Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Natural Born Skeptic]

<looks up to the lurkers>

See what I mean?

Oh you mean you were serious and wanted a serious answer back? No, I don't think that GZ having a job as a bouncer will be found to be relevant nor do I think that it means one:

must be able to apply good fighting skills and effective counter techniques to get oneself out of the kind of binding situations that occur with volatile combatants quickly

I just assumed you were joking since that's so utterly absurd and laughable. I've got a friend who was hired for 12 bucks an hour years ago for a similar job that couldn't run half a block without being out of breath and who's defensive skills consisted of looking big. I'm about to share this with him, I'm sure we'll have a good laugh over it.

Oh, and than there's the tiny detail that GZ clearly had his ass handed to him, so I guess all that deadly training he had didn't end up helping him. Oh well.

 

[Noztradamus]

. ~ In fact, I hear bouncers that worked at that bar are so deadly that can kill their victims with a single finger, .~

They can when it's on a hand holding a Kel-Tek PF-9

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

They can when it's on a hand holding a Kel-Tek PF-9

Touche .

 

[Rare Truth]

Oh you mean you were serious and wanted a serious answer back? No, I don't think that GZ having a job as a bouncer will be found to be relevant nor do I think that it means one:
I just assumed you were joking since that's so utterly absurd and laughable. I've got a friend who was hired for 12 bucks an hour years ago for a similar job that couldn't run half a block without being out of breath and who's defensive skills consisted of looking big. I'm about to share this with him, I'm sure we'll have a good laugh over it.

Oh, and than there's the tiny detail that GZ clearly had his ass handed to him, so I guess all that deadly training he had didn't end up helping him. Oh well.

Well... let's just start with the title: BOUNCER.

Every bouncer I ever knew was a damn good fighter. It'd be pretty stupid to hire someone who wasn't.

Removing any size or shape volatile and/or drunk people from the premises is sort of a requirement. You don't hire Zippy the pimply fry guy

For the record, decades ago, I was a DJ for the largest nightclub in my state. I knew plenty of bouncers. I saw pretty clearly what their job entails, and why they were hired.

 

[Dancing David]

What's relevant is 'probable cause' not whether it's a search or arrest warrant. The definition and importance of probable cause doesn't change in either instance, it's derived from the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. That's how Franks would apply, most easily understood from:

Um, no they had probable cause, and Franks does not apply, unless:
they can show here has it been applied specifically in the execution of a prosecutor making a charge, such as in this case.

SCOTUS rulings and appeals ruling have specific applications, it may be that Frank applies here, but where is the precedent?

The fourth amendment does matter, but they have yet to show anything that would apply to Corey in this specific. What Corey did is common practice in Florida and there would be many successful appeals based upon Frank, where are they? Or do you think this will be the first, it may well be.

But seriously, a judge is going to try to avoid appeals if at all possible, so why would they not have done so?

 

[johnny karate]

That statement was a summary of his findings as lead investigator of the Trayvon Martin homicide, and presented as such. The Capias he submitted actually supports his published conclusion in the Sentinel, in that there is no description of a crime being committed. One has to assume he knew it wouldn't be approved when he wrote it. I am still kind of baffled about this, although I have worked for several very large corporations as well the military, so I'm aware it is not unusual at all for a request to come down to do something that makes no sense, or for it to even be routine. Oh, the stories I could tell...

So everything Serino has stated about this case isn't an indisputable fact.

He has made statements that are incorrect.

But you choose to ignore those, and instead cherry-pick his statements that happen to coincide with your predetermined conclusions.

And then you arbitrarily proclaim those statements to be facts.

All in all, that is some pretty airtight reasoning. Well done.

 

[Dancing David]

What kind of game are you playing here? You said you weren't familiar with Jeralyn and asked me if she supported her opinions with case law and court decisions, so I took the trouble to link to a portion of one of her posts that does exactly that. I didn't put it up to prove a point, it was just a portion of the first example of the kind of information you were looking for I came across, not her entire post on the matter, which I clearly stated at the top of the post.

Here is the first sentence of that partial post:

"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:"

And the last:

"While the Court was considering a search warrant, our supreme court has applied the same analysis to arrest warrants."

So, as long as we're here, we might as well learn something. Can you please provide a citation to show Franks doesn't apply to this case?

Excuse me, take your game playing and apply it to yourself. the burden would be on Jeralyn to show how this applies in this case.

I know you and others are spraying piss all over, I am assuming that you are rational and will engage in rational discussion. I made my statements. Just because I do not agree does not mean I am laying a game. usually in law briefs it is the burden of the person making the statement that the aces law applies to show rulings as precedent.

