Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[marplots]

So, your position is that when the police arrive and see the body killed by a bullet from the killer's gun, all the killer has to do is say "it was self defense" and that's it, they have to accept it unless they can find proof that it wasn't. You allow that the killer can wait to see what evidence the prosecution can dig up before he has to come up with an explanation for any damaging evidence. This may in fact be what Florida has created in their statutes. I happen to think that there ought to be some burden to disclose the truth of what happened when you have silenced the only voice that might have been able to contradict you.

I think what you've described here is a combination of "innocent until proven guilty" and the right to confront your accusers with a hint of the protection against being forced to testify against yourself. These are foundational in the criminal justice system of the US.

 

[LTC8K6]

I seem to have missed the post where she advertises herself as an attorney. If she's not putting her vocation in the by line, maybe it has nothing to do with what she is posting. As an attorney though, she would probably recognize argumentum ad verecundiam.

What she does have going is she was willing to drop some money for the data releases so she is able to put her spin on it early.

I have you on ignore, but I did see this post.

Jeralyn Merritt is a very well known defense attorney.

I am sarcastically identifying her as such with each link due to posts about her biases as a defense attorney. I don't want anyone to be confused.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeralyn_Merritt

http://www.talkleft.com/special/Jeralyn

 

[Dan O.]

I think what you've described here is a combination of "innocent until proven guilty" and the right to confront your accusers with a hint of the protection against being forced to testify against yourself. These are foundational in the criminal justice system of the US.

For all reasonable persons, it has been proven beyond all doubt that George did kill Trayvon. But George is making a special plea that the killing was justified as self defense. Nobody is torturing George to make him sign a confession. He is being offered the opportunity to state his case. I think this is right but it should not be wide open to allow liars to weave their tale of innocence through the evidence after the state declares everything they were able to discover. It especially should not require the state to prove beyond all doubt that no such tale exists.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

The 'claim' we have is this:
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...secutor-angela-corey-source-police-department

Zimmerman later told investigators he could not find Trayvon, so he turned and was walking back toward his SUV. A short time later, Trayvon approached him from the rear, and the two exchanged words, he told authorities.
Trayvon threw the first punch, he told police. It knocked Zimmerman to the ground, and the teenager then got on top of Zimmerman and began beating his head against a sidewalk, police have said in recounting Zimmerman's version of events.

It will be more relevant once you explain why you think GZ claimed he was attacked from behind.

Are you saying that you don't buy it either? Then I guess we agree on something.

Evasion noted ... again.

If you want to make an argument about GZ being attacked from behind, it would be useful if you could provide a reason for us to believe that was his claim.

I have (again) provided what I think is the actual claim that GZ made.Now, if you continue to evade for another week or two, it won't be a problem, because by then it appears that we will know what GZ actually told the police.

So, your position is that when the police arrive and see the body killed by a bullet from the killer's gun, all the killer has to do is say "it was self defense" and that's it, they have to accept it unless they can find proof that it wasn't. You allow that the killer can wait to see what evidence the prosecution can dig up before he has to come up with an explanation for any damaging evidence. This may in fact be what Florida has created in their statutes. I happen to think that there ought to be some burden to disclose the truth of what happened when you have silenced the only voice that might have been able to contradict you.

Yes, my position ,as you have described it, is generally how the law works. The state will have the burden to prove GZ guilty in a case of self defense. This has been gone over numerous times already.

Sure, George gave interviews to the police for several hours immediately after the incident, but that means nothing if his lawyer is able to suppress it later.

It still means something to our discussion, as we are not bound here by courtroom rules of evidence.

 

[marplots]

For all reasonable persons, it has been proven beyond all doubt that George did kill Trayvon. But George is making a special plea that the killing was justified as self defense. Nobody is torturing George to make him sign a confession. He is being offered the opportunity to state his case. I think this is right but it should not be wide open to allow liars to weave their tale of innocence through the evidence after the state declares everything they were able to discover. It especially should not require the state to prove beyond all doubt that no such tale exists.

They won't have to prove it beyond all doubt, just beyond a reasonable doubt. And a jury will decide the issue. I don't see how you get around that without rewriting the rules in a pretty significant way.

And yes, it is quite possible that under some circumstances a murderer would go free. We simply don't have an omniscient authority to appeal to here. I certainly don't know with enough certainty to jail the guy for life. If it remains ambiguous enough when a jury evaluates it, he might be set free. It is quite possible that the matter will never be resolved to everyone's satisfaction.

 

[Dan O.]

It will be more relevant once you explain why you think GZ claimed he was attacked from behind.

Maybe because that was the story we all heard, as relayed by the Sanford police?

The SPD gave no such story, and you won't be able to provide a link to anything of the sort.

Maybe you have a reading comprehension issue?

In fact, the official statement says Zimmerman got out to follow, then lost sight of Martin and was returning to his vehicle when he was jumped from behind.

WildCat, have you got a link to that "official statement", I think Rare Truth might be able to use it.

 

[crimresearch]

If they were avoiding the federal law, I don't know why charges have not been pressed.

Seems pretty clear that if this is not a PP limitation, then it's an attempt to skirt the law.

Is driving 54 in a 55 zone 'attempting to skirt the law'?

What federal crime has been committed?
Is it somehow illegal to make multiple transfers just under 10K? Did GZ have a business? Were these payments from customers? Or were they simply gifts?

 

[crimresearch]

The straw is strong with this one.

That particular elephant was brought into the room a long time ago.

 

[Rare Truth]

​

WildCat, have you got a link to that "official statement", I think Rare Truth might be able to use it.

I just spent 20 minutes looking for that quote in this massive thread. I knew I'd seen it from none other than Wildcat himself.

