sentinel somehow gave them a clue that's the conclusion they wanted.

Because I think at the end of this the evidence is going to be pretty strong that it was GZ that was screaming.

I disagree - the orlando sentinel seems to have had consistently good reporting. Yes, they apparently paid for the voice analysis ... but I don't think I can say what I have read has been particularly biased.

 

[Dan O.]

And he still doesn't call 911 or ask the girlfriend to call?

Why? Do you immediately call 911 every time you get a paranoid feeling that somebody is following you? What exactly did Trayvon know at that point?

Shirley, believing you might be shot soon is impetus enough to call 911, since you are already on the phone.

Trayvon didn't know he might be shot and wouldn't have known at that time that George was even armed. Trayvon could make a choice to hide and acquire more information or blindly walk down the path towards home like so many of the "skeptics" here insist that he should have or had done.

He doesn't yell out for help about an armed man following him? Or knock on a door?

How do you "know" that he didn't? Have you listened to all of the 911 calls?

He doesn't even yell for people in the complex to call 911? (if for some reason he can't)

Somebody was yelling. Shouldn't that be enough?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Trayvon didn't know he might be shot and wouldn't have known at that time that George was even armed. Trayvon could make a choice to hide and acquire more information or blindly walk down the path towards home like so many of the "skeptics" here insist that he should have or had done.

Is your advice - when in doubt, hide in the bushes and acquire more information ?

Is that what a "skeptic" does ?

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

LINK:

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...secutor-angela-corey-source-police-department

ETA: this is an interesting article and worth reading for the claims its 'sources' make

WOW, just WOW. Gotta love this type of stuff:

Gilbreath described that as one of the inconsistencies in Zimmerman's story — because getting out of the vehicle and looking for the teen is not the act of someone who is afraid.

Maybe it's just me but that's not an "inconsistency". It's a question you pose to GZ for which he may have a good answer. But this is the clincher:

Several audio experts who have analyzed the 911 tapes for the Sentinel and other news outlets have said they believe it is Trayvon's voice — not Zimmerman's — crying out for help.

Several?? As in two? Two woo meisters.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Why? Do you immediately call 911 every time you get a paranoid feeling that somebody is following you? What exactly did Trayvon know at that point?

I agree on this one, I pointed out many pages ago that it's unreasonable to assume that a teenager, let alone a teenager who is used to being disciplined by authority (kicked out of school at the time this took place), is going to look to authority to help him out of this situation. He probably doesn't want anything to do with them.

Trayvon could make a choice to hide and acquire more information

That's exactly what I'd do if i was in fear. Not do everything I could to get away, I'd hide to "acquire more information" .

or blindly walk down the path towards home like so many of the "skeptics" here insist that he should have or had done.

If we want to go with the argument that he "didn't want to lead his stalker home", how about instead of option B of hiding and waiting, we go with option C, get the hell out of there, go back somewhere in public like the 7/11?

And before someone offers up a red herring that "he shouldn't have to do that, he's the one being followed", that's not the point. No he shouldn't have to, but if your claim is that he was in fear, and the reason he didn't want to go home is he didn't want to lead the stalker there, then why didn't he go somewhere else - as far away as possible from the "stalker". Wouldn't that be normal behavior? He is NOT obligated to do any of that, but it seems reasonable to wonder why he didn't.

 

[lane99]

Except that 'other poster' was correct about the statute...



The fact that there may be a special case (and the editing out of the relevant parts) doesn't alter the reality.

I didn't edit out the "relevant parts". I edited out the parts which were ir-relevant to the other poster's assertion (now shown to have been mistaken).

The other poster was not correct, which you would not have needed me to tell you if you understood the issues involved.

 

[Mumbles]

I personally thought it was the "mistaken impression" of racial profiling that initially created a public outrage.

Well, that was a part of it, but the police stonewalling/lying about evidence/claiming that white people are the true victims of racism was the larger part of it, which is why people want Billy Lee's resignation.

 

[WildCat]

Fine. How does someone scream with both their nose and mouth covered?

Turning their head to the side until the hand is no longer covering the nose and/or mouth is one way.

But personally I'd try to bite the finger off someone who was doing that to me, no sense fighting fair in a street fight.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Well, that was a part of it, but the police stonewalling/lying about evidence/claiming that white people are the true victims of racism was the larger part of it, which is why people want Billy Lee's resignation.

You just totally made that up, didn't you?

Well how do you respond then to the fact that TM had already been arrested 3 times for aggravated battery and that Crump and co. then managed to get his juvenile record sealed so no one could see it.

See, I can make **** up too, aint that cool!