So far the statement of Jeralyn is a broad statement made upon her interpretation of how Franks might be applied in this case, well, if they show that Franks has been applied in similar cases, especially regards the standards in Florida, then that would be meaningful.

But in general a link should be made to show how and when it applies, in specific cases in similar courts involving similar procedures.

I will continue to assume you will not engage in pissing in my direction, just because I disagree with Jeralyn, they are free to make broad statements about an interpretation of law. however that is generally not the way case law works. If she shows all the links to similar cases where similar standards have been overturned in Florida due to Frank's then I would have more faith in their interpretation.

It may be that this will be a case that gets overturned in court or at appeal due to Frank's but I do not see much to base that upon at this time. Since here citations are general and not specific to Florida or precedents similar to this case.

I certainly was not intending to be rude or degrade you in my response.

 

[Rare Truth]

There you go again...you complain about the direction of the thread, and ridicule those you don't agree with, and someone puts out a perfectly valid perplexing discrepancy, and you spew out that garbage.

Do you really think smart ass comments like that advance the conversation?

Would you agree the position of the body is one element to helping to determine the validity of Z's story?

Would you say "John's" statement on body position was inaccurate? He seems to be of sure of that as he was the color of the jacket that was on the bottom.

Would you agree or disagree there is a solid discrepancy to be found there?

NBS: You made a number of posts since I asked you these questions.

Why would you ignore these perfectly legitimate questions to instead engage in further snark that you can bemoan about others doing later?

 

[Dancing David]

The fact that the state can't prove Zimmerman didn't act in self-defense.

I believe that this will be an important part of the trial , as would be appropriate in our system of justice.

It may be very unfair to GZ that this is so, it may not be. Either way that is why there will be a trial.

 

[GWCarver]

How can you say that when a good portion of Serino's capias looks like this?

[qimg]http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y221/who007/serinocapias.jpg[/qimg]

It simply doesn't look like anything is missing. The charge was manslaughter of a child, and it says if Zimmerman wouldn't have got out of his truck, it wouldn't have happened. In any case his statement three days later says to me the redacted part of the Capias doesn't contain any further accusations. It also tells me he knew the Capias was going nowhere, and probably never dreamed it would be made public.

The Capias was dated March 13th. Here is a quote from the Sentinel:

"The best evidence we have is the testimony of George Zimmerman, and he says the decedent was the primary aggressor in the whole event," Serino told the Sentinel March 16. "Everything I have is adding up to what he says."

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com..._chief-bill-lee-federal-review-federal-agency

 

[crimresearch]

Oh you mean you were serious and wanted a serious answer back? No, I don't think that GZ having a job as a bouncer will be found to be relevant nor do I think that it means one:
I just assumed you were joking since that's so utterly absurd and laughable. I've got a friend who was hired for 12 bucks an hour years ago for a similar job that couldn't run half a block without being out of breath and who's defensive skills consisted of looking big. I'm about to share this with him, I'm sure we'll have a good laugh over it.

Oh, and than there's the tiny detail that GZ clearly had his ass handed to him, so I guess all that deadly training he had didn't end up helping him. Oh well.

But you don't understand!!! Trayvon used 'The Mount', an undefeatable technique from the 52 Blocks that he learned in the joint!

Since Zimmerman didn't have his CoI with him, he was doomed unless he resorted to mundane weaponry.

 

[crimresearch]

Um, no they had probable cause, and Franks does not apply, unless:
they can show here has it been applied specifically in the execution of a prosecutor making a charge, such as in this case.

SCOTUS rulings and appeals ruling have specific applications, it may be that Frank applies here, but where is the precedent?

The fourth amendment does matter, but they have yet to show anything that would apply to Corey in this specific. What Corey did is common practice in Florida and there would be many successful appeals based upon Frank, where are they? Or do you think this will be the first, it may well be.

But seriously, a judge is going to try to avoid appeals if at all possible, so why would they not have done so?

Franks applies here to the extent that it sets forth specific requirements for proof of prosecutorial misbehavior... none of which are even close to being met in this case.

'Probable cause' (a term which predates the 4th amendment's use of it) applies here because it sets such a low threshold for evidence, which has been clearly exceeded in this case.

And Google applies here because that is where the posters misstating those other things, didn't bother to thoroughly read the parts that contradict them.

 

[Cylinder]

Franks applies here to the extent that it sets forth specific requirements for proof of prosecutorial misbehavior... none of which are even close to being met in this case.

