Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Xulld]

The policeman was totally wrong to inject his view of events into the witness statement.

I guess context matters, was it the first time the person was giving the statement? All witness must write out there statements. Where and when the correction occurred matters. If on the very first time a person is relating a story, then yes VERY bad, if not then its more about asking a question to resolve an inconsistency, which should then be noted.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

You call that a small error?! The policeman was totally wrong to inject his view of events into the witness statement. The witnesses are the primary record of what happened. It is difficult enough to question a witness without interfering with that witnesses memory. To deliberately contradict what a witness says because it doesn't match the current beliefs is 100% fail for finding the facts.

I love how you totally ignored the full context of what I said..

Hard to say exactly what happened without the full context, and probably the policeman should have been more careful and clarified what they meant in a better way, but it sounded like some small error ABC discovered that gave them an opportunity to suggest the entire investigation was deeply flawed.

...and then totally changed the context of what the police officer is reported to have done to fit your argument.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

If on the very first time a person is relating a story, then yes VERY bad, if not then its more about asking a question to resolve an inconsistency, which should then be noted.

Exactly. Again, based on what I read it should have been done better, but we need more information. But on its surface it sounded innocuous enough.

 

[Dan O.]

I love how you totally ignored the full context of what I said.

No you don't.

 

[GWCarver]

Exactly. Again, based on what I read it should have been done better, but we need more information. But on its surface it sounded innocuous enough.

If you don't mind, which witness is being discussed here? Is it the kid whose mother said she wanted to see the tape?

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

If you don't mind, which witness is being discussed here? Is it the kid whose mother said she wanted to see the tape?

No idea. It was one of the first media stories I read back when the media had me convinced that GZ had chased TM down and shot him in cold blood, and then the racist police let him off because his father was a judge. I'll see if I can find it and post it.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

If you don't mind, which witness is being discussed here? Is it the kid whose mother said she wanted to see the tape?

OK, this reports it, though it does not give the same details as some others. If it is as reported here, I agree the police interview in question made some mistakes, but the media had SO much screwed up at this point I'm skeptical. As you'll see, this is when they were still reporting how GZ weighed over 100 pounds more than TM etc.

Anyhow, I'm sure this will keep the thread going for another 20 pages as both sides see and hear only what we want to as we read this article .

http://abcnews.go.com/US/neighborho...s-questionable/story?id=15907136#.T60xTcVHjd9

 

[Dan O.]

I guess context matters, was it the first time the person was giving the statement? All witness must write out there statements. Where and when the correction occurred matters. If on the very first time a person is relating a story, then yes VERY bad, if not then its more about asking a question to resolve an inconsistency, which should then be noted.

Are you jumping the gun here? None of these witnesses have been asked to testify in court yet. These are police officers taking oral statements from witnesses at the scene.

Then again, perhaps I don't know how police procedures work. The police are obviously much more experienced in these matters. There have been many cases where the police have been helpful in reconstructing the memories of witnesses and even suspects.

 

[Giz]

A huge percentage of the media does not report news, they create it. The canard that the police did a poor investigation was started by an ABC "investigative report"

Yeah, I was initially very concerned at what sounded like a cursory unvestigation. Of course we now know those media reports were false, the SPD did do a proper investigation and didn't land a gotcha on GZ despite him having no legal counsel present over hours of questioning.

Unfortunately, by then a lot of people had gotten emotionally invested in the case and are unwilling to let go of the initial (incorrect) narrative.

 

[Dancing David]

A huge percentage of the media does not report news, they create it. The canard that the police did a poor investigation was started by an ABC "investigative report" that told how a policeman corrected a witness the night of the crime scene who evidently said something like "TM was on the ground" and the policeman said "you mean GZ was on the ground". I am paraphrasing of course. But what it sounded like was that the witness gave a statement where at some point they do what people often do, and accidentally said something that obviously contradicted the story they were telling, and the policeman "corrected" them to clarify that they had meant to say the other person.

the person who made that statement is likely to be unreliable, an officer doing that would be in huge trouble.

 

[GWCarver]

OK, this reports it, though it does not give the same details as some others. If it is as reported here, I agree the police interview in question made some mistakes, but the media had SO much screwed up at this point I'm skeptical. As you'll see, this is when they were still reporting how GZ weighed over 100 pounds more than TM etc.

Anyhow, I'm sure this will keep the thread going for another 20 pages as both sides see and hear only what we want to as we read this article .

http://abcnews.go.com/US/neighborho...s-questionable/story?id=15907136#.T60xTcVHjd9

That article and video reminds me of early coverage of the Kercher case. It is probably best just to reject the whole thing and look elsewhere for more accurate reporting.

