Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[GWCarver]

Like? And what evidence do you have to back that up?

During a CNN commercial at the bond hearing, Bernie de la Rionda suggested Zimmerman made an inconsistent statement because in his statement(s) take by law enforcement during the period immediately after shooting, Zimmerman said TM circled his truck, but didn't mention it to the non-emergency response operator during the "911" call. (I put it in quotes because what many of us have been calling the "911 call" is actually a tape of Z talking to non-emergency response.)

Zimmerman did say on the tape that TM put his hand in his waist and was checking him out, but Bernie was desperate for evidence of guilt, so he mentioned "the circling" at the bond hearing hoping it might resonate with someone.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Like? And what evidence do you have to back that up?

Perhaps this:

I would say it is suspicious and odd. But I wonder why it is not reported in the non emergency 911 call

Just for review, what is the source of the 'circled the truck'
http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/...sentinel-george-zimmerman-said-trayvon-martin

"In an audio recording of Zimmerman's call to police that night, Zimmerman says Martin is acting suspiciously and describes him as a black teenager when prompted by the dispatcher.
He does not say that Martin was circling his vehicle, but that's what he told police later that night and has consistently told authorities in subsequent interviews, according to the Sentinel's source."

 

[Dan O.]

When did he give the second passport to the attorney and wouldn't the attorney have immediately informed the court of this? I missed that part.

According to O'Mara, George sent the second passport back by FedEx on the 26th of April and he prepared a memo to the court on the 27th but forgot to deliver it.

http://www.cnn.com/video/standard.html?/video/crime/2012/06/02/ac-omara-zimmerman-bond-revoked.cnn

O'Mara handed the passport over to the prosecutors only after they informed him that they knew it existed.

If they were conspiring to keep a back door escape open for Zimmermen in case the trial started going bad, they did everything right to maintain a degree of plausible deniability.

 

[Amazer]

You're kind of new to the thread. All speculation is acceptable when it's about Trayvon Martin and what he may have done, ingested, or been planning with his burglary tools and watermelon lean.

But try and speculate about why George shot him, and you're speaking with no evidence and must be silenced.

I did get the feeling that as of late both sides had become a little more accommodating of opposing views.

 

[Unabogie]

I don't wish DeeDee away - she is a nightmare for the prosecution.

Why do you say we don't know who spoke first ? GZ got close to him according to DeeDee is believable, but TM spoke first is not ? Both DeeDee and GZ say TM spoke first.

Where does deedee say GZ is angry ?

C'mon, I gave you quotes and times from her testimony. And you still seem all puzzled about what she said and didn't say ?

In the one and only recording of her I've heard. She says George sounded angry. Now, are you going to chastise some other folks for saying Trayvon circled the car or confronted Zimmerman around his car, because there's ZERO evidence for any of that. But the loud version of George is backed up by two witnesses.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com//packages//audio//national//20120517_SHOOTING_AUDIO//phonecall.mp3

Link there for all the people who can't remember the link.

At 9:14 she says Zimmerman was "following him again, behind him".

At 9:46, she says Zimmerman "is getting close to him".

10:52 she says she heard Martin ask "why are you following me for?"

11:00 she hears an old man say "What are you doing around here?"

13:45, she says "Kind of angry". "Deep".

Ok, can you admit you were wrong?

 

[GWCarver]

I did get the feeling that as of late both sides had become a little more accommodating of opposing views.

I think most members are trying, but it isn't easy, you know. Compared to some other places where this case is discussed, this is Happy Valley.

 

[BenBurch]

When GZ (guilty or not, I can't tell) is convicted, a lot of people are going to have a lot of crow to eat here.

You seem to feel that conviction in a case like this has something to do with what actually happened. In reality, it is all a matter of what can be brought into evidence and who presents the best version of the case to the jury.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

In the one and only recording of her I've heard. She says George sounded angry. Now, are you going to chastise some other folks for saying Trayvon circled the car or confronted Zimmerman around his car, because there's ZERO evidence for any of that. But the loud version of George is backed up by two witnesses.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com//packages//audio//national//20120517_SHOOTING_AUDIO//phonecall.mp3

Link there for all the people who can't remember the link.

