Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Rare Truth]

How often do you think a neighborhood watch guy does this knowing that the police are already on the way?

Well, if he's a good Neighborhood Watch person, and followed the rules provided by Police, and that he himself even helped to organize and distribute, none.

 

[bookworm]

How many times a day do you follow a person you think is up to no good, believe something is wrong with them and are on drugs, think is a criminal, and is armed?

Not many times a day, not even every day. Only when there is a suspicious person. Which was exactly my point. GZ did nothing to justify a physical attack on his person. IF that is what happened.

BTW, where was it said GZ thought TM was armed?

 

[sgtbaker]

Zimmermans actions to date hardly indicate an innocent.

Runs off and hdies after the intial incident, lies along with his wife at the bond hearing can you not see that blows his credability to shreds.

It was either or he and his wife are just very stupid

Okay, that's a stretch. He didn't run off and hide from the law, he ran off and hid from the death threats. He stayed in contact with the police, the entire time. He willfully turned himself in, both times. It's pointless to argue with you about your opinions of GZ but I will call it when you are twisting what happened to fit your narrative of him.

 

[BenBurch]

Fair enough. I have no problem saying I was wrong.

Which reminds me, I honestly did forget to go back and answer a couple posts from before I was gone a couple days. I was wrong about the witness seeing TM banging Z's head on the ground. He only said he saw TM on top of Z and punching him. I misspoke that day in the heat of the moment.

And tells a different story recently, BTW.

 

[bookworm]

While you're in an honest mood, you should probably go ahead and acknowledge that that witness recanted.

As it stands, there is no evidence Martin banged Zimmerman's head on the ground, or that he was repeatedly punching him.

I'll acknowledge he changed his mind later. I put more stock in any of the witnesses initial statements than what they decide to change them to later.

There is a bloody head and the witnesses INITIAL statement, given right after the incident.

 

[Unabogie]

As I wrote my last post, I realized that for some people DD is a liar. And I think this case will largely hinge upon those first moments when George and Trayvon came face to face. According to DD, Zimmerman followed Trayvon and Trayvon was trying to get away from him. According to George, he was on his way back to the truck when Trayvon came out of nowhere and confronted him and hit him. Told him "you're going to die tonight" and other things that DD didn't hear.

So even if George was getting his butt kicked, if the jury thinks he started the fight and created the whole situation, they'll likely find him guilty. If they believe him and think DD is the liar, then Trayvon got what he deserved.

Given what we now know about the Zimmermans, I find it baffling how anyone would take his word over any other witness in the case. I really doubt a jury will find him trustworthy and I am betting he's done quite a bit of this kind of lying.

 

[bookworm]

I was juuuuuuust about to say thank you, and "good form' - but then I saw you again you stated a half-truth. You neglected to say that witness had clarified his perceptions, that he admits he made an assumption in the few seconds he witnessed it, and that he never saw anyone hitting anyone.

Oh well. A least you tried. It's progress.

I'm tempted to ask why people have no problem with these witnesses LYING after changing their initial stories? After all, they're actually impeding a federal murder investigation.

 

[Dcdrac]

The way it was reported in the UK media was he ran off and hid and who issued those death threats they never meade it over here inot the media here.

The bottom line is for me I see attempts to turn the victim TM into the criminal.

 

[Amazer]

Deleted

 

[Unabogie]

I'm tempted to ask why people have no problem with these witnesses LYING after changing their initial stories? After all, they're actually impeding a federal murder investigation.

Ask away. Witnesses recant all the time, especially when they are trying to recall events they first saw in the heat of a traumatic event. That's different from conscious lying, which is what George and his wife did.

 

[Rare Truth]

Not many times a day, not even every day. Only when there is a suspicious person. Which was exactly my point. GZ did nothing to justify a physical attack on his person. IF that is what happened.

BTW, where was it said GZ thought TM was armed?

Didn't you see his half-assed "apology" on the stand?

 

[johnny karate]

Come on, I would bet something like this is not all that rare.

I look forward to the cites you offer to support this assumption.

I'm not advocating what she did but I do understand why she did it and I do think the prosecution is trying to draw attention from the fact that they don't have the evidence to warrant a murder charge.

That makes absolutely no sense. The charge has been filed. Zimmerman has been arrested and awaits trial. It's done. The prosecution was successful in this phase of the process and is now moving on.

There is no interest or need to convince anyone of anything outside of a court of law. There is no interest or need for a distraction, because there is nothing from which a distraction is needed.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

...
Why do you think someone who so flagrantly broke the law should be given a pass?

