Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Wow, nearly all of the previous 100 posts are about the Prosecuting Attorney in the case...

Your point being?

 

[Dancing David]

I understand what you are saying here. What I don't understand is why.

ETA:

After giving it some thought, I wonder if you are you trying to criticize Jeralyn Merritt without coming out and saying it. Is that it? I thought about putting up links to her site to source the various points, but the information is scattered around, is extremely hard - if not impossible - to link, and copying and pasting long posts on legal matters is not copyright friendly.

I understand, I made my point, if they reference Florida law and the relevant appeals then it matters otherwise it doesn't. I haven't read JM's stuff. Do they reference Florida law and appeal precedent?

 

[This is The End]

I quote the above only to call attention to all those who are convinced that GZ has a "history of violence", was acting as a "wannabe cop", has a "proven record of anger issues" etc. The post above if from your twin on our side of the aisle, and you're both totally wrong . Enjoy reading it, because you're reading yourself.

Yep, see my last two posts. It's a classic example of confirmation bias, when the same behavior that would outrage people in one circumstance suddenly becomes embraced in a circumstance where it accomplishes what they want.

That would only be true if Z's history and M's history have equal weight in the specific case at hand.

Remember, that is out of four possibilities.

1) Both of their histories could be relevant.
2) Neither of their histories could be relevant.
3) M's could be, but not Z's.
and
4) Z's could be, but not M's.

For instance, let us assume we are discussing a case where M's history is relevant and Z's history is not. In that specific case people bringing up Z's history could not be compared to people bringing up M's history.

I'm not saying that I know which of the four possibilities applies in this case. Do you?

I would also point out that you have done this in this very thread by making light of Z's history. You leave out key info or downplay info when you are making fun of other people having even brought it up.

Making light of Z or M's history is poisoning the waters as well, perhaps just not as bad as MNBrant's grandiose history of M (link) that you frowned upon.

So just as you point out that reading some posts is like reading MNBrant's opposite side twin. I would point out that when I read your post below it is like reading MNBrant's cousin.

...has a history of reckless violent behaviour

Ya, he pushed an undercover cop years ago, and had a legal spat with an ex-girlfriend. If that's not a history of reckless violent behavior, I don't know what is .

What about Z getting fired from the illegal bouncer job for anger problems? Did I miss when that was debunked?

What about all the racist hate Z posted online? Did I also miss when that was debunked?

I'm not saying any of this amounts to a hill of beans as far as the case goes. I'm just pointing out that you missed a few things in your summary.

Instead of "Ya, he pushed an undercover cop years ago, and had a legal spat with an ex-girlfriend. If that's not a history of reckless violent behavior, I don't know what is " you could have said that you are not so sure Z's history applies in this case. But instead you chose to downplay Z's history. Which makes me think that you think that it matters.

Until the actual Judge in this case says which of those four possibilities applies I don't know how we should determine it ourselves.

 

[This is The End]

Your point being?

It is curious that we are attacking and defending the prosecuting attorney, that is all.

 

[GWCarver]

I understand, I made my point, if they reference Florida law and the relevant appeals then it matters otherwise it doesn't. I haven't read JM's stuff. Do they reference Florida law and appeal precedent?

Here is a partial quote from one of her posts:

_____________________________

Of course Franks v. Delaware applies to arrest warrants. It applies to probable cause showings for all warrants under the 4th Amendment. Even in Florida:

See, for example, State v. Swain, 689 So. 2d 343, 344-345 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1997)

Where the defendant makes a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit, and if the allegedly false statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause, the Fourth Amendment requires that a hearing be held at the defendant's request. In the event that at that hearing the allegation of perjury or reckless disregard is established by the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence, and, with the affidavit's [*345] false material set to one side, the affidavit's remaining content is insufficient to establish probable cause, the search warrant must be voided and the fruits of the search excluded to the same extent as if probable cause was lacking on the face of the affidavit.438 U.S. at 155-56.

