Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[johnny karate]

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:

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.

Crump's narrative also has Martin stopping and waiting out the rain. I'm not sure why this issue is such a point of obsession.

 

[Freddy]

Just when I though things could not exceed past silliness, they have.


Are you seriously unable to read what he said or just purposely being difficult. Here's a translation:



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.

In fairness, I found AlBell's post somewhat confusing.

 

[Dan O.]

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:


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.

How is the clock set and maintained on that security system? What steps were taken to verify the time? I ask because I've been following another case where the police misadjusted the error on a CCTV camera and came to the conclusion that the suspect had called them after they were already on the scene. It cannot be blankety assumed that a given clock has the correct time.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

In fairness, I found AlBell's post somewhat confusing.

Than I think you're seriously over thinking it .

 

[johnny karate]

How is the clock set and maintained on that security system? What steps were taken to verify the time? I ask because I've been following another case where the police misadjusted the error on a CCTV camera and came to the conclusion that the suspect had called them after they were already on the scene. It cannot be blankety assumed that a given clock has the correct time.

Not that any of that matters at this point. Because we haven't even been shown what time the security footage actually displayed. Just a second-hand approximation. That is now being taken as a fact, and that proves... something.

 

[WildCat]

How is the clock set and maintained on that security system? What steps were taken to verify the time? I ask because I've been following another case where the police misadjusted the error on a CCTV camera and came to the conclusion that the suspect had called them after they were already on the scene. It cannot be blankety assumed that a given clock has the correct time.

I'm guessing the time stamp is 6:15 or so, and the manager figures it's accurate to within 15 minutes. Thus the reason he won't give an exact time.

 

[Freddy]

Than I think you're seriously over thinking it .

Actually, the opposite. I didn't read it carefully enough the first time.

 

[Unabogie]

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.

Right when the charges were filed, I heard Marcia Clark on NPR saying that the depraved mind part of murder two was not the stumbling block people said it was. According to her, he exhibited this when he fired the gun. Meaning, the act of firing the gun was the depraved part. I'll try and find the link.

 

[Unabogie]

Here's what she said on CNN.

MARCIA CLARK, FORMER L.A. DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY: You know, in my opinion, not as hard as people have been making it sound. The standard of depraved mind is very similar to what we have in California called conscious disregard, which means that you're acting in a manner in which you know that your actions are likely to cause serious bodily injury or death.

When you have a gun and you shoot it at someone and depending on what the forensics show, if it's a point-blank shot to the chest, I think you may very easily prove conscious disregard or depraved mind. Don't forget there are also the allegations of racial slurs that have been shown in some of the 911 tapes. The possibility that there is also a racial component to his attitude towards Trayvon Martin will help to prove that as well.

Source

 

[GWCarver]

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



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.

By moving between the two houses, do you mean Brandy's porch/house and the yard down the sidewalk where he was killed?

I'm not a Republican, but I've never voted for a Democrat. I don't recall any mention of TM being a gang member at Wagist, or anywhere else. But, I don't pretend to have read everything at Wagist, although I post there frequently.

Speaking of cherry-picking social media sites, has the MSM spent more time on Zimmerman's years as an alter boy or on his bar fight with an undercover cop?

I notice you mentioned that Republicans are the ones who often "dismiss accusations of racism that are plainly correct". Does that mean you don't notice the Democrats who are racists? Is that because they are having success in their attempt to change the definition of racism to effectively exclude themselves? I'm on to them, you know.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Well good old Martha sure seems up on things. Nice to see she's still going with the "racial slurs" angle. I respect her opinion on this about as much as I respected her performance in the OJ trial.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Actually, the opposite. I didn't read it carefully enough the first time.

I edited my post to rand fan and apologize to him if he's reading as I now believe he was genuine in his questioning. Honestly, Al's statement just seemed so straightforward and simple to me that I didn't see how it was open to much interpretation. Probably doesn't matter, I think rand fan has me on ignore any how.

 

[Unabogie]

By moving between the two houses, do you mean Brandy's porch/house and the yard down the sidewalk where he was killed?

I'm not a Republican, but I've never voted for a Democrat. I don't recall any mention of TM being a gang member at Wagist, or anywhere else. But, I don't pretend to have read everything at Wagist, although I post there frequently.

Speaking of cherry-picking social media sites, has the MSM spent more time on Zimmerman's years as an alter boy or on his bar fight with an undercover cop?

I notice you mentioned that Republicans are the ones who often "dismiss accusations of racism that are plainly correct". Does that mean you don't notice the Democrats who are racists? Is that because they are having success in their attempt to change the definition of racism to effectively exclude themselves? I'm on to them, you know.

I see. You're one of those "independents" who identifies with the "Tea Party" and you never vote Democratic, but often vote Republican, but really you're a libertarian and Democrats are the real racists, not the people who post pictures of Trayvon with gold teeth as if that was a big "aha, got you gang banger!"

Glad you're on to those racist Democrats.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

I see. You're one of those "independents" who identifies with the "Tea Party" and you never vote Democratic, but often vote Republican, but really you're a libertarian and Democrats are the real racists, not the people who post pictures of Trayvon with gold teeth as if that was a big "aha, got you gang banger!"

Glad you're on to those racist Democrats.

