• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
My original comments did, finally, make sense to at least a couple posters.

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.
I agree on the bad faith aspect. I forget her name, but believe she has an upcoming election, and needs name recognition. Perhaps she feels losing wouldn't be a big deal; any time your name is in the papers it helps.

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.
I'd bet the same way. She might have had some chance (per your analyses) on manslaughter.

I also foresee at best a hung jury, and likely 'not guilty'. GZ would be even more foolish than I think he is to plea to anything.
 
My original comments did, finally, make sense to at least a couple posters.


I agree on the bad faith aspect. I forget her name, but believe she has an upcoming election, and needs name recognition. Perhaps she feels losing wouldn't be a big deal; any time your name is in the papers it helps.


I'd bet the same way. She might have had some chance (per your analyses) on manslaughter.

I also foresee at best a hung jury, and likely 'not guilty'. GZ would be even more foolish than I think he is to plea to anything.
Thanks. :)
 
I believe this was covered before, but will the prosecution be able to give the jury an option to convict on a lesser manslaughter charge?
 
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.

That we will know at some future date. I am not opposed to people carrying.
 
AlBell, her name is Angela Corey. She is a Republican State Attorney who is unopposed in the upcoming election. Before persecuting Zimmerman, her claim to fame has been a two year attempt to try a 12 year old as an adult.

My understanding of how this case will proceed is O'Mara can still keep it from going to a full trial by pleading self-defense/SYG at the pretrial hearing. If that is the case, the burden will be on the defense to demonstrate a preponderance of the evidence supports their position, much like a civil trial. If Z wins, he walks away with immunity and much, much more. If Z loses, it then goes to a full trial, with the burden of proof on the prosecution to show beyond a reasonable doubt it was murder, not self-defense.

I don't see any way Corey won't include manslaughter, and possibly other lesser crimes for the jury's consideration. The conventional wisdom is Z would get 25 years for manslaughter w/gun, but I haven't heard one way or the other if that would include the possibility of parole.
 
He shoved him. Realistically, GZ is only 'the criminal who assaulted him' because he was an officer. But assaulted sounds much worse,doesn't it.
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.

I guess I could agree with B, but A??? Are you being serious?

Where I am from, shoving someone at a bar will get the cops there quicker than snot. It's basically zero tolerance for altercations.

Or that it is somehow different if it is a police officer you shove versus a civilian you shove?
Yes, see above.

Are there specific laws that make shoving a police officer different than shoving a citizen?


------


Also, I do agree that he was not just arrested for shoving an officer. But because he knowingly was interfering in a police investigation. Perhaps they only used the assault charge and didn't use the other.
 
Last edited:
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.


Good posts.

My understanding of how this case will proceed is O'Mara can still keep it from going to a full trial by pleading self-defense/SYG at the pretrial hearing. If that is the case, the burden will be on the defense to demonstrate a preponderance of the evidence supports their position, much like a civil trial. If Z wins, he walks away with immunity and much, much more. If Z loses, it then goes to a full trial, with the burden of proof on the prosecution to show beyond a reasonable doubt it was murder, not self-defense.


Also if Z lost that hearing he would, AFAIK, be open to a Civil Trial after the Criminal Trial, no matter the outcome of the Criminal Trial.

That is just one of the reasons I doubt Z's lawyers will ask for the immunity hearing. Another of which is that Z would have to take the stand at such a hearing.
 
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.

Assumes facts not in evidence. He knows there is a "Retreat View Circle", because his house is on it. But he has directed the cops onto Twin Trees Lane which name he never mentions.

And what use is him going to find the number on a street the cops won't be on? The number he wants is right there by his truck on Twin Trees Lane.
 
As much as you want to whistle past this particular graveyard, there's no rational way to argue that the media acted anything near responsibly in coverage of this story.

When the media began coverage of this story, Zimmerman was painted as white. I agree that the police reports described Zimmerman as a white male, but they continued with this narrative long after Zimmerman's ethnicity became apparent. Worse even, Zimmerman's ethnicity had no real bearing on the actual events, but the media as whole introduced it as one. They chose this narrative and continued it even after it became very apparent that it was in error. The template was set.

Yet again, the main issue being covered was not Zimmerman's bizarre agreession, it was the SPD's refusal to arrest him. And yes, given their habit of not arresting white people who attack black people, this makes Zimmerman's skin color relevant as an explanation for why, say, Chief Lee thought it would be a good idea to announce that he was the true victim of racism in this event.