At 9:14 she says Zimmerman was "following him again, behind him".

At 9:46, she says Zimmerman "is getting close to him".

10:52 she says she heard Martin ask "why are you following me for?"

11:00 she hears an old man say "What are you doing around here?"

13:45, she says "Kind of angry". "Deep".

Ok, can you admit you were wrong?

Thanks for providing the time when she described GZ as 'kind of angry'. If there were actual transcripts, it would be easier.

Yes, I was wrong that she did not use the word angry to describe any dialogue. She even came up with the word 'angry' all by herself.

As for the circling ... I linked to where it is purportedly attributed to GZ. I would like to see/hear what he has actually said, but we don't have that yet. It wasn't, however, made up out of thin air.

I still think the witness and the 'loud voice' and 'dominant voice' is not particularly credible or useful.

 

[Unabogie]

Thanks for providing the time when she described GZ as 'kind of angry'. If there were actual transcripts, it would be easier.

Yes, I was wrong that she did not use the word angry to describe any dialogue. She even came up with the word 'angry' all by herself.

As for the circling ... I linked to where it is purportedly attributed to GZ. I would like to see/hear what he has actually said, but we don't have that yet. It wasn't, however, made up out of thin air.

I still think the witness and the 'loud voice' and 'dominant voice' is not particularly credible or useful.

Great, but this has been a bone of contention over and over about whether or not there were two witnesses who said George sounded angry.

Now, none of these witnesses seems ideal on either side, but that doesn't mean we can dismiss them. They may all be partially incorrect or shading the truth for whatever reasons. I don't know if DeeDee is a "nightmare" or not. I don't know if the other witness is truthful or not. Listening on the recording isn't the same as seeing her mannerisms while she speaks. She could be believable or not.

But the "circling" the car isn't a fact, nor is "repeatedly bashing his head on concrete", yet that goes unchecked all the time here. Perhaps if the strict standards that follow the use of the word "angry" were followed elsewhere we wouldn't have so much sniping going on in the thread.

 

[Kaosium]

What makes you sure they didn't 'trip him up' or that they tried to?

They did try, they went after him three times and he even passed a voice stress analyzer regarding his account. According to TM's father the detective, I believe it was Serino, told him he was going to grill him and see if he could catch him in a lie. I guess he didn't.

The original detective wanted to file charges and there are rumors of favoritism, take your pick.

Last I heard the detective who was trying to build a case, who I believe was Serino, demurred due to lack of evidence. I suppose that makes sense what with them not initially charging him until under threats of riots and bounties and the prosecution affidavit being so devoid of evidence (including failing to list exculpatory evidence) it caused Alan Dershowitz to suggest the prosecutor ought to be charged...

 

[KatieG]

I think most members are trying, but it isn't easy, you know. Compared to some other places where this case is discussed, this is Happy Valley.

You're right about that, GWC. One forum closed it's TM forum because it was getting ugly and leaning towards some really racist postings.

I would like to see justice done. I've stated from the beginning that I don't think it's right for a person to shoot another person and then minimal investigation is done. Taking the word of the person doing the shooting seems very strange to me.

I am a firm believer in the Castle Doctrine. Anyone should have the right to protect themselves in their own home or property. If someone breaks into your home, they've literally crossed the line.

I doubt we will ever know the truth about what happened that night. I don't believe the stories GZ tells and I hope the prosecution has something more up their sleeve.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Great, but this has been a bone of contention over and over about whether or not there were two witnesses who said George sounded angry.

Now, none of these witnesses seems ideal on either side, but that doesn't mean we can dismiss them. They may all be partially incorrect or shading the truth for whatever reasons. I don't know if DeeDee is a "nightmare" or not. I don't know if the other witness is truthful or not. Listening on the recording isn't the same as seeing her mannerisms while she speaks. She could be believable or not.

But the "circling" the car isn't a fact, nor is "repeatedly bashing his head on concrete", yet that goes unchecked all the time here. Perhaps if the strict standards that follow the use of the word "angry" were followed elsewhere we wouldn't have so much sniping going on in the thread.

