Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Natural Born Skeptic]

I think you are right that the prosecution's case will be based on trying to discredit Zimmerman.

They have to. But IF there is an the absence of evidence that GZ is lying, isn't it ethically outrageous for them to simply try and suggest he's a liar or try and discredit him to get a conviction, IF there's no reason to believe he's lying?

 

[johnny karate]

What was that ? The sounds of the goalposts going by? That I may disagree is completely relevant - this is an Internet forum discussion , not a court of law. When did this particular discussion become about the legal aspects ?

It's not about legal aspects, and it's not about shifting the goal pasts. You challenged the assertion that an affidavit is evidence. I merely countered that challenge.

An affidavit is evidence, as determined by a court of law. Or are legal standards not good enough when assessing evidence? And if I can't use legal standards as a yardstick, what am I supposed to use?

Since we have this legal principle of innocent until proven guilty, shouldn't you talk about the word of the officer and the accused ? And as I said earlier, it depends on particular circumstances.

Well, let's not pretend Zimmerman was some poor, innocent guy being railroaded based solely on the word of a police officer. What we're talking about is merely an aspect of a crime we know he committed.

And yes, it certainly depends on circumstances. What specific circumstances about Zimmerman's case leads you to suspect the officer in question might be lying?

Would you like to make a blanket statement that we should always accept a police officers word over a non-police officers word ? If not, why ?

I'm not sure why you continually insist on phrasing it this way. Zimmerman wasn't merely a "non-police officer" in this case. He was a criminal. And yes, I'm perfectly content to make the blanket statement that - absent any other exculpatory evidence - a police officer's word should be accepted over a that of a criminal.

Yes, like gas passing criminals, those dishonest bastards
http://www.herald-dispatch.com/news/briefs/x1488613584/Man-arrested-for-battery-after-passing-gas

The police should always be given the benefit of the doubt ...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...a-charges-against-reed-dropped_n_1331401.html

Wow... talk about goal post shifting. Who said anything about the police being honest about everything all the time, or the police being given the benefit of the doubt in any circumstance?

This is a specific situation in which we have a police officer's word against a criminal's. No other exculpatory evidence exists. In that situation, I will believe the police officer every time.

Yes, I feel confident he stole it or was holding it for someone. As I stated numerous times. The jewelry exists and police have it. There are no claims that I am aware of that he didn't actually have that stuff in his possession at the time he was caught on videotape vandalizing property.

Well, in fairness, Trayvon Martin is dead. We don't have his side of the story, and never will. If Zimmerman had been dead, he wouldn't have been around to challenge what that police officer said.

So what counter claims could you possibly expect?

Resulting in his third suspension, which his parents blatantly lied about.

For the vandalism. He was only suspended for the graffiti, not the felony possession of stolen property.

Your alternative that you feel better describes the scenario is ? He found the items and was on his way to return them ?

I don't know. We only have one side of the story. Unfortunately, Martin doesn't have the luxury of providing an explanation like Zimmerman did, him being dead and all.

Why should this be easy to answer ? How did you determine that ? Maybe. It's completely possible he was holding for a friend. But YES I think that was stolen jewelry and a burglary tool he had.
You ?

I agree.

Again, maybe.

So we're back to where we started. In one case, a police officer's word is good enough for you, in another it's not. And again, no particular reason has been offered as to why you would doubt the word of that one officer.

 

[RandFan]

What might make the world a better place is helping to promote critical thinking and encouraging people to examine their own prejudices.

I agree. However, I suspect most people think they are the critical thinkers and it's the people who disagree with them that are not.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

The media presupposed police misconduct in this case.

Absolutely! My initial outrage about this case (that GZ was a cold-blooded murderer) began when I read a media reports that suggested the following:

1. GZ is white and followed and gun down an itsy bitsy teen who was walking home with iced tea and skittles.

2. His father is a judge and the corrupt racist police let him off. ABC kept reporting about how they had done an "investigation" revealing the the police had "told witnesses what to say".

3. GZ was using some "crazy" FL law that allows him to shoot someone and claim self-defense and nothing can be done about it. While I don't know if I am in favor of SYG or not, once I actually read it I found it to be anything but a "you can come out all guns blazing and claim self-defense" law.

All in all, what the media did in this case is criminal. And it's not like it was an honest mistake. Every single aspect of the case could have been easily researched before they started selling their narrative.

 

[johnny karate]

Honest people can appreciate the difference between factually inferred speculation and totally made up speculation. There is a huge difference between Crump speculating that what the girlfriend told him was accurate and Crump making up conversation details the girlfriend didn't mention at all.