Anyway, here is the mother of the witness I mentioned above. I recall seeing a different interview in which she disagreed with the police version of what her son told them, felt he had been coerced (although she didn't use that word), and wanted to see "the tape". I'll look for it.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...ayvon-martin-shooting-wasnt-self-defense?lite

eta:

Here is the link to a report on Cheryl Brown accusations of police coercion.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ressured-police-support-Zimmermans-story.html

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

That article and video reminds me of early coverage of the Kercher case. It is probably best just to reject the whole thing and look elsewhere for more accurate reporting.

Anyway, here is the mother of the witness I mentioned above. I recall seeing a different interview in which she disagreed with the police version of what her son told them, felt he had been coerced (although she didn't use that word), and wanted to see "the tape". I'll look for it.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...ayvon-martin-shooting-wasnt-self-defense?lite

eta:

Here is the link to a report on Cheryl Brown accusations of police coercion.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ressured-police-support-Zimmermans-story.html

Ya, I just did a little more searching and it looks like the entire thing was a media invention, the kid wasn't even a witness in any remotely relevant way other than having called 911, yet the Mom was angry they waited to question him. Her statements are also contradictory. It sounds to me she is another person like the blonde woman (cutcher?) who was polluted by what she read in the media.

 

[crimresearch]

Wee hours of the morning, this struck me as hilarious! The lack of any actual evidence or forensics is crazy making. Nothing new to discuss and the media keeps trying to fan the flames. MO'M makes money every day this drags out. We the people must sit here and continue to flog the dust of the long dead horse.

I have no idea what happened that night. I just think that any time someone shoots another person, there should be an investigation. Not necessarily an arrest at that time but certainly more investigation than the SPD did. I hope Florida does a little fine tuning on the SYG or self defense laws.

You keep repeating these things long after they have been debunked, including with links to facts that were posted to you personally.

What are *you* getting out of all your pot stirring?

 

[LTC8K6]

You keep repeating these things long after they have been debunked, including with links to facts that were posted to you personally.

What are *you* getting out of all your pot stirring?

Yeah, O'mara is making money every day largely because someone decided to use Trayvon Martin's death as a political pawn.

It's dragging out because people with political connections decided to throw out the entire investigation of the shooting, which was ongoing, and start over again with a hotshot prosecutor and a murder 2 charge.

 

[LTC8K6]

the person who made that statement is likely to be unreliable, an officer doing that would be in huge trouble.

As long as we can see the "correction" in context, it shouldn't be a problem.

It's like if you are talking about GZ following TM for a while with an interviewer, and then you get them mixed up one time, and you say TM was following GZ, and the interviewer corrects you. "You mean GZ was following TM, right?"

There's nothing wrong with that as long as the interview is left intact, imo.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

As long as we can see the "correction" in context, it shouldn't be a problem.

It's like if you are talking about GZ following TM for a while with an interviewer, and then you get them mixed up one time, and you say TM was following GZ, and the interviewer corrects you. "You mean GZ was following TM, right?"

There's nothing wrong with that as long as the interview is left intact, imo.

Again, exactly. And again, I'm sure there is a technically correct way to do it, for instance maybe instead of correcting or leading them you would say "now wait a minute, earlier you said it was GZ following but now you just said it was TM following, which is it", or something along those lines, I am sure there's a proper procedure for it. Maybe I'm wrong but it seems like it would be asinine and even negligent to just let the person keep going, write down their statement, and never clarify at any point what they meant, if it was clear they were misspeaking or contradicting themselves.

Or maybe you let them keep going and wait til the end to clarify it?

 

[Dan O.]

As long as we can see the "correction" in context, it shouldn't be a problem.

It's like if you are talking about GZ following TM for a while with an interviewer, and then you get them mixed up one time, and you say TM was following GZ, and the interviewer corrects you. "You mean GZ was following TM, right?"

There's nothing wrong with that as long as the interview is left intact, imo.

If you are talking about a TV interview, not a problem. But if this is a police interview trying to discover the facts, the interviewer must remain as neutral as possible. The proper way to verify it was a mistake is to return to the subject later and see if the witness repeats the same story or to write it up or repeat what they stated and see if they offer a correction.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

If you are talking about a TV interview, not a problem. But if this is a police interview trying to discover the facts, the interviewer must remain as neutral as possible. The proper way to verify it was a mistake is to return to the subject later and see if the witness repeats the same story or to write it up or repeat what they stated and see if they offer a correction.

That sounds like a proper plan/procedure to me !

 

[WildCat]

Google is your friend?

http://www.lapolicegear.com/tactical-flashlights.html

I think that means that Zimmerman purchased a flashlight designed for being "deployed to a sandy part of the world or searching a dark warehouse during an alarm call"

So any flashlight that can fit in a pocket is a tactical flashlight?

 

[GWCarver]

So any flashlight that can fit in a pocket is a tactical flashlight?

The entire effort by the prosecution to get the "tactical flashlight" entered into the official record was ruined by Galbreath voluntarily offering up the fact it is only six inches long. Put it all together, and one could easily conclude there might be a hint of desperation emanating from the prosecution.