There are some things that can be settled, and some that can't right now. NOW we know what DeeDee said - before, we didn't. Even when we know whether GZ said TM circled his car or not, people will believe it or not based on the general feeling on GZ, because his word will be the only evidence. Same with the concrete.

 

[Giz]

I've stated from the beginning that I don't think it's right for a person to shoot another person and then minimal investigation is done.

I think that this case was reported so badly (aka initial reports of SPD patting GZ on the head, giving him his gun back and sending him home) that people got the impression that a "real" investigation wasn't done. From what we know now, it appears that pretty much everything that could/should have been done, was done.

Taking the word of the person doing the shooting seems very strange to me.

I think it's more a case of: "Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt".

 

[GWCarver]

Great, but this has been a bone of contention over and over about whether or not there were two witnesses who said George sounded angry.

Now, none of these witnesses seems ideal on either side, but that doesn't mean we can dismiss them. They may all be partially incorrect or shading the truth for whatever reasons. I don't know if DeeDee is a "nightmare" or not. I don't know if the other witness is truthful or not. Listening on the recording isn't the same as seeing her mannerisms while she speaks. She could be believable or not.

But the "circling" the car isn't a fact, nor is "repeatedly bashing his head on concrete", yet that goes unchecked all the time here. Perhaps if the strict standards that follow the use of the word "angry" were followed elsewhere we wouldn't have so much sniping going on in the thread.

"Circling the car" is in evidence, according to Bernie. Zimmerman's statements are evidence, whether you feel comfortable with it or not. So it may not be a "fact", but it is in Zimmerman's statements. I think if the state wants a conviction, it will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman's version of events isn't true. We already know the investigators couldn't break his story because the capias that wasn't signed by a State Attorney didn't even accuse him of a crime. One could surmise that was the reason the State Attorney just left it on the pile. You know, that pile of papers on your desk that you want to throw away, but it's possible someone might ask about it someday, so it just sits there. That pile.

 

[Kaosium]

Last night, the San Antonio Spurs had more points in the paint, more second chance points, and more fastbreak points then the Oklahoma City Thunder. And yet this morning, no one is talking about that. I wonder why...

Actually Johnny that was my point: a year or so from now the fact that he didn't disclose his paypal contributions until five days after the bond hearing won't amount to much compared to lack of evidence.

Zimmerman conspired to deceive the court, and got caught. Now he's suffering the consequences of his actions. How you see that as either "destructive of justice" or "a travesty" is beyond me.

For the same reason we got rid of the independent prosecutor in politics. Sending people on fishing expeditions is destructive of justice, it's too easy to end up with "Just because there was no sabotage, doesn't mean there isn't a conspiracy...." Or in less esoteric parlance, ending up talking about thongs in the US Capitol building or people who've been exonerated asking 'Where do I go to get my reputation back?'

Anyway I don't expect you to agree on this issue, that is how I feel about it universally however, regardless of whatever happens to George Zimmerman.

So we're back to indicting the media? Yawn. I'm pretty sure the media didn't force Zimmerman to lie.

No, they didn't force it, he made a mistake it appears to me.

However the media did (helpfully!) 'force' the trial, and created the conditions where he exists as a hunted animal in an undisclosed location. Those conditions permeate his whole existence now, and might have affected his decision making capability, at least in the short term. Not that anyone will ever accept that being the recipient of a media firestorm can affect one's behavior and attitude, but (silly me!) I cannot help but wonder if it might have been a factor.

Like who?

Start with Crump. We can't have this, lawyers finding 'victims' and then forming a posse in the media against someone determined to be innocent of charges by authorities and forcing a trial under threat of riots. This is admittedly an extreme example, and as such the media might be more skeptical next time someone comes to them with a load of bollocks and calls it 'evidence,' however even on a smaller scale this is even more destructive to justice than fishing expeditions.

Incidentally, this isn't something I'm saying just because of this case, it's something I noticed previously and suspect will continue to be a problem as our archaic justice system tries to negotiate an age where everyone can communicate and has access to more information than the legendary Library of Alexandria. The 'appeal to emotion' is the most destructive of rationality because all of us are human, and most want to be considered decent ones. However there's ambulance chasers and political lawyers who will take advantage of that, and I don't think we've even seen the beginning of what that might mean for our justice system....

