Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Dancing David]

It seems like nobody ( i could have missed someone ) seems like murder 2 was a reasonable charge.

Does anyone then think murder two was something other than a political move ?

I think we have to wait for the prosecution to lay out its case before concluding that.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

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

I was asking a question, not claiming you made that statement.

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

I was asking a question to clarify what you were 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.

Put it in the context of the original statement

Originally Posted by EdG
One significance is that Zimmerman lied about the assault when applying for the police academy. "I wouldn't have attacked him if I'd known he was a cop."​

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis
GZ claims the officer did not identify himself. The officer claims he did. Tie goes to the police, because they are awesome and never lie, right ?​

I was comparing believing an Officer over believing GZ based on ... the fact the officer is an officer.

I don't recall stating that I believed the officer was lying, just pointing out that being an officer or signing an affidavit does not suddenly place one above the possibility of lying.

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.

Yes, whether we asses it fairly, not necessarily "the same", as you said.

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?

If your only evidence was that you thought that way, sure.

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

Is this where I insert "Please, argue against what I'm saying, not your exaggerated version of what you think I'm saying" ???

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?

No. But a more personal interest by the officer would be a factor in how I viewed things. But that was just an example, not implying it was relevant in this case.

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?

No, please refer to the earlier discussions for all my reasoning.

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".

Me neither.

 

[AlBell]

What does that have to do with 2nd degree murder?

Looking for someone to shoot would demonstrate premeditation and or planning, right?

Why did you truncate my post which went on to mention 1st degree murder, but a probable inability to convince a grand jury to indict on that count. She could chose 2nd degree on her own. Manslaughter makes the most sense based on what we think we know.

 

[Freddy]

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.

Well, he was sort of right. It isn't admissible in the prosecution's case in chief, even if Zimmerman declined to testify at trial (I'm sure he'll testify, though). That is a significant restriction on its use as evidence. In addition, while the prior testimony can be used to demonstrate inconsistency if Zimmerman contradicts it at trial, any statements he made in the prior testimony that might make him look bad cannot be introduced unless Zimmerman opens the door in his trial testimony.

 

[LTC8K6]

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?

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.

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

Somebody was yelling. Shouldn't that be enough?

I don't believe any of that about TM thinking he might be shot. I was just responding to that suggestion from another poster.

You can't pull a post out of context like that. It makes no sense.

 

[johnny karate]

I was comparing believing an Officer over believing GZ based on ... the fact the officer is an officer.

You are overlooking the fact that Zimmerman assaulted this particular police officer. So it's not the word of a police officer over some random person. Its the word of a police officer over the criminal who assaulted him.

I don't recall stating that I believed the officer was lying, just pointing out that being an officer or signing an affidavit does not suddenly place one above the possibility of lying.

And by injecting this doubt into the scenario it allows you to dismiss the claim that Zimmerman was both aware that the man he assaulted was a police officer and that he lied about it on his police academy application, despite evidence to the contrary.

And by the way, the officer at Martin's school isn't above lying either. Should we treat what he says with an equal measure of dismissal?

 

[AlBell]

You forgot the transexual serial killer option.


It's hard to say. It would require an incredible level of naivete on the part of a teenager, especially a black teenager*, walking around the streets late at night and being watched not to realize he may be being watched to make sure he's not up to no good. But without know exactly how it went down it's very, very hard to say what went through TM's mind that night, and it's entirely possible he thought it was something more sinister.

Like Giz, I have a hunch in that regard, but it could well be wrong.

*Edit: So that this is not misunderstood as some type of racist comment, I'm saying that black people are used to being profiled and suspected of something whether by police, citizens etc., as racial bias is still so deeply engrained in our society.

That and/or a knowledge of perpetrators based on crime statistics.

 

[WildCat]

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

I'm guessing they're trying to pressure him into a plea deal for manslaughter.

 

[GWCarver]

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.



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

If he didn't come back, how do you think he got to where he ended up?

Nowadays, at least in the Mid-South, progressives and liberals respond to almost any type of criticism by calling people racists or bigots, or my favorite - bigoted racists. The word "racist" has been so widely embraced by the left it is essentially meaningless, IMO.

 

[a_unique_person]

vbulletin software interprets certain character sequences and makes them into cute little face pictures

An amateur vigilante shot and killed someone. I still don't get the humour.

 

[Freddy]

I'm guessing they're trying to pressure him into a plea deal for manslaughter.

