Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[GWCarver]

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.

We seem to have a failure to communicate. Let me just say that I am on record as having said on several occasions I don't think Corey has done anything illegal. That would include anything in the probable cause affidavit that would actually bring Franks into play.

Jeralyn said Franks applies to all probable cause affidavits, not that they all have anything illegal in them.

 

[johnny karate]

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?

You made the claim. It's up to you to support it.

The specific claim you made was "On top of that, he's been told by pretty much every news outlet that it was Trayvon screaming for help."

Furthermore, you'll need to provide evidence that this coverage "tainted" Witness #6's second interview.

As it stands, Witness #6 stated he can neither identify the screamer nor confirm that Martin was hitting Zimmerman. You clearly wish to dismiss this statement. At the very least, you could supply evidence for the reasons you cite for this dismissal.

 

[crimresearch]

We seem to have a failure to communicate. Let me just say that I am on record as having said on several occasions I don't think Corey has done anything illegal. That would include anything in the probable cause affidavit that would actually bring Franks into play.

Jeralyn said Franks applies to all probable cause affidavits, not that they all have anything illegal in them.

That is semantics. That is like saying that the statutes on homicide 'apply to all people'.

While no one is exempt from their application, if you haven't caused a death, then they don't 'apply' to you.

Franks applies to all prosecutors... except for the ones who haven't done what is described in Franks.

 

[GWCarver]

To quote:


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

Actually, I agree that is his statement, but it was in a request that wasn't approved. Did he mean it? I don't think so, but, I don't know so. If he did, he changed his mind three days later.

What I don't believe is Serino thought his explanation for the arrest warrant actually contained a violation of the law. Really, if that were the case, a cop could tell anyone involved in a car wreck that if he or she wouldn't have left home, this wouldn't have happened, so it is your fault.

 

[Draca]

the fact they met at all after TM took off running when he could have easily escaped had that been his aim is again indicative of who desired the encounter.

Kaosium,

Could you please explain this view to me? How are you so sure that TM started the conflict? Dee Dee's statement has GZ continuing to follow TM. GZ isn't surprised. He asks TM "What are you doing around here?".

What am I missing?

GIRLFRIEND: He said he ain’t gonna run, 'cause he said he's right by his father’s house.

POLICE OFFICER: OK.

GIRLFRIEND: So, and in a couple minutes, he said the man’s following him again, he’s behind him. I said, "Run! You going to run?" He said he’s not going to run. I could know he’s not going to run, because he out of breath. Then, he told me [inaudible] the guy getting close to him. I told him, "Run!" And then I told him, "Keep running!" He not going to run. And then he said—I told him, "Why are you not running?" He said, "I’m not running," because he’s tired, because I know he’s tired.

POLICE OFFICER: I’m sorry, Trayvon said he’s not running because—he’s not going to run, he said, because you could tell he was tired?

GIRLFRIEND: Yeah.

POLICE OFFICER: How could you tell he was tired?

GIRLFRIEND: He was breathing hard.

POLICE OFFICER: OK. Real hard?

GIRLFRIEND: Real hard.

POLICE OFFICER: OK.

GIRLFRIEND: And then he told me this guy was getting close. Like, he told me the guy was getting real close to him. Next thing I hear: "Why are you following me for?"

POLICE OFFICER: OK. So let me make sure I understand this. So, Trayvon tells you that the guy is getting closer to him.

GIRLFRIEND: Yeah.

POLICE OFFICER: And then you hear Trayvon saying something.

GIRLFRIEND: Yeah.

POLICE OFFICER: And what do you hear Trayvon saying?

GIRLFRIEND: "Why are you following me for?"

POLICE OFFICER: "Why are you following me for?"

GIRLFRIEND: Yeah.

POLICE OFFICER: And then what happened?

GIRLFRIEND: I heard this man, like an old man—

POLICE OFFICER: OK.

GIRLFRIEND: —say, "What are you doing around here?"

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/5/18/i_know_he_was_scared_trayvon#transcript

 

[GWCarver]

That is semantics. That is like saying that the statutes on homicide 'apply to all people'.

While no one is exempt from their application, if you haven't caused a death, then they don't 'apply' to you.

Franks applies to all prosecutors... except for the ones who haven't done what is described in Franks.

Oh no, not you too. Jeralyn was answering a question at her site about whether or not Franks just applied to search warrants.

 

[Dancing David]

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.

IANAL, I am barely a computer geek, so I will always stand to be instructed.

Thanks.

 

[Dancing David]

We seem to have a failure to communicate. Let me just say that I am on record as having said on several occasions I don't think Corey has done anything illegal. That would include anything in the probable cause affidavit that would actually bring Franks into play.

Jeralyn said Franks applies to all probable cause affidavits, not that they all have anything illegal in them.

And as I stated, I disagree with their application in this case. IANAL, and as stated I am barely a computer geek.

I am not sure why they would say that the Frank's case law would apply here.

 

[Dancing David]

Oh no, not you too. Jeralyn was answering a question at her site about whether or not Franks just applied to search warrants.

Then I am totally confused about its relevance to the TM/GZ case.

But I am frequently confused, it is part of the aging process and happens frequently.

 

[sgtbaker]

You made the claim. It's up to you to support it.

The specific claim you made was "On top of that, he's been told by pretty much every news outlet that it was Trayvon screaming for help."

Furthermore, you'll need to provide evidence that this coverage "tainted" Witness #6's second interview.

As it stands, Witness #6 stated he can neither identify the screamer nor confirm that Martin was hitting Zimmerman. You clearly wish to dismiss this statement. At the very least, you could supply evidence for the reasons you cite for this dismissal.

Okay, I spoke as if it were fact and I will back off from that. I will reword it.

Based on scientific studies of how outside events, time, and retelling of the story can influence eyewitness testimony, I find the original statements, "the guy on the bottom, who was wearing a red sweater was yelling to me, Help Help..." to be more reliable than testimony, more than three weeks later, after the 911 tapes were released. When the media had been reporting that Trayvon's parents identified the cries for help to be their son.

Can you tell me why the second testimony should be considered more reliable than the first?

 

[crimresearch]

Oh no, not you too. Jeralyn was answering a question at her site about whether or not Franks just applied to search warrants.

Well, somewhere in the last few pages, a post was made apparently in support of the idea that Corey had violated Franks, with a link to a site that described Franks as being about arrest warrants.

I posted the actual USSC case, and made mention of the fact that it involved a search warrant... *not* because I was saying it didn't apply to all warrants, but to point out that the other source was less than accurate.

Maybe people on Jerlayn's website were repeating the 'arrest warrant' meme from that source, I don't know.

The lesson to take away from Franks is that it sets a fairly high hurdle to establish that the prosecutor did something requiring judicial correction.

ETA: And that hurdle hasn't even been approached in this case.

 

[GWCarver]

Then I am totally confused about its relevance to the TM/GZ case.

But I am frequently confused, it is part of the aging process and happens frequently.

While you are here, recall that the only reason I put up a portion of one of Jeralyn's comments was because you said you weren't familiar with her and wanted to know if she provided certs with her answers. All I was doing was responding to that request, and picked the first thing at her site I came across to show you she did indeed cite when it was called for. That is all. The content of that portion of her post, which turned out to be about Franks, was irrelevant. It wasn't posted for its content, just to answer your question about her.

 

[johnny karate]

Actually, I agree that is his statement, but it was in a request that wasn't approved. Did he mean it? I don't think so, but, I don't know so. If he did, he changed his mind three days later.

And yet you said this:

I don't see any way a published statement by the lead investigator can't be considered a fact.

So now that we've determined that Serino's statements aren't automatically facts, and since you used that erroneous conclusion as a basis to indicate the prosecution has no case, and you presented that as a fact of which I was on the "wrong side"...

... we're back to my original question which was: What specific facts am I on the "wrong side" of?

 

[johnny karate]

Okay, I spoke as if it were fact and I will back off from that. I will reword it.

Based on scientific studies of how outside events, time, and retelling of the story can influence eyewitness testimony, I find the original statements, "the guy on the bottom, who was wearing a red sweater was yelling to me, Help Help..." to be more reliable than testimony, more than three weeks later, after the 911 tapes were released. When the media had been reporting that Trayvon's parents identified the cries for help to be their son.

Can you tell me why the second testimony should be considered more reliable than the first?

I think a more pertinent question would be why your interpretation of Witness #6's statements is more reliable than his own. I think he is in a better position to tell us what he saw and heard than you are.

To your point, I'll certainly concede that initial statements are more reliable than those made weeks later. But unfortunately, that has no bearing in this case.

Evidence is evidence. And the evidence that is Witness #6's statements tells us he he cannot identify the screamer or be sure if Martin was hitting Zimmerman. Full stop.

You don't get to excise that from the record because you have arbitrarily deemed it unreliable anymore than I get to pretend Zimmerman didn't break his nose because I find the medical records unreliable.

 

[GWCarver]

And yet you said this:


So now that we've determined that Serino's statements aren't automatically facts, and since you used that erroneous conclusion as a basis to indicate the prosecution has no case, and you presented that as a fact of which I was on the "wrong side"...

... we're back to my original question which was: What specific facts am I on the "wrong side" of?