While the Court was considering a search warrant, our supreme court has applied the same analysis to arrest warrants. Johnson v. State, 660 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 1550 (1996); Harris v. State, 438 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 963, 80 L. Ed. 2d 563, 104 S. Ct. 2181 (1984).

_______________________________

comment #135
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/6/6/63420/28270

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

That would only be true if Z's history and M's history have equal weight in the specific case at hand.

Remember, that is out of four possibilities.

1) Both of their histories could be relevant.
2) Neither of their histories could be relevant.
3) M's could be, but not Z's.
and
4) Z's could be, but not M's....

I don't believe your breakdown is really targeting the primary issue. My argument is that even if 1 is the proper selection, what can we know about these two people based on such a small amount of (historical) information, and how might it give us insight into how they might have acted that night, with neither person having anything in their history that is especially revealing? And the answer is, not much. And that is where some people keep misleading themselves.

No, taking a picture of yourself holding your fingers towards the camera does not tell us much, no matter now much someone wants that to mean that TM was a "gang banger thug". No, the fact that 6 years ago GZ was arrested for pushing someone in a bar does not tell us he "has a history of violent behavior" no matter how much someone wants to believe that.

I'm not objecting to looking at these incidents and thinking that may tell us something relevant, what I object to is looking at them and being so biased that someone actually thinks they know these two people, and can make definitive pronouncements about them, and then conclude how they acted that night based on those pronouncements. That is PURE bull.

Lastly, when you take the small amount of historical information you have here, and add to it that we have NO clue how each of these people perceived the event as it was unfolding, least of all TM since he's dead, it makes it all the more absurd to think we know these two people or how they would have reacted. As an example, just to pick one out of numerous details, we don't even have a clue whether TM thought GZ was reaching for a gun when he reached for his cell phone. That single detail could well override everything else, no?

 

[This is The End]

I think we can both agree that all that really matters is what the Judge thinks will be relevant to the jury. Which we won't find out for a good year from now.

But even that isn't perfect because #1 jury's can show up poisoned no matter how hard you try to pick them and #2 in almost every trial things will get in even though the Judge didn't want it to. Sometimes Judges have to just let some things slide instead of declaring a mistrial.

As far as the thread goes, I'm not sure we can do much more than try and not let the speculation get too much like poisonous propaganda.

-----------
In summary:

I think even the most logical and levelheaded people still have to try very hard to not have partial blinders on. Therefore it must be even harder or impossible for those who aren't quite as logical or as levelheaded.


PS: (I'm glad you didn't blow up at me, I tried very hard to word that post properly and civilly!)

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

PS: (I'm glad you didn't blow up at me, I tried very hard to word that post properly and civilly!)

Uh oh, so you think you know me well enough to think I'm a hot head just from some posts here .

 

[Kaosium]

My apologies, it is getting hard to tell the serious discussions from the static at this point.

The statement of charges, is simply that. 'The acccused did on or about the umpteenth of March knowingly and with malicious intent, proceed to engage in acts of piracy, barratry, and ribaldry, in violation of subsection 12, 4th floor of the Muncipal Uniform Code of Unfair Stuffage (MUCUS)...'

The affadavit of probable cause is simply an assertion of whatever information, observation, etc. gives rise to the notion that a crime has been committed.

Before allowing that to go out over their assistant's signature, it isn't neccessary that a prosecutor have personally played CSI with every item and document.

To meet the threshold for doing that so that things don't get thrown out by a judge later, all they really have to establish that everything seemed to be in order. Mistakes are allowed, up to a point, and that point is set pretty high. And of course, that leaves room for ambitious prosecutors or their office, to play games with people.


So I just don't know what Derschowitz is so wound up about.
Both documents were ordinary enough paperwork. Is he writing articles about the 'inexcusable errors' in the police report listing Martin at one weight, and the autopsy giving another?
I would be equally surprised if he were, because nothing in the system requires preternatural accuracy at those points in the process.

ETA: I'm not defending Corey's America vs. Dershowitz's America, I'm just saying that he really seems to be barking up the wrong tree in this particular instance.

