Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Giz]

Bad things often happen when untrained individuals play cop.

Or; bad things happen when individuals launch an unprovoked, unforeseen assault, putting someone in fear of their life.

 

[PhantomWolf]

You just don't understand us American's at all, do you . Heck, I'm American and I don't understand it, in a way. I envy other (free) societies that don't have a gun culture.

You got me there, I have to admit I don't understand Americans at all, even though my partner is one.

 

[RandFan]

Or; bad things happen when individuals launch an unprovoked, unforeseen assault, putting someone in fear of their life.

We don't know that TM launched an attack. We do know that had GZ stayed in his car there would very likely not have been a confrontation. If GZ did not heed the operators advice then we know the operator was right, right?

 

[PhantomWolf]

We don't know that TM launched an attack. We do know that had GZ stayed in his car there would very likely not have been a confrontation. If GZ did not heed the operators advice then we know the operator was right, right?

But we don't know that he didn't heed the advice. We know that it sounds like he stops running and then talks to the operator for a minute or so longer, then after the call he claims he was headed back to his truck. That's what we know.

The whole claim that he went off searching for TM is made up by people here.

Even if we take Crumb's word about what the girl said happened, it's clear that TM lost GZ for a period of time, it wasn't until he stated, "He's behind me again" that the two came back in contact as far as we know.

It's entirely possible that GZ was at the gate, ended the conversation and started back towards his truck. TM in the mean time has returned to the "T" and then seeing no one starts heading back for home again while talking on the phone. He looks back to see if GZ is about as he does, and sees GZ walking through the "T" on the way back to the truck and assumes he's following him again, so turns and calls out, "hey why are you following me?" GZ now turns, as he was headed for his truck until TM called out, starts towards TM to find out who he was, "Who are you and what are you doing here?" The aurgment ensures. GZ reaches for his phone to call the police back. TM mistakenly thinks he's going for a weapon, and attacks on the basis that GZ is armed and about to attack him.

At this point TM is out of options, if he believes that GZ was going for a weapon to attack him, his only option would be to demobilise GZ first. Of course from GZ's point of view, he was going to get his phone and got sucker punched by a hoodlum, now he's fighting for his life, he believes that TM is trying to kill or render him unconscious (which he is) and after getting no help, resorts to deadly force.

Yes, again it's speculation, but this would match the facts we know well, and doesn't rely on a lot of assumptions to make it work. Until we learn more, I'd suggest it's probably a lot closer to the truth than what some here are suggesting.

 

[RandFan]

But we don't know that he didn't heed the advice.

I conceded that up front.

The whole claim that he went off searching for TM is made up by people here.

So is the notion that TM attacked GZ.

Yes, again it's speculation....

Yes it is peculation and it's made up also.

What do we know? GZ was suspicious of TM. GZ went after GZ while armed. No crime had been committed.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

The whole claim that he went off searching for TM is made up by people here.

So is the notion that TM attacked GZ.

No, they aren't remotely the same. The first one is possible, but it's also entirely made up. The second one is not made up (by any of us), it's what GZ reports. You can claim you don't believe him, or don't know if he's telling the truth. But people aren't just repeatedly making it up as if it's fact.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I conceded that up front.

We can agree on that one.

So is the notion that TM attacked GZ.

Actually it's not, the notion that TM attacked GZ was a claim made by GZ. Not saying GZ told the truth, just pointing out that it wasn't made up by people here.

Yes it is peculation and it's made up also.

Yes and no, it's a theory based on the best evidence we have

What do we know? GZ was suspicious of TM. GZ went after GZ while armed. No crime had been committed.

We know a little more than that. We know that GZ was suspicious of TM. We know that TM ran after approaching GZ's vehicle. We know that GZ followed where he believed TM went, and lost track of him. We know that GZ had a gun. We know that TM and GZ somehow met back up. We know that TM was on top of GZ hitting him. We know one of the two was screaming for help. We know that GZ shot TM. We know these things based on witness accounts during periods in which they had no reason to lie.

There are other claims that have been made by other people that may or may not pan out, however if we take those claim and apply some basic understanding or witness perception and recollection to them, and fill a few holes using simple human behaviour, a picture does start to emerge that we can build a theory around.

 

[RandFan]

Actually it's not the notion that TM attacked GZ was a claim made by GZ. Not saying GZ told the truth, just pointing out that it wasn't made up by people here.

You got me. It's as likely invented by GZ as anything invented here.

Yes and no, it's a theory based on the best evidence we have

Some of it, GZ's testimony, is self serving evidence, right?

We know a little more than that. We know that GZ was suspicious of TM. We know that TM ran after approaching GZ's vehicle. We know that GZ followed where he believed TM went, and lost track of him. We know that GZ had a gun. We know that TM and GZ somehow met back up.