That would be a serious ethical violation. Prosecutors get away with it all the time, because it's impossible to prove if the defendant takes the plea deal. That is almost always what happens. But it's a monumentally stupid thing to do in this case. If you bring a murder charge you know you can't prove in order to force a plea deal, and the defendant refuses to take the plea, then you're in real trouble. And there was obviously no chance in hell Zimmerman was going to take a plea deal.

I have not been impressed with her so far, but I don't think she could possibly be that stupid. I think it's more likely that the prosecutor really thinks she can prove murder 2. I don't think she has any chance of getting a murder conviction, and I also think going for murder 2 decreases her chances of getting a conviction for manslaughter. But I think the political factors are conducive to wishful thinking on her part, and it is also well documented that lawyers have a tendency to fall in love with their own arguments, causing them to greatly overestimate their chances of winning a case.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

An amateur vigilante shot and killed someone. I still don't get the humour.

What you evidently don't get is that no one thinks that's funny. But maybe you can suggest a rule to the moderators about what threads people are allowed to joke in. How about the Big Foot thread. Is it OK if we make jokes in that thread? If yes, what about a Big Foot thread discussing how Big Foot ate someone? Probably no jokes allowed in that one .

 

[RandFan]

My thought as well.

The only way I can imagine the PA going 2nd degree murder is if she has something that makes her believe GZ was actively hunting a black guy to shoot, but doesn't think a grand jury would agree and come back with the correct-in-that-case murder 1. ymmv.

What does that have to do with 2nd degree murder?

Looking for someone to shoot would demonstrate premeditation and or planning, right?

Why did you truncate my post which went on to mention 1st degree murder, but a probable inability to convince a grand jury to indict on that count. She could chose 2nd degree on her own. Manslaughter makes the most sense based on what we think we know.

I truncated your post to focus on my question. It doesn't make any sense t me. It would seem to follow from the highlighted text that planning and/or premeditation are an element of 2nd degree murder. The problem is that premeditation and/or planning are explicitly not an element of 2nd degree murder. What you "go on to say" doesn't clarify anything.

So, I will ask again, what does planning to shoot someone have to do with 2nd degree murder?

 

[GWCarver]

An amateur vigilante shot and killed someone. I still don't get the humour.

Almost 32,000 posts and still trolling? That may be a record.

 

[curi0us]

I think I found and highlighted the problem

Seriously, I think that is just bad reporting early in the life of the story.

Maybe you are right but many more places besides huffpo told the same NBA half-time story as well. Here is the Miami Herald from March 8th:

Martin’s father said the teen went out in a light drizzle around 7 p.m. that Sunday during the NBA All-Star Game halftime to get snacks from a nearby 7-Eleven. He purchased Skittles candies and an Arizona iced tea for his 13-year-old stepbrother.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/08/2684419/shooting-mystery-miami-dade-teen.html

While lots of the reporting has been poor that's bizarre detail for a reporter to make up and it seems likely to me the Miami herald was just truthfully reporting what Martin's father actually said, especially since many other places reported the same 7-eleven story. Some examples:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_...rayvon-martin-affidavit-says/?tag=mncol;lst;1
http://www.thenation.com/blog/166934/no-more-trayvon-martins
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/312...martin-shot-dead-florida-george-zimmerman.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46796991/ns/msnbc_tv-the_ed_show/t/ed-show-monday-march/
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/03/trayvon-martin-shooting-now-a-national-news-story.html

 

[Dan O.]

I don't believe any of that about TM thinking he might be shot. I was just responding to that suggestion from another poster.

Getting shot may not be at the top of his worries. But place yourself in Trayvon's shoes. He's just left the road and entered the cut-through. It's a quiet neighborhood so he will have heard George open his car door. If the cab light comes on, he would have been able to see George getting out of the truck. Trayvon was close enough to have seen that George was on the phone but would not know who was on the other end of the line.

If Trayvon kept going, he would have gotten home and delivered the skittles to his little brother. Since the little brother didn't get the skittles, Trayvon didn't keep going. And since George didn't see Trayvon when he came through the cut-through, there is a strong possibility that Trayvon was hiding from George.

All indications are that George did come through the cut-through. I believe he went strait through to Retrete View Circle and came back to the tee while he was still on the phone. Trayvon would have been able to hear George's side of the conversation in that area so would know for certain that George was following him.

If George returned to his truck, there would be no altercation. So George is loitering at the tee waiting for the police to call him and keeping Trayvon trapped in his hiding place.

You can't pull a post out of context like that. It makes no sense.