Because, by all accounts, it happens all the time, and people are rarely prosecuted ? I don't have statistics, so I have no way of backing it up if it's a very controversial position.

Although, as Ben Burch said:

It *is* so very public that they would be "sending the wrong message" if they allowed it to slide. One of the few times that term is appropriate.

 

[johnny karate]

Because, by all accounts, it happens all the time, and people are rarely prosecuted ? I don't have statistics, so I have no way of backing it up if it's a very controversial position.

Your unsupported assertion aside, do you honestly think Zimmerman's wife should be give a pass? And if so, why?

 

[Rare Truth]

I'm tempted to ask why people have no problem with these witnesses LYING after changing their initial stories? After all, they're actually impeding a federal murder investigation.

Wow.

A witness states with sincerity he can't be sure as he thought about it later, remarked how pitch-black it was, how it was literally a matter of mere seconds he witnessed anything, that he was in fear for his & his fiance's life (who was on crutches), (he thought a rock had been thrown at his condo) and - that (paraphrase) "his logical mind just made the assumption..." -- THAT witness is lying - LYING I say! because the witness reflected on the scenario -- But ...but...but!

The killer's wife who flat out, bald faced, horn-toad swaggled a preposterous conscious deception with a blatant perjury under oath...

eh, can't be sure about that.

I swear sometimes my eyes bleed from the things I read here.

 

[bookworm]

Ask away. Witnesses recant all the time, especially when they are trying to recall events they first saw in the heat of a traumatic event. That's different from conscious lying, which is what George and his wife did.

I think it's very possible some of them ARE consciously lying after being coached by others. Why do you think police try to interview as many people as possible immediately after an event? Because the initial interviews are the most reliable. This is a well-known truth. This is a good example of people twisting things to find support for what they want to believe instead of looking for the truth.

 

[bookworm]

I swear sometimes my eyes bleed from the things I read here.

I can agree with you on that one.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Legally, I agree with you. Deceiving the court about your finances makes you a liar, not a murderer. I also agree that they likely chose to be dishonest out of fear. It may be understandable, they have x amount of dollars for their defense and living expenses and they may have felt like the money was to be used for that, and not bond. The problem with their choices, though, is it is evidence that they are willing to lie, under oath, to keep him out of jail. It opens them up to character attacks, when trying to claim that they would lie about finances, to keep him out of a temporary jail term (the time in between arrest and the trial), but they wouldn't like to keep him out of prison for life. It's not evidence that he is a killer but it is evidence that when freedom is at stake, they will say what they need to say.

The thing it says to me more than anything is that these are amazingly ignorant people. I guess they thought they could hide all of this, carry on conversations in prison about it, make a bunch of transfers each just under $10,000, and that perhaps the most ruthless prosecutor in the US wasn't going to find out about it? This was their brilliant plan?!

 

[TheL8Elvis]

As I wrote my last post, I realized that for some people DD is a liar. And I think this case will largely hinge upon those first moments when George and Trayvon came face to face. According to DD, Zimmerman followed Trayvon and Trayvon was trying to get away from him. According to George, he was on his way back to the truck when Trayvon came out of nowhere and confronted him and hit him. Told him "you're going to die tonight" and other things that DD didn't hear.

So even if George was getting his butt kicked, if the jury thinks he started the fight and created the whole situation, they'll likely find him guilty. If they believe him and think DD is the liar, then Trayvon got what he deserved.

Given what we now know about the Zimmermans, I find it baffling how anyone would take his word over any other witness in the case. I really doubt a jury will find him trustworthy and I am betting he's done quite a bit of this kind of lying.

DD is hardly a neutral third party.
She has changed her story to add an additional damaging statement that she had not originally stated ('get off') During her interview with De la rionda, she basically offered up 'do you want me to say that ?' If she was correctly identified ( and I have no reason to believe she wasn't, the picture of her with TM is the same person, etc) then her story about being too distraught to go to the wake, etc. is completely at odds with her tweets. In short, her credibility appears to be no better than GZ, perhaps worse.

Unless DD is credible, I don't see guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Of course, we haven't heard GZ story yet, or seen all the evidence. But that's where I am at this point.

 

[johnny karate]

That this statement:

This is a good example of people twisting things to find support for what they want to believe instead of looking for the truth.

... followed this one:

I think it's very possible some of them ARE consciously lying after being coached by others. Why do you think police try to interview as many people as possible immediately after an event? Because the initial interviews are the most reliable. This is a well-known truth.

... creates a perfect singularity of irony that threatens to unmake the universe.