And we know that no crime had been committed. We know that if GZ had stayed in his car TM would be alive today.

We know that TM was on top of GZ hitting him.

No, we know that it has been alleged.

We know one of the two was screaming for help. We know that GZ shot TM. We know these things based on witness accounts during periods in which they had no reason to lie.

We know that witnesses evidence is notoriously unreliable. Even when there is no reason to lie.

There are other claims that have been made by other people that may or may not pan out, however if we take those claim and apply some basic understanding or witness perception and recollection to them, and fill a few holes using simple human behaviour, a picture does start to emerge that we can build a theory around.

All I know thus far is this, GZ should have stayed in his ******* car. He didn't and a confrontation resulted. TM could have attacked GZ. TM could have reasonably been in fear of his life. I have the honesty to admit that thus far that is what I know.

 

[PhantomWolf]

You got me. It's as likely invented by GZ as anything invented here.

Again incorrect, it is a witness statement, and regardlessof whether you want to accept it or not, it has more value that anything said here.

Self serving evidence, right?

Evidence of witnesses is evidence of witnesses, it should never be discarded merely on the basis you don't like the witness or what he is saying. It should be weighed with all the other facts and evidence and then determined if it should be accepted.

And we know that no crime had been committed. We know that if GZ had stayed in his car TM would be alive today.

Perhaps. If TM did actually return at least the "T" junction, he might have returned all the way to the car had GZ been there and then the argument developed there, one can't suggest anything for certainty.

No, we know that it has been alleged.

We know that it stated by an independant witness.

We know that witnesses evidence is notoriously unreliable. Even when there is no reason to lie.

I'm one of the first to note that eyewittess testimony is flawed by human perception and recollection, in fact you even quoted me saying that in the next paragraph. However, it is usually the minor details they get wrong, or they miss things they weren't looking for, it is very rare to find a witness that gets everything about what they saw wrong. What we have is general witness statments, the colour of clothing, what sort of things were said. It's rare for those to be wrong.

Yes, GZ should have stayed in his ******* car. I have the honesty to admit that thus far that is all I know.

Maybe, maybe not, his staying or not staying in the car was far from the deciding factor in what happened.

 

[RandFan]

Evidence of witnesses is evidence of witnesses, it should never be discarded merely on the basis you don't like the witness or what he is saying. It should be weighed with all the other facts and evidence and then determined if it should be accepted.

Exactly. Since a trier of fact has not ruled we cannot give it credence nor can we dismiss it.

Perhaps. If TM did actually return at least the "T" junction, he might have returned all the way to the car had GZ been there and then the argument developed there, one can't suggest anything for certainty.

Absent rank speculation, if GZ had stayed in his car, TM would be alive today.

I'm one of the first to note that eyewittess testimony is flawed by human perception and recollection, in fact you even quoted me saying that in the next paragraph. However, it is usually the minor details they get wrong, or they miss things they weren't looking for, it is very rare to find a witness that gets everything about what they saw wrong. What we have is general witness statments, the colour of clothing, what sort of things were said. It's rare for those to be wrong.

? I'm sorry but I've no idea what you think this is supposed to demonstrate. At the moment, without cross examination and a ruling by a judge or jury, I'll take the null hypothesis. I'll leave the rank speculation to others.

Maybe, maybe not, his staying or not staying in the car was far from the deciding factor in what happened.

Actually it is. Just as a drunk climbing into his or her car after a night of drinking. No crime had been committed. There was no imminent danger. GZ had called the police. He didn't need to follow TM. The police didn't need GZ to follow TM.

Had GZ stayed in his car an individual who had not committed a crime would be alive today. GZ said he was scared of TM. Here's a bit of advice, stay in your ******* car.

 

[Giz]

We don't know that TM launched an attack. We do know that had GZ stayed in his car there would very likely not have been a confrontation. If GZ did not heed the operators advice then we know the operator was right, right?

One of the possibilities - which you seem to avoid, yet could well be the most likely - is that a concerned neighbor decided to try and act as a look out for law enforcement, in an effort to check some of the property crime in his neighborhood. He was not acting as a vigilante. For this aggressive act of civic virtue, an affronted youth with anger issues attacked him and then continued to beat him whilst he was prone on the concrete.

That squares with the known facts as well as anything else.

Let me know who is responsible for the confrontation above? (Let me guess, it was GZ for not deciding to just stay in bed all day, right?).

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Let me know who is responsible for the confrontation above? (Let me guess, it was GZ for not deciding to just stay in bed all day, right?).

Of course .

 

[RandFan]

One of the possibilities - which you seem to avoid, yet could well be the most likely - is that a concerned neighbor decided to try and act as a look out for law enforcement, in an effort to check some of the property crime in his neighborhood. He was not acting as a vigilante. For this aggressive act of civic virtue, an affronted youth with anger issues attacked him and then continued to beat him whilst he was prone on the concrete.