Welcome to the world of debating with uniboogie GWCarver ! Sadly (NOT), he has me on ignore . Notice how he managed to infer several things about you that he couldn't possibly know all in a few short sentences? He even knows you're a "tea partier".

 

[johnny karate]

Speaking of cherry-picking social media sites, has the MSM spent more time on Zimmerman's years as an alter boy or on his bar fight with an undercover cop?

Yes, that is quite a mystery there. Since so very few people ever attend church or become altar boys, clearly we can take this activity he engaged in as a child as a testament to Zimmerman's character.

On the other hand, I'm not even sure why it should be mentioned that in adulthood, Zimmerman assaulted a police officer. I mean, who hasn't assaulted a police officer at least once or twice? It's such a commonplace and innocuous occurrence, I'm surprised it's even against the law.

 

[Freddy]

Right when the charges were filed, I heard Marcia Clark on NPR saying that the depraved mind part of murder two was not the stumbling block people said it was. According to her, he exhibited this when he fired the gun. Meaning, the act of firing the gun was the depraved part. I'll try and find the link.

If the prosecution has evidence that Zimmerman did not in fact fear for his life, even subjectively, then that's correct. If he did fear for his life, but the fear was unreasonable, that would be manslaughter, not murder.

I'm not sure how they expect to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn't fear death or serious injury. The jury would have to be sure beyond a reasonable doubt not only that Zimmerman didn't reasonably fear death or serious injury, but that he did not in fact fear death or serious injury, even unreasonably. That sounds like a pretty big stumbling block when there's a witness who who says Zimmerman was on the bottom of the scuffle when he fired the gun. Unless the prosecution is sitting on a "smoking gun" that proves Zimmerman wasn't in danger but shot Martin anyway, then I don't see how they can get a murder conviction.

 

[Dan O.]

I'm guessing the time stamp is 6:15 or so, and the manager figures it's accurate to within 15 minutes. Thus the reason he won't give an exact time.

I take it that between the time that the video was taken and someone deciding to check if anything was recorded, there was a power failure or a UFO flew by and reset the clock thus making it impossible to check the clock's accuracy.

 

[Unabogie]

If the prosecution has evidence that Zimmerman did not in fact fear for his life, even subjectively, then that's correct. If he did fear for his life, but the fear was unreasonable, that would be manslaughter, not murder.

I'm not sure how they expect to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn't fear death or serious injury. The jury would have to be sure beyond a reasonable doubt not only that Zimmerman didn't reasonably fear death or serious injury, but that he did not in fact fear death or serious injury, even unreasonably. That sounds like a pretty big stumbling block when there's a witness who who says Zimmerman was on the bottom of the scuffle when he fired the gun. Unless the prosecution is sitting on a "smoking gun" that proves Zimmerman wasn't in danger but shot Martin anyway, then I don't see how they can get a murder conviction.

My *guess* is that Zimmerman said some things that cast doubt on his truthfulness (we've seen some things on our own, like at his bond hearing regarding the money in his bank account). I think they plan to argue that Zimmerman wasn't in fear for his life because Zimmerman is a liar. And he lied about facts in his story, and therefore the jury should discount his story and consider that he killed Martin for no good reason or because he was mad.

My theory is that he was mad that Trayvon got the better of him in a fight and lost his cool. In my scenario, murder 2 seems like the right charge. I don't believe Zimmerman's version of events at all.

 

[curi0us]

How is the clock set and maintained on that security system? What steps were taken to verify the time? I ask because I've been following another case where the police misadjusted the error on a CCTV camera and came to the conclusion that the suspect had called them after they were already on the scene. It cannot be blankety assumed that a given clock has the correct time.

True. For those who didn't follow the Amanda Knox case there was a security camera that was ten minutes slow and then the police confused themselves and thought it was ten minutes fast causing the police to skew some critical events by twenty minutes.

I don't know how the 7-eleven's cameras are time calibrated at all. I thought the ten minute error in the Knox case was pretty bad, I would hope that large of an error in a security cam is rare but I really don't know. Perhaps the 7-eleven spokesperson gave a thirty minute window just be on the safe side for any errors in the clock.

I agree that it can't be absolutely assumed the clock is right, or even that the reported story is true, at this point. However, 7-eleven has no reason to lie and I'm inclined to believe the report, so working out the ramifications of it makes sense to me. It's also something that even if the spokesperson's time given was ten minutes off it wouldn't change the situation much.

 

[GWCarver]

I see. You're one of those "independents" who identifies with the "Tea Party" and you never vote Democratic, but often vote Republican, but really you're a libertarian and Democrats are the real racists, not the people who post pictures of Trayvon with gold teeth as if that was a big "aha, got you gang banger!"

Glad you're on to those racist Democrats.

You might want to consider the pictures of Trayvon with gold teeth were a far more accurate depiction of his visage contemporaneous to his death than those of the 12 year old kid that were making the rounds for so long. They still are, for that matter. You actually think posting a picture of TM wearing his grill is racist? Was the individual who took the picture racist, too? Is TM a racist if he took the picture himself? What if DeeDee took it, was she a racist for taking it? If a white friend took the picture, is he or she a racist?

Oh, I'm not a Libertarian or a Tea Party goer, and you forgot to answer my question about the two houses.