Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[TheL8Elvis]

I just ran across that in this Miami Herald article. It says, "Zimmerman told police that Trayvon approached him from behind and attacked him."

So it seems someone is lying. If not Zimmerman, then the police or the Herald. We know 100% for sure that Zimmerman is not above deceiving authorities (from the bond hearing), so without any other evidence, I think he's the most likely one who invented the fiction that Martin attacked him from behind in an early version of his story.

I don't consider the hilited portion to be the same as "attacked him from behind". And I am not aware of any quotes of GZ saying he was 'attacked form behind'.

Approached him from behind, then they exchanged words, then TM punched him has always been the gist of the sequence, AFAIK.

 

[WildCat]

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

Facts have emerged since March 23, when news media was giving wildly inaccurate accounts of the story.

 

[WildCat]

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?

Yes, quite the deceiver Zimmerman is, so clever! A master! I can't believe the cops listening to the recorded call got suspicious, I really thought he'd need to discuss a $10 transaction!

 

[WildCat]

Probably because he was dead.

I wonder what General Franco thinks?

 

[Unabogie]

Yes, quite the deceiver Zimmerman is, so clever! A master! I can't believe the cops listening to the recorded call got suspicious, I really thought he'd need to discuss a $10 transaction!

I have no idea what your point is. Are you saying that he wasn't trying to deceive the court with this little code and all the transferring of funds? If so, you obviously haven't read any of the transcripts. But if not, what is your point? That he lies so crudely he can't be lying about something as important as who took the first punch?

Please explain.

 

[Unabogie]

I don't consider the hilited portion to be the same as "attacked him from behind". And I am not aware of any quotes of GZ saying he was 'attacked form behind'.

Approached him from behind, then they exchanged words, then TM punched him has always been the gist of the sequence, AFAIK.

I think you're splitting hairs. The reason why George would want to claim Martin came from behind is to refute the idea the he, George, approached Martin in a threatening way. According to the only ear witness to this, he did. So if George said Martin approached him from behind and DD says it was the other way around, one of them is lying or mistaken.

The difference between "pursued" and "followed" or "approached from behind and attacked" vs "attacked from behind" is tangential to the real question. Did George approach Trayvon and speak to him in a threatening manner, and then lie about this to the cops? Did he leave that part completely out of his narrative? Did he call DD a liar?

 

[WildCat]

I have no idea what your point is. Are you saying that he wasn't trying to deceive the court with this little code and all the transferring of funds? If so, you obviously haven't read any of the transcripts. But if not, what is your point? That he lies so crudely he can't be lying about something as important as who took the first punch?

Please explain.

I'm saying he's a very bad liar, and stupid to boot.

I don't think he's smart enough to come up with a plausible self-defense story that fits all the evidence if he had actually murdered Martin.

 

[A'isha]

I don't think he's smart enough to come up with a plausible self-defense story that fits all the evidence if he had actually murdered Martin.

It's not like he would have had to concoct a complex, internally-consistent story from scratch or anything. All he would have had to do is lie about a few details, omit a few others, and tell the complete truth about the rest.

Such a thing hardly requires a Moriarty-level criminal genius.

 

[Unabogie]

I'm saying he's a very bad liar, and stupid to boot.

I don't think he's smart enough to come up with a plausible self-defense story that fits all the evidence if he had actually murdered Martin.

So you're saying that since there are so many other examples of George stupidly lying that we can compare his stupidity and lying regarding the boy he shot and killed and his other, less smart instances of lying and conclude that he's likely being honest in the one area in which his life hangs in the balance?

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client lies all the time, but he lies badly! And he's stupid! So since this lie would be smart, he didn't do it!"

Good luck with that, Counselor.

 

[This is The End]

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?

How in the world do you get that from my 'what if'!

Please read it again. Seriously, read what you quote me saying, and then read your response.

My what if specifically says "when Z got his gun out". Not for "like a minute"....

Here, I'll try again:

They fight for the 60 to 90 seconds from the end of Z's not911 call to the gunshot.

M is handedly winning the fight.

A few seconds before the shot Z pulls out his gun.

M sees the gun and immediately gives up.

Z shoots him anyway.​

In that scenario all Z would have to do is not tell the M gave up part.

Remember, this is in response to all of the people who say "Z is too stupid to have not told the truth that night" or "Z is too stupid to make up such a tight story".

Leaving out one or two minor (but very important) details takes little to no thought or effort.

No. It's not believable.

Most likely he was trying to fool the inmates listening.

Seriously?? Where in the world did you get that!

(Of course I know where you got it, from the Jerylyn post you linked to hours before.)