 

[Unabogie]

"Circling the car" is in evidence, according to Bernie. Zimmerman's statements are evidence, whether you feel comfortable with it or not. So it may not be a "fact", but it is in Zimmerman's statements. I think if the state wants a conviction, it will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman's version of events isn't true. We already know the investigators couldn't break his story because the capias that wasn't signed by a State Attorney didn't even accuse him of a crime. One could surmise that was the reason the State Attorney just left it on the pile. You know, that pile of papers on your desk that you want to throw away, but it's possible someone might ask about it someday, so it just sits there. That pile.

We won't know exactly what's in George's statements until they are released. Until then, creating elaborate scenarios like Trayvon circling the car or confronting him while George was still inside are the epitome of speculation. If one sort is ok around here, then fine. Then anything goes, including watermelon lean and attacking the bus driver and all the other unsubstantiated crap that goes on here. But then people shouldn't complain about other people engaging in the same sort of loose concern for the "facts".

 

[crimresearch]

Rubbish. A jury that knows he is a person who has flagrantly misled the court will be that much less likely to believe any other testimony he gives.

Why do you even think I committed the fallacy of the excluded middle?
______

At any rate, I think the biggest problem for Zimmerman's case will be to convince the jury that while his motive at the beginning was to not let Martin get away, it somehow changed prior to the start of the confrontation. (That is, his earlier motive for following Martin doesn't seem to me to be at all logically consistent with the notion that it was Martin who initiated the confrontation. ) I think the only credible thing he can argue is that his motive (to keep tabs on Martin, possibly even to confront Martin) didn't change until Martin was beating him up--that is, after the confrontation was initiated.

1 Your long history of doing exactly that in order to pass yourself off as a legal expert.

2 Your wild leap from a material misrepresentation in a pretrial hearing to an automatic guilty verdict that can only be avoided with a plea bargain, while conveniently excluding the Supreme Court ruling that you are pretending doesn't exist, or doesn't apply, and the rules of evidence.

 

[crimresearch]

I don't wish DeeDee away - she is a nightmare for the prosecution.

Why do you say we don't know who spoke first ? GZ got close to him according to DeeDee is believable, but TM spoke first is not ? Both DeeDee and GZ say TM spoke first.

Where does deedee say GZ is angry ?

C'mon, I gave you quotes and times from her testimony. And you still seem all puzzled about what she said and didn't say ?

Same place she heard the shots.

Same place that Zimmerman got favoritism because his father was a Supreme Court justice. Same place that there were no injuries and no sign of blood. Same place that the screams were those of a little boy. Same place that Zimmerman used his passport to hide out in Peru. Same place that Trayvon was executed with a bullet in the back of his head.

Gullibility Central

 

[KatieG]

I think that this case was reported so badly (aka initial reports of SPD patting GZ on the head, giving him his gun back and sending him home) that people got the impression that a "real" investigation wasn't done. From what we know now, it appears that pretty much everything that could/should have been done, was done.



I think it's more a case of: "Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt".

If this goes to trial and GZ is acquitted, then so be it. 12 people, or 6, will have seen things I didn't see. I think GZ was wrong but that opinion and $5 will get me lunch at Wendy's.

TM was not a choir boy and GZ is not a demon. A perfect storm of circumstances happened that night and a 17 yo young man is dead. I think it's more important to understand what can be deduced from the evidence and forensics.

 

[Mumbles]

Start with Crump. We can't have this, lawyers finding 'victims' and then forming a posse in the media against someone determined to be innocent of charges by authorities and forcing a trial under threat of riots. This is admittedly an extreme example, and as such the media might be more skeptical next time someone comes to them with a load of bollocks and calls it 'evidence,' however even on a smaller scale this is even more destructive to justice than fishing expeditions.

Putting aside that this would invalidate the work of people like Thurgood Marshall, I have to ask, when were there any credible threats of riots? Aside from a few fringe groups, the protestors repeatedly insisted on non-violent protest, only. In fact, that was much of the idea behind the protests, to let people vent peacefully - and the few people that so much as knocked over waste barrels (a few OWS folks at the Million Hoodie Rally in NYC) were denounced by other protestors.