I think Dershowitz's point is that those pictures are not a (relatively) meaningless detail like TM's weight on the police report, it significantly undermines her murder charge and thus cannot be omitted, and that's not the only thing that's questionable or misleading about that APC. Most of the time it may not be all that important in the grand scheme of things, being as if convicted there was no doubt enough evidence of the crime alleged on the APC anyway, and if dismissed or acquitted who's going to go back and make hay over the APC anyway?

Her problem is her 'evidence' in the APC doesn't even really support the murder charge she filed, and she had to rely on some very dubious methods to get there. Eliminating the physical evidence from the fight that was the direct cause of the shooting when filing a murder charge is a pretty big omission! Everyone knows GZ shot TM, that doesn't have to be determined, what has to be weighed is whether it was murder, and the 'struggle' she mentioned had significant evidence of it's nature that she pretended didn't even exist.

You're welcome to think Dershowitz and all who agree with him are nutty, but in the final analysis I think that fraudulent APC will stick out in the relief of hindsight and it will be apparent that had she submitted an honest affidavit the process would have been aborted at that point--like it ought to have been--because she couldn't support her murder charge and had to cheat outrageously on the APC to even get a trial. That's part of the reason that step of due process exists, even if in the vast majority of the cases it's a mere formality.

I don't think anyone would believe she didn't look at the pictorial evidence before submitting the affidavit, (especially after 'determining' the Grand Jury was unnecessary!) and if she tried to advance that 'defense' and scapegoat the officers who signed it for not 'bringing it to her attention' she'd be in worse trouble for trying to. You're welcome to disagree.

 

[johnny karate]

We have been discussing the legality of Corey's prosecution for a while now. You must have skipped that part.

To use your term, I would say that Corey's nefarious activities in this prosecution have been legal. And, I didn't say Corey's actions have been ethical, although I presume they have been, with what passes for ethical conduct in the mentality of today's prosecutors.

It seems clear to me that the ABA rules/guidelines for prosecutors are not enforced or enforceable, I don't know which. If I had to take a guess, I would say that those rules have all been obsoleted by case law and higher court decisions. There has to be a reason they don't appear to apply today.

Great. So we're back to "She's a big meanie and I don't like her!". You go with that. Because it's been a very effective and compelling argument so far.

I do expect O'Mara to submit a motion to challenge the probable cause affidavit at some point for its erroneous content and failure to establish the "depraved mind" of Zimmerman, maybe on the 29th of this month.

Good luck with that expectation. Personally, I'd be curious to know why he waited so long.

 

[johnny karate]

The 'investigation' stage. Wanna play? I think she's going down in the end, we will see though!

Going down for what? Please be specific.

I will say that watching you defend this hardass 'law-and-order' Republican with a history of victimizing minorities and children with bizarre charges and threatening liberal icons and institutions like Alan Dershowitz, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the press, and Harvard University makes for sublime irony.

I'm sorry to inform you the irony is all in your head. You've manufactured a rather ridiculous straw man that doesn't even remotely approach anything I've argued.

I don't have to personally approve of Corey, or "defend" her as you have erroneously accused me of doing, in order to request evidence of her wrongdoing.

If she's actually guilty of illegal or unethical behavior than it should be relatively easy to point out what that behavior is, and explain why no one in a position of power or oversight has done anything to stop.

 

[MinnesotaBrant]

Now that's laughing dog funny. The fact is, the evidence that Martin was some sort of violent gang-banger, is about as strong as the evidence Zimmerman was a murderous racist. Sorry, maybe refereeing one fight, and taking web photos of yourself with some cheap gold fronts? That's not a gangster, that's a kid that likes rap music. Pot use? That's pretty much every part of the US, sorry. And sites like conservative treehouse have been especially bad at these sort of bizarre theories, since they don't seem to have the slightest interest in truth.

People really should stick to the facts of the case, instead of digging through old MySpace or twitter accounts to paint some weird caricature of the people involved.