You really beleive that the SAO had no obligation to include the results of the other two voice IDs in the APC - both of which conflicted with the one that was asserted?

 

[theprestige]

<looks up to the lurkers>

See what I mean?

Hi. I'm a lurker on this thread, and I'm here to say that I do not see what you mean. In fact, every meaning I have discerned from you appears to be a wrong meaning, and I will go so far as to repudiate any and every point you have attempted to make so far in this thread.

I doubt you will find even a single lurker who sides with you in this thread.

 

[crimresearch]

You really beleive that the SAO had no obligation to include the results of the other two voice IDs in the APC - both of which conflicted with the one that was asserted?

There is nothing to 'believe'. 'Any' means 'any'... not 'all', not 'perfect', not 'proof', not 'final conclusion'.

Any information, observation, knowledge, or set of circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been committed.

For the purposes of the APC, there should also be a rational link to the accused.

That's it. Nowhere in the law is there a requirement to include *all* conflicting accounts, speculation, gossip, or bullhocky, as is being claimed here.

In order to apply Franks, you have to meet the Franks burden of proof that the prosecutor deliberately used false and harmful information in their APC with either malicious intent, or reckless disregard. Cooking up alternate possibilities doesn't trigger Franks.

When someone comes up with proof that Zimmerman was actually a thousand miles away at the time the shooting happened, and the prosecutor left that out, we can talk Franks.

 

[sgtbaker]

You didn't listen to the Witness6 interview, did you?

Yes, I did. It is an interview that took place more than three weeks later, which has been tainted by media coverage. His memory is not as clear as it was, the night it happened and the next day. Now he can't remember the positioning of the body, nor can he remember what color shirt GZ was wearing. On top of that, he's been told by pretty much every news outlet that it was Trayvon screaming for help. It is not surprising that he changed his account. My point still stands; his first account is the most reliable. I said the same thing about every other witness.

Numerous studies have shown that memory changes over time. The most notable effects include:
Eyewitnesses incorporate information learned after the event into memory. For example, they may talk to another witness and use information from the conversation to fill in their reconstruction of the events. They may do this by combining two memories into one or by using bias or expectations of what probably was seen.
As people recall an event over and over, they drop details from earlier versions and add new details to later versions. All things being equal, accuracy declines with each new version, at least until an asymptote is reached. In some cases, however, an eyewitness accuracy is lower when questioned immediately after a traumatic event.

http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/eyewitnessmemory.html

I left the last part in because I wouldn't want to be accused intentionally withholding inconvenient facts but I sincerely don't believe that the last line applies since there was nothing about his testimony, the first time around that would give me the sense that John was traumatized. I guess that's open to debate, though.

 

[johnny karate]

Yes, I did. It is an interview that took place more than three weeks later, which has been tainted by media coverage. His memory is not as clear as it was, the night it happened and the next day. Now he can't remember the positioning of the body, nor can he remember what color shirt GZ was wearing. On top of that, he's been told by pretty much every news outlet that it was Trayvon screaming for help. It is not surprising that he changed his account. My point still stands; his first account is the most reliable. I said the same thing about every other witness.

What media coverage are you referring to?

The shooting took place on February 26th.

FDLE re-interviewed witnesses March 20th and 21st.

The story about the audio experts claiming it was Martin screaming broke on March 31st.

Furthermore, what evidence do you have Witness #6's second interview was somehow "tainted"?

 

[GWCarver]

So appeal to authority it is then.

Is everything Serino has to say about this case to be taken as indisputable fact? Or just the statements you happen to agree with?

What else has Serino said about the case. I really don't know.

 

[sgtbaker]

What media coverage are you referring to?

The shooting took place on February 26th.

FDLE re-interviewed witnesses March 20th and 21st.

The story about the audio experts claiming it was Martin screaming broke on March 31st.

Furthermore, what evidence do you have Witness #6's second interview was somehow "tainted"?

Right because there was zero discussion about who was screaming between the dates of 2/26 and 3/20. As a matter of fact, there was no media coverage at all. You do understand that while it took time to reach the national level, we had continuous coverage of it, down here. You didn't start your morning off, without hearing about the investigation into the vigilante shooting. The 911 tapes were released a few days before his deposition and there was nonstop coverage about that. You honestly don't think it's possible that such coverage can have an affect on how a person remembers something, three weeks after the fact?

 

[johnny karate]

What else has Serino said about the case. I really don't know.

To quote:

Based upon the facts and circumstances outlined in this narrative, I believe there exists probable cause for issuance of a capias charging George Michael Zimmerman with Manslaughter...

I'm going to go out on a limb and say you disagree with that statement.