The fact that most began my interest in this case was the photographic depection of Martin. His apparent age and physical depection led me to believe that there could be no reasonable cause for justification for a grown man to shoot an unarmed preteen - which was how the photos depicted Martin. Once again, the template for the media was a white guy shot an unarmed black preteen. Of course, we now know that particualr facet of this media template was first in error (the Martin family only released the younger pictures) but that wasn't harmless error. The apparent physical disparity goes to the heart of the case. They should have never ran those misleading pictures and if they decided to, they should have been heavily captioned and explained in the article itself.

Well, I don't know what to tell you on this one. Pretty much every article identified Martin's age as 17, and again, there were a umber of photos published of him, so it was obvious that the older photos of him were...well, older. And no, I will not pretend that Martin's family only produced photos of him as a child, or that the media only showed such photos.

The media presupposed police misconduct in this case. One can argue that the police acted without due diligence but again, they lewft out any other explanation for police actions. It was not until the SPD cited the statutory limitation against arrest theat they even deemed it worth mentioning. They did not mention until much later that Zimmerman volunteered statements, that he was in police custody, that the gun was seized as evidence, etc... Instead, they chose to inflame the white man shooting a yound black kid while the police turned a blind eye.

The media reported on the SPD's conduct as they were given info by the SPD. Yes, there were assertions that they did a poor job - and I still find this to be credible. The fact that Zimmerman volunteered statements was known. It was, in fact, the SPD's stonewalling of Martin's family, along with their odd statements to the press, that caught attention, and once Chief Lee's assertion that Zimmerman didn't know Martin's race was disproven by Zimmerman's police call, the whole thing exploded. And considering that, I'd say that people were correct to question the SPD's professionalism.

They misrepresented the injuries to Zimmerman, they chose to hide the claim that Zimmerman was the one pleading for help, etc...

Your first assertion is false - in fact, the police footage showed no sign of injury, and ABC went so far as to use "enhanced" stills to claim that Zimmerman had massive gashes on his head. The assertion that Zimmerman claimed that he was the one yelling for help, was always known - although questionable.

There has been three employees of NBC fired for three seperate instances of editing recordings of Zimmerman's call to police. In each instance, they cut out intervening comments and placed Zimmerman's claims of suspicious behavior next to a description of Martin's apparent ethnicity.

And this is the only real case of media making Zimmerman appear guilty.

For my own part, I have been very reticent to cast aspersions on Martin's conduct prior to the night of the shooting, even after every little wart from Zimmerman has been recited ad naseum here. You cannot, in good faith, contend that Zimmerman's past is relevant to his propensity to overreact that night and pretend that Martin's prior conduct is off-limits. It's one way or another.

and I have not bothered with Zimmerman's past - his own police call portrays him as overreactive and reckless in response to Martin, who he basically described as walking down the street, so there's no need to dig into his past. But regardless, posing with gold fronts in front of your webcam does not make to a thug.
 
This article from Waglist is a biased opinion piece, but I think it's a fairly good one. It points out one thing that has occurred to me as well, which is that from the beginning GZ has behaved like an innocent man, to the point that he perhaps unwisely didn't even request an attorney. In a way though, I have to wonder if in the end that won't actually benefit him.

His act of trying to call the prosecutor also seemed to me to be the act of a man who genuinely believed he was innocent and was naive enough to believe he could convince her. BTW, I don't really know what waglist is all about other than having seen it linked to here a few times. So I'm not endorsing them as a source I trust, but I thought this article was decent.

http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/why-nothing-sticks-to-george-zimmerman
 
...Are there specific laws that make shoving a police officer different than shoving a citizen?
Yes.

Thanks for answering my question directly. Do you have the time to cite them?

ETA: Also, are they the same class of misdemeanor/felony as each other?

Please just cite the laws that directly relate to the shoving please. Not related laws (like interfering with an investigation) that would be in addition to.
 
Last edited:
One more member with psychic powers...

We have no evidence that GZ engaged in "bizarre aggression". However IF his story is true, it would seem TM may well have.

I find it odd that you don't think saying "these ******** always get away" is bizarre aggression...

Maybe it is relative to how one acts in their daily lives. Perhaps that is normal for you and yours?