Let the autocensor do its job. It gets cranky otherwise

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis

 

[Mumbles]

No, it isn't clear that Zimmerman wanted to continue looking for TM. Quite the opposite, actually. TM left (ran away), then came back and there was a confrontation. The only possible reason he came back to the end of the sidewalk where he last saw Zimmerman and his truck, instead of going back to Brandy's house, was to confront Zimmerman. Safety at one end, Zimmerman at the other.

Now we're discussing things not in evidence. So what actual reason do you have to believe Martin "came back". Again, this is the opposite of what he did in Zimsmerman's call, is entirely without evidence, and due to the running, would have put him at a disadvantage during the fight.

The reason this is so clear is because the sidewalk that connects Brandy's house to the location of the shooting is a straight shot. By examining the available evidence, we can see TM chose to be at the wrong the end of the sidewalk when the confrontation took place.

Just look at a map of the town homes, and you will see it, too. I can't put up links, but Wagist has some good maps, although location "F", where the confrontation took place, needs to be moved closer to the intersection of the two sidewalks, commonly referred to as the "T". At Wagist, click on "Evidence that TM Doubled Back".

I've seen Wagist. Their timeline is laughable, and much of their coverage is plainly racist. They aren't worth additional time.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Turning their head to the side until the hand is no longer covering the nose and/or mouth is one way.

But personally I'd try to bite the finger off someone who was doing that to me, no sense fighting fair in a street fight.

I guess I need to listen to those 911 calls again but one of the things I seem to recall is that I noticed long before I ever heard that GZ claimed TM covered his mouth, was that at one point the yells sounded loud and then they got lower or disappeared and then came back. So not only does GZ's story seem plausible that would actually explain it. But I guess other people are using the yells to prove he couldn't possibly have had his mouth covered.

Wildcat, have you listened to them lately?

 

[WildCat]

We have ne evidnce at all that tm was engaged in criminal activities when this encounter occured

Sure there is, it's in the same box with the evidence of Zimmerman attempting to detain Martin.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Sure there is, it's in the same box with the evidence of Zimmerman attempting to detain Martin.

Priceless ! Uh oh, there I go with those smilies again that some people on the last page don't like.

 

[Dan O.]

Is your advice - when in doubt, hide in the bushes and acquire more information ?

Is that what a "skeptic" does ?

Any real skeptic will choose to acquire more information. The Posers just sit there and spin.

 

[johnny karate]

So, you want to paint everyone with the same broad brush ? I think, rather, the idea is to try to be fair in applying standards of evidence and skepticism to different scenarios or circumstances.

Where did I say I wanted to paint everyone with the same broad brush?

Please, argue against what I'm saying, not your exaggerated version of what you think I'm saying.

This is pretty cut and cried. In one case, the word of a police officer is good enough for you. In another, it's not. You still haven't provided a particularly compelling reason for that discrepancy.

How do we even equally apply 'the same standards of skepticism' to all the social media postings of GZ and TM ? It can't just be "it's all relevant" or "it's all not relevant" and it certainly can't all hold equal weight , can it ?

It's not a matter of "equal weight". Obviously, not all evidence can be of the same significance. It's a matter of how we assess the evidence.

To build off your example, if I were to say I think all the social media postings of Martin were forgeries and should be disregarded, but the postings of Zimmerman were to be treated as gospel, it would be fairly obvious I was biased, wouldn't it?

Again, you think one police officer is to be doubted, while another is not. I'm not seeing any real reason for that.

The different sides of the issue involve different claims and different circumstances. As I said, in general, the police get the benefit of the doubt when it's their word against the person who they are arresting. But if it was discovered that an officer had a personal interest in a case, perhaps like a family member involved - that would again change the scenario and change the amount or type of evidence required to prove a claim, for example.

So are you claiming it was the "personal interest" of the police officer Zimmerman assaulted that makes you doubt his word? And you think this "personal interest" automatically gives the word of the person who assaulted him equal weight?

What about the personal interest of the officer from Martin's school? After all, he wasn't subpoenaed or in any other way required to make public the information that he did. Information, by the way, that offered no real enlightenment about the case, but rather served to disparage a dead person. Seems to me he had a "personal interest" in doing what he did.

And what about the fact that, despite being caught with evidence of a felony, Martin received absolutely no punishment from the school, nor was he investigated by the police? Doesn't that inconsistency strike you as odd?

On the other hand, I'm not of aware of any information that would shed suspicion on the word of the officer Zimmerman assaulted other than so-called "personal interest".

 

[Dancing David]

I think GZ could probably be charged with something, but nowhere near murder 2.

In total agreement with that manslaughter at the very most

That was my impression as well, so we don't yet know why the prosecutor made their choice.