That's super. But Crump isn't really even involved in this case. He's basically just a spokesperson for the Martin family. He won't be called to testify, and he won't be submitting any evidence. Your obsession with him is bizarre, and that you he think it's at all relevant in determining the facts is utterly hilarious.

Crump's actions matter because many people, including you, believed what he was saying without questioning it. How did you know that TM was just minding his own business walking back from the store? Do you remember your previous posts on the matter? Here a couple to refresh your memory:

Ahh... I must be another one of those people "influenced" by Crump, eh?



The reason I believe Martin was "minding his own business" is because that's what the evidence supports. It points to him merely going to the store to buy snacks.

Now, if you want to believe that he was up to something more sinister - which you clearly so desperately do - that's up to you to prove. It's not up to any one else to prove Martin wasn't engaged in suspicious activity.

Originally you were actually interested in "determining what happened" and you were so offended by people who disagreed with your interpretation of the evidence you compared them to truthers.

Your fantastical interpretation of events remains amusing. But here's a question for you: if I am so deeply offended by anyone who disagrees with me that I resort to comparing them to 9/11 truthers, then why haven't I done that with every single person who disagrees with me in every instance of disagreement?

I'm sure your response will be very entertaining.

Now you say it's pointless to scrutinize witness statements and you say "of course" Crump has been speculating with "no facts". You've backpedaled all the way to horizon but don't even seem to realize it.

How can I backpedal from positions I never assumed? I have never cited either Crump or witness statements to support my arguments about the events of that night, and in fact have made it quite clear that I don't find the body of witness testimony particularly compelling at this point.

Your paranoid fantasy has downshifted into petty lies.

 

[Dancing David]

Absolutely! My initial outrage about this case (that GZ was a cold-blooded murderer) began when I read a media reports that suggested the following:

1. GZ is white and followed and gun down an itsy bitsy teen who was walking home with iced tea and skittles.

2. His father is a judge and the corrupt racist police let him off. ABC kept reporting about how they had done an "investigation" revealing the the police had "told witnesses what to say".

3. GZ was using some "crazy" FL law that allows him to shoot someone and claim self-defense and nothing can be done about it. While I don't know if I am in favor of SYG or not, once I actually read it I found it to be anything but a "you can come out all guns blazing and claim self-defense" law.

All in all, what the media did in this case is criminal. And it's not like it was an honest mistake. Every single aspect of the case could have been easily researched before they started selling their narrative.

My only concern is that I have a son the same age as TM, I would hate for him to get shot , just because he was talking on his phone and walking slowly. And he might pop someone he thought was harassing him, he might not.

The trial will show.

 

[Noztradamus]

The high lighted bit baffles me.... GZ supposedly is the neighborhood watch captain. I'd kind of expect him to at least be familiar with his neighborhood to such an extent that he knows the layout and the street names.

Well, on his not911 call he gives directions like a girl, so maybe he doesn't have map sense.

 

[AlBell]

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?

As we both know, nothing. Why she would arrive at that charge is to me incomprehensible. My supposition is all I have. You?

 

[AlBell]

...

***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.

Thank you.

Also thanks to NBS for going through it previously.

 

[RandFan]

As we both know, nothing. Why she would arrive at that charge is to me incomprehensible. My supposition is all I have. You?

I was only trying to understand you to which Freddy assisted me. I understand you now. Perhaps you could be less oblique in answering me.

IMO: If you are correct, and you may very well be, then she is acting in bad faith. In a perfect world she would only bring charges that were supported by the evidence and nothing else. Of course we do not live in a perfect world.

Also: As far as I can tell, the evidence thus far does not come close to 2nd degree murder. If I had to place a bet it would be that she does not have that evidence.

 

[Freddy]

I was only trying to understand you to which Freddy assisted me. I understand you now. Perhaps you could be less oblique in answering me.

IMO: If you are correct, and you may very well be, then she is acting in bad faith. In a perfect world she would only bring charges that were supported by the evidence and nothing else. Of course we do not live in a perfect world.

Also: As far as I can tell, the evidence thus far does not come close to 2nd degree murder. If I had to place a bet it would be that she does not have that evidence.

My understanding was that AlBell was talking about a hypothetical scenario. I think we are presuming for the purpose of the hypothetical that she has reasonable grounds to think it is first degree murder, but just doesn't think she can prove premeditation. If she thinks she's just shy of being able to prove premeditation, then she would probably have enough evidence to reasonably believe in good faith that she can prove 2nd degree murder.

Of course, this hypothetical is not necessarily related to reality at all. Unless I am mistaken, it was just a possible scenario in which a second degree murder charge would make sense.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

So we're back to where we started. In one case, a police officer's word is good enough for you, in another it's not. And again, no particular reason has been offered as to why you would doubt the word of that one officer.