ETA: I admit that I might see things as bizarre aggression that others wouldn't. I even read you calling Mumbles "one more member with psychic powers" as a bit aggressive and uncivil.
 
Last edited:
I find it odd that you don't think saying "these ******** always get away" is bizarre aggression...
I find it odd that you think him an off hand comment he made to someone else constitutes "bizarre aggression" against TM. :confused:

I even read you calling Mumbles "one more member with psychic powers" as a bit aggressive and uncivil.
Uncivil perhaps, but just as I don't deign to have respect for the opinion that the earth is 6000 years old, I don't pretend to have respect for supposition that is repeatedly stated as fact, regardless of which "side" does it. Someone should at least bother to say "my theory is that GZ approached TM and was aggressive towards him". Stating that GZ exhibited "bizarre aggression" towards TM as if it's a fact is not much different in my estimation than just making things up.

Mumbles seems to like stating supposition as fact, a few pages back he had no problem stating that the police didn't arrest GZ because they were racist. Which BTW, I consider infinitely more uncivil, even if the police aren't participating here, than sarcastically suggesting that someone must have psychic powers. Where in the world do people get off accusing people they don't even know of racism when they don't have an iota of proof to back up the charge?
 
Last edited:
I find it odd that you don't think saying "these ******** always get away" is bizarre aggression...

Maybe it is relative to how one acts in their daily lives. Perhaps that is normal for you and yours?

ETA: I admit that I might see things as bizarre aggression that others wouldn't. I even read you calling Mumbles "one more member with psychic powers" as a bit aggressive and uncivil.

I concur. "Aggressive" and "bizarre" are subjective judgments, and in this case perfectly reasonable, even if others don't agree. No psychic powers necessary.

I certainly find it both bizarre and aggressive for someone to decide to follow another person they think is suspicious and have deemed to be an "a******" apropos of nothing, and... oh yeah, let's bring a gun along as well!

And to your point regarding behavior on this forum, the same thing. Some people may think it's bizarrely aggressive for another person to be so lacking in self-control they, say for instance, rack up three yellow cards in a couple of days for attacking other posters. Others may not.
 
Trayvon was a undisputed juvenile delinquent. Fact is instead of being in school he was at his dads place...likely sent there because his mother was fed up with his repeated delinquent behavior. And is it a little strange how long it took the father to become concerned about his missing son?

Anyway...no one can dispute that Mr Zimmerman was brutally attacked. He had blood streaming down the back of his head. Mr Zimmerman as a watch captain has every right to follow and question the juvenile delinquent. Its a neighborhood that has been rife with break-ins...Trayvon Martin attacked a bus driver. Travon Martin attacked Mr Zimmerman. Zimmerman rightfully and legally shot Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman will be found innocent...unless he gets a black jury...then he is dead meat.
 
Trayvon was a undisputed juvenile delinquent. Fact is instead of being in school he was at his dads place...likely sent there because his mother was fed up with his repeated delinquent behavior. And is it a little strange how long it took the father to become concerned about his missing son?

Anyway...no one can dispute that Mr Zimmerman was brutally attacked. He had blood streaming down the back of his head. Mr Zimmerman as a watch captain has every right to follow and question the juvenile delinquent. Its a neighborhood that has been rife with break-ins...Trayvon Martin attacked a bus driver. Travon Martin attacked Mr Zimmerman. Zimmerman rightfully and legally shot Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman will be found innocent...unless he gets a black jury...then he is dead meat.
Since I just called someone out on the other "side" for this, I think it's only fair to point out you're also stating a lot of supposition as fact. We also don't know what happened, if anything, with a bus driver. I do hope someone in the media follows up on that at some point and sees if there is anything to that, I think it could be relevant.
 
Last edited:
Trayvon was a undisputed juvenile delinquent. Fact is instead of being in school he was at his dads place...likely sent there because his mother was fed up with his repeated delinquent behavior. And is it a little strange how long it took the father to become concerned about his missing son?

Anyway...no one can dispute that Mr Zimmerman was brutally attacked. He had blood streaming down the back of his head. Mr Zimmerman as a watch captain has every right to follow and question the juvenile delinquent. Its a neighborhood that has been rife with break-ins...Trayvon Martin attacked a bus driver. Travon Martin attacked Mr Zimmerman. Zimmerman rightfully and legally shot Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman will be found innocent...unless he gets a black jury...then he is dead meat.
:rolleyes:
 
justiceq.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom