Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Skeptic Ginger]

How did the laceration(s) on the back of GZ's head become only abrasions?

The abrasions are on his forehead.

Both according to the EMT report.

I would call them abrasions. A lac is typically a linear cut and an abrasion is more of a scrape. Both can be severe or minor. I don't see anything resembling a cut or an abrasion on the forehead so it if takes a closeup to see it must be pretty small.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

...Note that I said this was a legal railroad...

Speaking of which, if we're going to talk about pathological personalities, it seems to me that the biggest one in this case is Corey. The woman has to be pretty delusional and used to being able to misuse her power to call up the president of Harvard University and think she is going to be able to intimidate him into silencing Alan Dershowitz. There are two sides to every story, but based upon her disregard for the truth do far, I believe Dershowitz's side.

 

[Giordano]

One would think TM would mention a gun if he saw one. He's on the phone, so he can speak immediately.

I'm sorry- aren't there posts on this thread arguing that TM grabbed for Zimmerman's gun, which escalated the violence and justified Zimmerman's actions in self-defense? I'm just curious if that scenario were true, could it, under self-defense law, justify TM attacking Zimmerman if he thought Zimmerman was a creep out to hurt or rob him. Of course the major problem with finding out what TM was thinking is...he's dead.

So I am not proposing this is what happened in the absence of specific facts (I'll leave that to other posters on this thread). I'm only curious- if a strange guy comes up to me as I am walking to a friend's house, asks me what I am doing here and pulls a gun, am I not allowed to battle the guy for the gun? What sort of identification would he have to provide to prevent me from arguing self-defense?

 

[LTC8K6]

I'm sorry- aren't there posts on this thread arguing that TM grabbed for Zimmerman's gun, which escalated the violence and justified Zimmerman's actions in self-defense? I'm just curious if that scenario were true, could it, under self-defense law, justify TM attacking Zimmerman if he thought Zimmerman was a creep out to hurt or rob him. Of course the major problem with finding out what TM was thinking is...he's dead.

So I am not proposing this is what happened in the absence of specific facts (I'll leave that to other posters on this thread). I'm only curious- if a strange guy comes up to me as I am walking to a friend's house, asks me what I am doing here and pulls a gun, am I not allowed to battle the guy for the gun? What sort of identification would he have to provide to prevent me from arguing self-defense?

IIRC, GZ's story is that TM grabbed for the gun near the end of the struggle, while both were on the ground. TM only saw the gun because of the struggle on the ground.

I don't think there has yet been any indication that GZ ever pulled the gun prior to pulling it to fire it upwards at TM while laying on the ground.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

...if a strange guy comes up to me as I am walking to a friend's house, asks me what I am doing here and pulls a gun, am I not allowed to battle the guy for the gun?

Yes, if a stranger just pulled a gun on you for no reason you'd be justified in defending yourself. Do you have any evidence that's what happened? Or are we just making up stories and then asking if someone could defend themselves in such an instance?

 

[LTC8K6]

http://timenewsfeed.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/rtr328bf.jpg

Big fairly high res image of the back of GZ's head.

And more. He has lots of abrasions, bruises, and scrapes, imo. In addition to the two lacerations on the back of his coconut.

http://www.cfnews13.com/content/dam/news/images/2012/05/zimmerman-top-head-0517.JPG

http://www.cfnews13.com/content/dam/news/images/2012/05/zimmerman-nose-closeup-0517.JPG

http://www.cfnews13.com/content/dam/news/images/2012/05/zimmerman-chin-scrape.JPG

http://www.cfnews13.com/content/dam/news/images/2012/05/GEORGE-ZIMMERMAN-FACE-CLOSEUP-0517.jpg

 

[Giordano]

Yes, if a stranger just pulled a gun on you for no reason you'd be justified in defending yourself. Do you have any evidence that's what happened? Or are we just making up stories and then asking if someone could defend themselves in such an instance?

I quote myself in that very post, "So I am not proposing this is what happened in the absence of specific facts... I'm only curious- if a strange guy comes up to me as I am walking to a friend's house, asks me what I am doing here and pulls a gun, am I not allowed to battle the guy for the gun? What sort of identification would he have to provide to prevent me from arguing self-defense?"

I certainly would not wish to lower the tone of this thread by making up stuff completely from my imagination!

 

[Giordano]

IIRC, GZ's story is that TM grabbed for the gun near the end of the struggle, while both were on the ground. TM only saw the gun because of the struggle on the ground.

I don't think there has yet been any indication that GZ ever pulled the gun prior to pulling it to fire it upwards at TM while laying on the ground.