The word of the LEOs is good enough for me in both cases, based on what I know.

I believe that in a one on one type of scenario with a LEO like the GZ scenario, opens up more possibilities and reasons for the LEO to be less than honest, such as being angry with GZ for being shoved by him. But I only have vague information regarding the circumstances of that evening.

 

[RandFan]

My understanding was that AlBell was talking about a hypothetical scenario. I think we are presuming for the purpose of the hypothetical that she has reasonable grounds to think it is first degree murder, but just doesn't think she can prove premeditation. If she thinks she's just shy of being able to prove premeditation, then she would probably have enough evidence to reasonably believe in good faith that she can prove 2nd degree murder.

Of course, this hypothetical is not necessarily related to reality at all. Unless I am mistaken, it was just a possible scenario in which a second degree murder charge would make sense.

And this is what's frustrating. I asked a direct question. In hindsight it was presumptive and I regret asking it in the way that I did. That aside, why on earth can't I just get a direct answer? Anyway, that wasn't directed at you Freddy. Thanks for the assistance.

 

[GWCarver]

Your 29 posts make me wanna have a sex change.

I wouldn't want you to give me complete credit. You were probably leaning in that direction already, and I was just the catalyst. I hope you're a guy though, because one Chaz Bono is quite enough, thank you.

 

[RandFan]

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?

FTR: Hypothetical or not, this strikes me as an incomplete argument. What is the "something"? Is it sufficient for 2nd or is there something else to justify 2nd degree?

So, it's seems to me that there are two possibilities.

• Something = evidence that points to 1st degree but will only likely establish 2nd degree murder.
• Something = evidence that points to 1st degree but is insufficient AND she also has evidence that she believes will likely establish 2nd degree murder.

At the end of the day I don't understand the line of reasoning in the hypothetical. Believing that GZ committed 1st degree murder is not itself sufficient to justify a charge of 2nd degree, right? Bringing charges based on that reasoning would be in bad faith, right?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I'm confused by that statement. Are you saying that it is legal to shove a person unless they are a police officer?

No. I will say that shoving a random bar patron who is not a LEO is:
a) unlikely to get you arrested
b) unlikely to get you a felony assault charge.

Or that it is somehow different if it is a police officer you shove versus a civilian you shove?

Yes, see above.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

No, since he's clearly unaware of all the streets and cut-through's, I sincerely doubt that he knew everyone in the community. That said, I don't think that is necessarily a requirement for determining suspicious behaviour.

The claim is he was going for a street number, not a name. He already demonstrated he knows the street name.

I'm not sure I understand why you expect him to know the street number at a cut through.

 

[GWCarver]

The claim is he was going for a street number, not a name. He already demonstrated he knows the street name.

I'm not sure I understand why you expect him to know the street number at a cut through.

This street number stuff is just another bogus argument. I don't know the street number of the house right behind me. I think that would be true for most people, and certainly wouldn't be incriminating if the police were to ask me what it was and I had to walk down the sidewalk and around to where I could see the number before relaying that information.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

My only concern is that I have a son the same age as TM, I would hate for him to get shot , just because he was talking on his phone and walking slowly. And he might pop someone he thought was harassing him, he might not.

Yep, that is easily the most terrifying aspect of this case. Not only do I know young men I can imagine being Trayvon Martin, even IF TM attacked him as GZ says I know some men who were bad asses in their teens and engaged in that type of behavior that grew up to be incredibly good and kind people that I consider myself lucky to know. So for me the gun aspect is crucial, if GZ did not have a gun I think the would have gone home that night with a few more bruises, and probably had his paranoia increased further, and would likely have had the opportunity to fulfill his dream and become a policeman, and then could abuse others (the strike through is a joke, the rest is serious)

Legally though the fact that they'd both be alive (IMO) if he didn't have a gun is irrelevant, since he had a legal right to carry a gun, and I think his actions likely fell within self-defense laws.

 

[crimresearch]

The head wounds are reasonable doubt. The prosecution will create the narrative where Martin was somehow justified in inflicting those wounds. Since the charge is Murder 2, they can't really claim that Zimmerman over-reacted to the assault - that's manslaughter. They have to prove that Zimmerman acted in a manner that demonstrated "ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent."

That's the problem with the probable cause affidavit. Throughout its argumentative and unattributed narrative, it does nothing to present even a prima facie claim to support that element.

And it doesn't need to do so. That isn't what is needed for PC.

Just because GZ's attorney hammed it up for the media until the judge got bored and shut him down, doesn't make that statement any more significant.