Nothing will make sense to you if you ignore the evidence that is inconvenient for your belief.

What are Trayvon's options at this point?

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

I truncated your post to focus on my question. You are not making any sense. It follows from the highlighted text that planning and/or premeditation are an element of 2nd degree murder. The problem is that premeditation and/or planning are explicitly not an element of 2nd degree murder. It doesn't matter what you "go on to say".

So, I will ask again, what does planning to shoot someone have to do with 2nd degree murder?

Here's a translation:

The only way I can imagine the PA going 2nd degree murder is if she has something that makes her believe GZ was actively hunting a black guy to shoot, but doesn't think a grand jury would agree and come back with the correct-in-that-case murder 1

He just said that murder 1 would be premeditated, NOT murder 2. And that if she believes it was murder 1 but doesn't think she can prove it maybe for that reason she would go for murder 2. So again, he didn't say that planning to shoot someone is murder 2, he specifically said it would be murder 1.

 

[Mumbles]

If he didn't come back, how do you think he got to where he ended up?

The most obvious answer is that he moved between the two houses, and stayed there. Fits all evidence.

Nowadays, at least in the Mid-South, progressives and liberals respond to almost any type of criticism by calling people racists or bigots, or my favorite - bigoted racists. The word "racist" has been so widely embraced by the left it is essentially meaningless, IMO.

Um, no. But when you blatantly cherry-pick a black guy's social media accounts, and scream about how he must have been a violent, drug dealing gang member, as at least one Wagist writer did (not that he's the only one - Tucker Carlson's site did this as well), then yes, you get called racist. And I've noticed that quite a few people dismiss Accusations of racism that are plainly correct (and in the US, republicans are especially good at this), but that doesn't somehow change the fact that the charges best fit the given data.

 

[curi0us]

My son walked and walks very slowly when he talking to his gf, especially if he doesn't want us to hear.

A detail many have missed is that Crump relayed the girlfriends account as being that when TM left the 7-eleven he was trying to hurry home to beat the ran. Crump even has TM running for part of his journey just to get out of the rain:

She relays how he went to the store. When he came out from the store, he said it was starting to rain, he was going to try to make it home before it rained. Then he tells her it starts raining hard. He runs into the apartment complex and runs to the first building he sees to try to get out of the rain. He was trying to get shelter. So he tries to get out of the rain.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1203/20/cnr.03.html

If you closely examine what Crump has said it is completely unworkable. The 7-eleven security cam footage showing TM in the store between 6:00 and 6:30 is just more evidence of that.

 

[Freddy]

I truncated your post to focus on my question. You are not making any sense. It follows from the highlighted text that planning and/or premeditation are an element of 2nd degree murder. The problem is that premeditation and/or planning are explicitly not an element of 2nd degree murder. It doesn't matter what you "go on to say".

So, I will ask again, what does planning to shoot someone have to do with 2nd degree murder?

I agree that he is overstating the mens rea requirement for second degree murder.*** However, second degree murder requires more than just recklessness. The prosecutor would have to show that Zimmerman's behavior was "imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life."

The depraved mind requirement requires, for practical purposes, that the likelihood of someone dying as a result of the action in question be both very high and obvious to any normal person. Which of Zimmerman's actions meet that standard? There's a fairly strong argument that it was negligent, or even reckless, for Zimmerman to exit his vehicle and follow Martin on foot. But I don't think it can be concluded that the probability of an innocent person being killed was so great and so obvious that the act of getting out of the vehicle was so "imminently dangerous" that it "evinc[es] a depraved mind" indifferent to human life.

Hindsight is 20-20, but I would say that Martin's death, while not completely unforeseeable, was not nearly so likely that the act of getting out of the car and following demonstrate depraved indifference to human life. I don't think Zimmerman intended or expected to shoot Martin, in self defense or otherwise, as a result of following him. And I don't think one can say that any reasonable person without intent to kill would think that following a person in that situation would be highly likely to result in shooting that person. Unless there is something more, I don't even think that's a close call. Do you disagree?

***EDIT: I misunderstood AlBell's post; he did not overstate the mens rea for second degree murder. He was saying that second degree might be charged if the prosecutor had reason to believe that Zimmerman shot Martin with premeditation, but did not think she could prove the premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt. That would make sense. I'm adding this update rather than changing the post because there seems to be a dispute over this that is on the verge of becoming personal. So for the record, I found AlBell's post confusing, though now that I see what he is saying I agree.