That squares with the known facts as well as anything else.

Let me know who is responsible for the confrontation above? (Let me guess, it was GZ for not deciding to just stay in bed all day, right?).

You are absolutely wrong. I have stated time and again that GZ could have been returning to his car when TM attacked him. I believe it is very possible that GZ is entirely innocent. That he was acting in good faith.

So please, don't make up stuff.

My point is this. TM had not committed a crime. There was no imminent danger. GZ was armed. Getting out of his car to follow GZ was reckless.

 

[Mumbles]

One of the possibilities - which you seem to avoid, yet could well be the most likely - is that a concerned neighbor decided to try and act as a look out for law enforcement, in an effort to check some of the property crime in his neighborhood. He was not acting as a vigilante. For this aggressive act of civic virtue, an affronted youth with anger issues attacked him and then continued to beat him whilst he was prone on the concrete.

Amazing. So where did this affronted youth with anger issues come from, and why would Zimmerman shoot Martin in response to this? I mean, if we had any actual evidence of violence from Martin, you may have a case that he is this mystery youth, but we only have a 3rd hand Facebook post, so...

But there's another problem. There's pretty good evidence that Zimmerman didn't know everyone in the community in any case. Many of the witnesses seem to have not recognized him. There were hundreds of houses in the community. And frankly, Zimmerman seems unable to remember the names of the three streets that made up the community. And according to his own call, Martin was not behaving suspiciously. Although Zimmerman is sure that Martin was "on drugs or up to no good", his description of what Martin was doing was "walking around, looking about", which is pretty normal for 7pm. So why was he concerned at all?

 

[Giz]

GZ was armed. Getting out of his car to follow GZ was reckless.

Or perhaps it would have been reckless to get out unarmed? After all, if he is "entirely innocent" and suffered an unprovoked attack that put him in fear for his life then it's just as well that he was armed, no?

 

[Giz]

And according to his own call, Martin was not behaving suspiciously.

Really? GZ appeared to find TM suspicious enough to call 911...

 

[RandFan]

Or perhaps it would have been reckless to get out unarmed? After all, if he is "entirely innocent" and suffered an unprovoked attack that put him in fear for his life then it's just as well that he was armed, no?

There was no need to get out of his car. So your point is moot. How many times must I say this? If you are scared about a suspicious person then stay in your ******* car. If you are drunk then don't get in your car. Sure, the odds of killing someone in both instances are slim but do us all a favor and follow that simple advice, okay?

 

[RandFan]

Or perhaps it would have been reckless to get out unarmed? After all, if he is "entirely innocent" and suffered an unprovoked attack that put him in fear for his life then it's just as well that he was armed, no?

BTW: Here's a hint, if it would be reckless to get out of your car unarmed to follow a suspicious person and you have called the police and they are on their way, don't get out of your ******* car.

 

[Giz]

BTW: Here's a hint, if it would be reckless to get out of your car unarmed to follow a suspicious person and you have called the police and they are on their way, don't get out of your ******* car.

I'm sorry, is that a hint that we should abandon the streets in case we get into a scary situation? Or are you hinting that we should blame the victims of assault (ooh maybe someone was walking too close, or had a nice watch or a lady had too short a skirt - how reckless!!)?

Sure, there are ways in which we can minimize risk; you're unlikely to be run over, mugged or raped if you never leave the house... but that doesn't mean that you should get judged as morally culpable if you do. How about we save the finger pointing for whoever actually behaves criminally?

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

I'm sorry, is that a hint that we should abandon the streets in case we get into a scary situation? Or are you hinting that we should blame the victims of assault (ooh maybe someone was walking too close, or had a nice watch or a lady had too short a skirt - how reckless!!)?

Sure, there are ways in which we can minimize risk; you're unlikely to be run over, mugged or raped if you never leave the house... but that doesn't mean that you should get judged as morally culpable if you do. How about we save the finger pointing for whoever actually behaves criminally?

The hilarity here is that people say GZ had no reason to be suspicious because TM had not committed a crime, as if the only was suspicion can ever be legitimate is if it pans out! Also, IF TM attacked GZ, doesn't that mean that maybe, just maybe, GZ's suspicion was in fact warranted? Also, IF TM attacked GZ, didn't he in fact commit a crime? Oh wait I forgot, that's GZ's fault. Just as you allude to, in the same way that it's a woman's fault if someone tries to rape her walking down a dark street, and she shoots them in self-defense. I mean, clearly she was asking for it. Why the hell did she go walking down that street. Just stay in the ****** house!

Admittedly my sarcasm is not the perfect analogy, but it's not too far off either.