Originally Posted by WildCat
In fact, the official statement says Zimmerman got out to follow, then lost sight of Martin and was returning to his vehicle when he was jumped from behind.

You found it. Thanks .

 

[LTC8K6]

Is that official statement from SPD though?

 

[LTC8K6]

Is driving 54 in a 55 zone 'attempting to skirt the law'?

What federal crime has been committed?
Is it somehow illegal to make multiple transfers just under 10K? Did GZ have a business? Were these payments from customers? Or were they simply gifts?

Seems like they are trying to avoid having the bank fill out a CTR on them.

It should at least be suspicious activity to the bank.

From another board:

It is a violation of federal law to move the money in a manner to evade reporting requirements under 31 USC § 5324 - Structuring transactions to evade reporting requirement prohibited and of course it is illegal under Florida law to attempt to hide assets that are required to be reported as part of the bail process (see Florida Laws 903.035 and 903.046).

Looks like you can look at it either way. I would guess Corey would look at it the illegal way.

 

[crimresearch]

Seems like they are trying to avoid having the bank fill out a CTR on them.

It should at least be suspicious activity to the bank.

From another board:



Looks like you can look at it either way. I would guess Corey would look at it the illegal way.

And again, that is like driving 54 in an 'attempt' to prevent the cops from filling out a speeding ticket.


Corey cannot enforce federal law in the state courts. And notice that (as the judge pointed out), she still hasn't charged George with the state crime.

And sorry, I'm not accepting 'from another board' as controlling that *not* committing a crime is itself somehow a crime.

31 US 5324 says that it is a crime to cause a financial insitution to evade reporting requirements... taking out less than 10K doesn't 'cause' them to do that, any more than taking out $10 causes them to do that.

Now repeatedly taking out just less than 10K to buy drugs, or to shelter business income from the IRS is another story, but accepting gifts and transferring that around for expenses before turning the rest over to the attorney?

Not seeing it.

 

[Dan O.]

http://www.fuerstlaw.com/wp/index.p...void-bank-secrecy-act-reporting-requirements/

 

[LTC8K6]

And again, that is like driving 54 in an 'attempt' to prevent the cops from filling out a speeding ticket.


Corey cannot enforce federal law in the state courts. And notice that (as the judge pointed out), she still hasn't charged George with the state crime.

And sorry, I'm not accepting 'from another board' as controlling that *not* committing a crime is itself somehow a crime.

31 US 5324 says that it is a crime to cause a financial insitution to evade reporting requirements... taking out less than 10K doesn't 'cause' them to do that, any more than taking out $10 causes them to do that.

Now repeatedly taking out just less than 10K to buy drugs, or to shelter business income from the IRS is another story, but accepting gifts and transferring that around for expenses before turning the rest over to the attorney?

Not seeing it.

Well, I'm not seeing murder 2 either, but there it is.

It's more like going 59 in a 55 because the law requires a report if you are 5mph over...

 

[bookworm]

"Seen" by a rather forgiving legal system that was very biased towards the rights of the shooters right to self defence over the deceased's right to life.

Forcing entry into someone's home at night is also not acceptable in the UK. Being drunk and banging on a back door is also not acceptable. Dressing as Elvis is fine. The difference is using deadly force first and asking questions later is unacceptable in the UK.

In Martin's case, the two above and my own experience it appears there is a very high level of risk is assumed by the unarmed person, in that not particularly risky behavouir is seen as worthy of a deadly response.

Were there any warning signs at the community, such as 'Warning Armed Citizens on Patrol', 'Warning due to thefts armed response in area' or anything like that?

I do not see how people, particularly unfamiliar with an area are supposed to know the risks and so their actions assume a greater level of risk than they would be reasonably expected to know.

I believe there was a sign posted at the community entrance stating there was a neighborhood watch in effect. Fair Warning.

 

[bookworm]

What if M gave up when Z got his gun out, yet Z still shot him.... and everything else is as we know it so far.

In that case Z would just have to leave out the part about M giving up first.

That doesn't exactly take a genius to think up and follow through with.

Do you really think Z would have pointed a gun at TM while he screamed for what? like a minute? And then just shot him? All while he knew people were about and the police were on their way? And then made up his whole story without knowing who may have seen what after all that screaming. Seriously, think about that. Do you really believe that?

 

[Unabogie]

Do you really think Z would have pointed a gun at TM while he screamed for what? like a minute? And then just shot him? All while he knew people were about and the police were on their way? And then made up his whole story without knowing who may have seen what after all that screaming. Seriously, think about that. Do you really believe that?

Do you really think George would try and deceive the court, knowing full well he was being recorded, by referring to PayPal as "Peter Pan" and calling ten thousand dollars "ten dollars"? Knowing he was recorded? Do you really believe that?

 

[GWCarver]

Well the disgraced (and now retired) police chief said something tantamount to saying he believed Zimmerman. He said there was no reason to doubt his version of the incident. That was certainly a premature conclusion.

Do you have a source for Chief Lee being disgraced and retired? The last I heard, the City Commission voted to reject his resignation and he was still on the payroll:

http://www.metro.us/boston/national...gnation-of-top-cop-in-trayvon-martin-shooting

 

[LTC8K6]

Do you really think George would try and deceive the court, knowing full well he was being recorded, by referring to PayPal as "Peter Pan" and calling ten thousand dollars "ten dollars"? Knowing he was recorded? Do you really believe that?

No. It's not believable.

Most likely he was trying to fool the inmates listening.

 

[johnny karate]

Were those inmates also present in court when Zimmerman's wife lied on the stand and Zimmerman allowed his attorney to present falsified information in a court document?