I don't recall saying Serino's statements are automatically facts. I said his statement made to the newspaper was a fact. The Sanford Chief of Police was with him at the time. Newspaper articles are commonly accepted here as facts unless they are proved subsequently not to not be facts. I believe the Capias falls short of providing that proof because the portion of it in which the crime is supposed to be described is absent any description of a crime, and it preceded the interview quoted in the Sentinel.

And, IMO, you wouldn't want to discount that Serino's statement to the newspaper is the last thing anyone should trust with regard to this case. After that we had Crump, DeeDee, the Governor, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, the NBPP, mobs, the white Hispanic (whose father is white and mother is Hispanic), a massive disinformation campaign by the media, Corey cancelling the Grand Jury, and her presentation of a laughable probable cause affidavit that sounded like it was written by the National Enquirer.

So, yes, I definitely think you are on the wrong side of the facts. I really don't see how anyone can look at this sequence of events and not see a legitimate investigation that was superseded by a politically expedient railroad.

 

[johnny karate]

I don't recall saying Serino's statements are automatically facts. I said his statement made to the newspaper was a fact. The Sanford Chief of Police was with him at the time. Newspaper articles are commonly accepted here as facts unless they are proved subsequently not to not be facts. I believe the Capias falls short of providing that proof because the portion of it in which the crime is supposed to be described is absent any description of a crime, and it preceded the interview quoted in the Sentinel.

I see. So it's only the statements that Serino makes which appear in newspapers that are automatically facts.

Nope, nothing arbitrary about that all.

Just more unassailable reasoning on your part.

So, yes, I definitely think you are on the wrong side of the facts.

And yet you've failed to present any of those facts.

I really don't see how anyone can look at this sequence of events and not see a legitimate investigation that was superseded by a politically expedient railroad.

Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I do it by being someone who demands something more than unsubstantiated allegations and nebulous allusions to North Korea.

 

[GWCarver]

I see. So it's only the statements that Serino makes which appear in newspapers that are automatically facts.

Nope, nothing arbitrary about that all.

Just more unassailable reasoning on your part.

And yet you've failed to present any of those facts.

Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I do it by being someone who demands something more than unsubstantiated allegations and nebulous allusions to North Korea.

If you would like to go on record and say Serino's statement in the Sentinel isn't a fact, why not just do so? While you're at it, why not endorse the probable cause affidavit as presenting factual information? That way you can say you have your own fact to trumpet.

I've put up over 300 posts in here and mentioned North Korea in one of them. But, if you want to talk about it some more, I'm game. Why not do some research and see if they try 12 year olds as adults like Corey is doing in Florida? I would be curious to know the answer to that.

 

[johnny karate]

If you would like to go on record and say Serino's statement in the Sentinel isn't a fact, why not just do so? While you're at it, why not endorse the probable cause affidavit as presenting factual information? That way you can say you have your own fact to trumpet.

If I want my own fact to trumpet, I'll stick with, you know, actual facts.

You asserted "the state can't prove Zimmerman didn't act in self-defense" was a fact. You cited Serino's statement about his own investigation as evidence of that "fact".

This of course ignores the fact that Serino made a contradictory statement in his capias request to what he stated in the Sentinel article, and the fact that the prosecution's investigation was actually conducted separately from Serino's.

So even if we ignore the contradiction in Serino's statements, there's still the inconvenient detail that Serino's opinion of his own investigation has no bearing on the validity of the state's case since they did their own investigation.

And all the while you keep telling me I'm on the wrong side of the facts.

The problem is, I haven't seen you present any facts. Just specious conjecture for which you are apparently very desperate to be a fact.

 

[Moss]

I tried to Google it but apparently the detail I want gets drowned out. Is the abrasion on TM's hand his only injury?
With my layman's knowledge I'd expect more hematoma or swelling on GZ's head. But then again I know from childhood experience that the skin on the head is rather thin and prone to breaking. So I can fit the injuries more with a struggle and less with the cinematic pounding.
That notwithstanding I'm not sure that makes any difference if you fear for your life.
That being said I don't think a conviction for murder is likely and given the situation I don't think it should be. There's too much doubt so to say.

 

[KatieG]

I tried to Google it but apparently the detail I want gets drowned out. Is the abrasion on TM's hand his only injury? With my layman's knowledge I'd expect more hematoma or swelling on GZ's head. But then again I know from childhood experience that the skin on the head is rather thin and prone to breaking. So I can fit the injuries more with a struggle and less with the cinematic pounding.
That notwithstanding I'm not sure that makes any difference if you fear for your life.
That being said I don't think a conviction for murder is likely and given the situation I don't think it should be. There's too much doubt so to say.

That and the bullet wound in his chest.