Thanks: that does help. Can I assume that TM grabbing for it at that point no longer would be considered self-defense?

In the interest of clarity, this is not meant as a trick question- I honestly am trying to understand the law. I am not as sympathetic of GZ at this point as some are on this thread, and I think the law needs to investigate in detail any death of an individual at the hands of another, but I have not formed any final opinion. I think at this point we do not know exactly what happened that night, but I hope we will learn more as the trial proceedings move along.

 

[crimresearch]

I had requested a clarification of the stand your ground law, and self-defense, and I appreciate the replies I received.

One more question, still hypothetical because we do not know many specifics of the events on that night: If Martin encountered Zimmerman following him, and Zimmerman began to pull out his gun, did Martin have a right to try to grab the gun, punch Zimmerman, and wrestle with him on the ground in self-defense to try to take the gun away? Remember, one proposed scenario is that Martin only saw Zimmerman as a weird, possibly threatening guy who was following him. Did Zimmerman's status as a private patrol officer give him any extra rights in that encounter, and would he have to have identified himself verbally to Martin to overcome Martin's own right of self defense?

There is zero evidence that Zimmerman had any status as an officer of any kind, either private or public.
His being a volunteer with the Neighborhood Watch confers no elevated status of any kind.

The media's choice to keep repeating the word 'Captain' as though it were an awarded rank seems overblown. The NW has no ranks, and the position of 'block captain' is a record keeping point of contact, not a leadership position.

So taking away any official status, and specifying private citizen to private citizen, the law doesn't spell out every possible twist and turn that could conceivably occur, it uses parameters like 'reasonableness', and tests developed over years of cases and rulings.

So the general answer to your questions about pre-emptive force is 'It depends'. In one set of circumstances, 'And then I saw the gun' might be deemed reasonable. In another set of circumstances, it might not.

And that is without factoring in self serving accounts by the actors, witness unreliability, prosecutorial misconduct, inadequate representation, jury bias, jury nullification, and so on.

 

[Giordano]

There is zero evidence that Zimmerman had any status as an officer of any kind, either private or public.
His being a volunteer with the Neighborhood Watch confers no elevated status of any kind.

The media's choice to keep repeating the word 'Captain' as though it were an awarded rank seems overblown. The NW has no ranks, and the position of 'block captain' is a record keeping point of contact, not a leadership position.

So taking away any official status, and specifying private citizen to private citizen, the law doesn't spell out every possible twist and turn that could conceivably occur, it uses parameters like 'reasonableness', and tests developed over years of cases and rulings.

So the general answer to your questions about pre-emptive force is 'It depends'. In once set of circumstances, 'And then I saw the gun' might be deemed reasonable. In another set of circumstances, it might not.

And that is without factoring in self serving accounts by the actors, witness unreliability, prosecutorial misconduct, inadequate representation, jury bias, jury nullification, and so on.

Thank you very much! That helps my understanding enormously.

 

[GWCarver]

So you want people to comb through your previous posts for evidence of your claims? I call shenanigans.

You said there are "problems with due process".

I would like to know the specifics of those "problems".

Well, I dropped a hint to Unabogie (search for the first instance of "legal railroad" if you are actually interested) which is my entry point to this topic.

Also, you aren't going to acknowledge it anyway, IMO, because you would have to concede Zimmerman is getting a raw deal, and that is something you don't want to do because it would tend to weaken your position.

 

[GWCarver]

Speaking of which, if we're going to talk about pathological personalities, it seems to me that the biggest one in this case is Corey. The woman has to be pretty delusional and used to being able to misuse her power to call up the president of Harvard University and think she is going to be able to intimidate him into silencing Alan Dershowitz. There are two sides to every story, but based upon her disregard for the truth do far, I believe Dershowitz's side.

I do agree Corey has little interest in the truth, but it isn't really required for her job. My understanding is she just has to avoid wandering off into the ozone when putting together a probable cause affidavit in order to avoid a malicious prosecution civil suit. Because she doesn't have to include exculpatory information, it doesn't matter if the judge gets it "moments" before the hearing or not. It doesn't even matter if he or she reads it. It contains only one side of the story.

Because the overwhelming majority of cases involve a guilty plea or a conviction, there isn't much risk involved for her anyway. There is a Supreme Court ruling that says even if there are lies in the affidavit, the Indictment/Information isn't necessarily voided unless it is a whopper of the first magnitude.

These are my general impressions, but I can dig up the actual sources and dot the i's and cross the t's if this moves into an actual discussion. Thus far, the TM side has shown no interest in discussing what I've put up so far.