Who ever said teen gangbangers had any money? I am just saying he had alot of the trappings of those who call themselves gangbangers. I guess the argument against it would be that he wasnt carrying a gun.

 

[Noztradamus]

I was interested if Treyvon Martin was a gangbanger so I googled it. ...

Confirmation bias


(I was interested if HM Queen Elizabeth II was a reptile, so I googled it (6.8 million hits)

 

[Rare Truth]

Confirmation bias


(I was interested if HM Queen Elizabeth II was a reptile, so I googled it (6.8 million hits)

Obama is a shapeshifting space lizard yields nearly two million hits.


It must be true.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Confirmation bias


(I was interested if HM Queen Elizabeth II was a reptile, so I googled it (6.8 million hits)

I don't think that wondering about or Googling something necessarily indicates confirmation bias. Now if when you found a hit that says she was a reptile you immediately said, "aha, I knew it", that might .

 

[crimresearch]

I think Dershowitz's point is that those pictures are not a (relatively) meaningless detail like TM's weight on the police report, it significantly undermines her murder charge and thus cannot be omitted, and that's not the only thing that's questionable or misleading about that APC. Most of the time it may not be all that important in the grand scheme of things, being as if convicted there was no doubt enough evidence of the crime alleged on the APC anyway, and if dismissed or acquitted who's going to go back and make hay over the APC anyway?

Her problem is her 'evidence' in the APC doesn't even really support the murder charge she filed, and she had to rely on some very dubious methods to get there. Eliminating the physical evidence from the fight that was the direct cause of the shooting when filing a murder charge is a pretty big omission! Everyone knows GZ shot TM, that doesn't have to be determined, what has to be weighed is whether it was murder, and the 'struggle' she mentioned had significant evidence of it's nature that she pretended didn't even exist.

You're welcome to think Dershowitz and all who agree with him are nutty, but in the final analysis I think that fraudulent APC will stick out in the relief of hindsight and it will be apparent that had she submitted an honest affidavit the process would have been aborted at that point--like it ought to have been--because she couldn't support her murder charge and had to cheat outrageously on the APC to even get a trial. That's part of the reason that step of due process exists, even if in the vast majority of the cases it's a mere formality.

I don't think anyone would believe she didn't look at the pictorial evidence before submitting the affidavit, (especially after 'determining' the Grand Jury was unnecessary!) and if she tried to advance that 'defense' and scapegoat the officers who signed it for not 'bringing it to her attention' she'd be in worse trouble for trying to. You're welcome to disagree.

I haven't called Derschowitz nutty, I certainly haven't 'joined' any group and I'm not the one who brought up the pictures or lack of them.

Other than that and that fact that there is no requirement that either the APC or the statement of charges contain all the evidence or even all the meaningful evidence, we are almost in agreement.

 

[johnny karate]

I was actually wondering if Zimmerman is a dishonest person who assaults police officers, and a quick Google search reveals that he is.

 

[crimresearch]

Who ever said teen gangbangers had any money? I am just saying he had alot of the trappings of those who call themselves gangbangers. I guess the argument against it would be that he wasnt carrying a gun.

Your link from the earlier post didn't say what you claimed it said.

But since we're playing games, Folk or Kings?

 

[MinnesotaBrant]

I worked on corrections with juvenile offenders for 3 years. Mostly saw wannabies. I didnt know there were still folk but I doubt he would be a latin king. Some claimed they made alot of money before they were incarcerated but the only one who put a number on it said 2k a week. There are jobs where you dont go to jail that make that. I remember one coworker who said that one of the Juvies had about 9 marks on his head so he would be dead on the street but he seemed to do just fine in his life of crime when he got out. Its funny, the term mark seems to be used by the aliens I have met and it means about the same thing. If someone wants to know what an alien mark looks like write me and I will explain.

 

[GWCarver]

I was actually wondering if Zimmerman is a dishonest person who assaults police officers, and a quick Google search reveals that he is.

In boxing, this would be called, "leading with your chin". But, I'll pass...