 

[johnny karate]

Well, I dropped a hint to Unabogie (search for the first instance of "legal railroad" if you are actually interested) which is my entry point to this topic.

I'm not sure why you're insist on turning this into a scavenger hunt instead of just actually supporting your claims.

But since you refuse to support your claim that somehow due process is being subverted, I'll assume you can't support it and just made it up.

Also, you aren't going to acknowledge it anyway, IMO, because you would have to concede Zimmerman is getting a raw deal, and that is something you don't want to do because it would tend to weaken your position.

No, the reason I wouldn't concede that Zimmerman is getting a raw deal is because I don't think he is.

As myself and Unabogie have both pointed out several times, the wheels of justice are turning exactly as they should.

Zimmerman is being afforded every right due a person accused of a crime, and will have his day in court to plead his case.

Your vague allegations to the contrary don't change that.

 

[Cylinder]

Thanks: that does help. Can I assume that TM grabbing for it at that point no longer would be considered self-defense?

Many people get tripped up on this point. The only meaningful way to evaluate a claim of justification is from the perspective of the actor. It does not matter what Martin may have claimed - he's not subject to charges at this point. As crimresearch pointed out, the only answer is it depends. It's fairly easy to concoct a scenario where both actors had a justification claim. Situations where neither actor has a justification claim plays itself out in court every day.

 

[Cylinder]

Big fairly high res image of the back of GZ's head.

Thanks. Are there any views of the right side of Zimmerman's head - that's where most of the side damage shows. I couldn't find the start page for those images and (of course) no directory browsing on that server.

Of course, if the injuries belie The Narrative, they simply don't exist.

 

[Dancing David]

I see. The point of my post is Corey can put anyone in jail she feels like, for whatever charge she feels like, and there is nothing to stop her. No one should feel comfortable with that. The people in North Korea have to live with that kind of justice system, but I'll bet they don't like it. No one knows their opinion, though, because the government has so much power they are afraid to talk. Note that Dershowitz spoke out against Corey, and what did she do? According to Dershowitz, she tried to silence him with every threat available to her, quietly, by going through his employer.

The fact that you endorse what Corey is doing is puzzling, to say the least.

This seems to be an odd statement. I suppose it is a result of the contest with JK, I would think there are checks and balances on Corey, you disagree with the charges which is fair, do you think that there is no process to balance this?

It seems that the judge has considerable latitude, if GZ's team wants they can ask for a review under the SYG statute, can they not?

 

[Cylinder]

This seems to be an odd statement. I suppose it is a result of the contest with JK, I would think there are checks and balances on Corey, you disagree with the charges which is fair, do you think that there is no process to balance this?

It seems that the judge has considerable latitude, if GZ's team wants they can ask for a review under the SYG statute, can they not?

Norks aside. there is a good argument that the affidavit for probable cause (as far as it was used as a foundation for arrest) was executed illegally. Whether or not that is the responsibility of Angela Corey is another matter, I think, since she wasn't the affiant. Since she very publicly took responsibility for the investigation and decision to charge, it is reasonable to very publicly criticize her for the outcome. Imagine it - a prosecutor, under the badge of office, trying to threaten a person's employer unless they silence the employee. There's no way to defend it - even if Dershowitz is wrong.

The state has an affirmative obligation to include exculpatory evidence that it knows or a reasonable person would beleive to be true. They do not have to include every excuse that could be contemplated by a suspect or even evidence that is in dispute, but they cannot omit the facts that would allow a neutral finder of fact (i.e. the magistrate) to weigh the matter. The SAO had an affirmative obligation to describe the injuries to Zimmerman and Martin and the claim of self defense. To misrepresent these facts circumvents the magistrate's duty as a check on the state's power.

The claim that the APC was insuffecient as an information for charges is less clear but again at least a reasonable argument can be made that the document does not establish within its four corners the elements of the crime charged.

 

[LTC8K6]

Thanks. Are there any views of the right side of Zimmerman's head - that's where most of the side damage shows. I couldn't find the start page for those images and (of course) no directory browsing on that server.

Of course, if the injuries belie The Narrative, they simply don't exist.

I couldn't find an image of the right side either.

 

[Cylinder]

I couldn't find an image of the right side either.

Yea, that's cool. The reduced images show enough detail to draw conclusions. I'm uncertain about B (below) being an injury as opposed to a coagulated blood trail.

You can't really see any broken skin.

 

[Rare Truth]

...

It seems that the judge has considerable latitude, if GZ's team wants they can ask for a review under the SYG statute, can they not?

Yeah. That's not going to happen. You can take it to the bank.

There will be no SYG immunity hearing.