He was just trying to fool his fellow inmates with all of the code talk! Oh and the guards too...

 

[This is The End]

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?

This link seems to thinks so:

Anti-money laundering laws prohibit "structuring," which is intentionally making multiple transactions just under the $10,000 limit to avoid federal scrutiny.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/18/us-usa-florida-shooting-idUSBRE85H1TA20120618

AFAIK, even if you aren't laundering money it still counts. IOW, structuring is the latter part of that sentence specifically. It just happens to be under the anti-money laundering laws. It, OTOH, is a "to avoid federal scrutiny" law specifically.

As for why Z would have been aware of the law, he was trained in fraud detection:

I pointed this out last week when O'Mara said Zimmerman acknowledges that he "allowed his financial situation to be misstated in court."

It is just another irony in a case chock full of ironies: the Neighborhod Watch captain wanna-be LEO Zimmerman had been trained to the tune of 10,000 in his most recent meanderings in full time employment world to do WHAT?

To pour over official financial applications to see if people committed fraud by misrepresenting themselves !!

Four years after the crash, most financial institutions still aren’t equipped to find evidence of fraud in the toxic loans crippling their balance sheets. So they outsource the job to Digital Risk. The company’s CEO, Peter Kassabov, calls Digital Risk the “watchdog of the financial world.”
...
At the time of the shooting, Zimmerman worked as an auditor at Digital Risk, and before that, he was a mortgage broker. The company spends about $10,000 to train each new employee in the art of fraud prevention and detection.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/06/csi-housing-bust/8977/

How's that for a kicker?

If the PayPal issue explains it, then it's all a bit of a coincidence.






------------------

I was going to say that WildCat was one of the first people to trumpet the attack from behind issue but DanO beat me to it:

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.

Perhaps Rare Truth has the opposite of a reading comprehension issue. RT just can't get the stuff to not stick!

 

[johnny karate]

I'm saying he's a very bad liar, and stupid to boot.

I don't think he's smart enough to come up with a plausible self-defense story that fits all the evidence if he had actually murdered Martin.

All what evidence? As it stands, there is zero corroborating evidence that Zimmerman acted in self-defense. All we have is the word of a proven liar.

 

[This is The End]

I'm guessing he'd be busy re-evaluating his decision to attack Zimmerman.

Well, at least you didn't say:

I'm guessing he'd be busy re-evaluating his decision to attack Zimmerman first.​

----------

I wonder if when the judge said "potted palm" he knew he'd have a bunch of Internet groupies who thought it was so, so clever to say it, that they'd use it in their posts every chance they got?

You have to admit it was a great line. It was clever and it described the situation perfectly.

"Does your client get to sit there like a potted palm and let you lead me down the primrose path?"

----------------------

I don't think he's smart enough to come up with a plausible self-defense story that fits all the evidence if he had actually murdered Martin.

Not again....

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I think you're splitting hairs. The reason why George would want to claim Martin came from behind is to refute the idea the he, George, approached Martin in a threatening way. According to the only ear witness to this, he did. So if George said Martin approached him from behind and DD says it was the other way around, one of them is lying or mistaken.

Unless TM was hiding by "johns" back porch/fence, and when GZ was walking back to his car, it brought GZ back towards where TM was. From TM perspectives, GZ is now approaching him (again). If Tm steps out in the open to ask GZ "wtf ?" then from GZ perspective, TM is approaching him from the rear. It appears to fit the facts AFAIK.

Or DeeDee is lying, or mistaken.

The difference between "pursued" and "followed" or "approached from behind and attacked" vs "attacked from behind" is tangential to the real question. Did George approach Trayvon and speak to him in a threatening manner, and then lie about this to the cops? Did he leave that part completely out of his narrative? Did he call DD a liar?

When would have the opportunity to call DeeDee a liar, seeing as how she didn't speak up for so long ?

"And then he told me like the guy was getting close..like..and he told me the guy was getting real close to him. The next I hear, “What are you following me for?”

DeeDee doesn't really say GZ came up to TM, does she ? He was close, and then TM spoke to GZ.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

It's not like he would have had to concoct a complex, internally-consistent story from scratch or anything. All he would have had to do is lie about a few details, omit a few others, and tell the complete truth about the rest.

Such a thing hardly requires a Moriarty-level criminal genius.

It does require him to not get caught in his lies by any physical evidence or witnesses. A skill he appears to be completely lacking in as demonstrated by his phone calls, etc. I really don't think getting away with pleading self defense in a murder charge is quite as simple as a few lies.

 

[Cylinder]

"And then he told me like the guy was getting close..like..and he told me the guy was getting real close to him. The next I hear, “What are you following me for?”

DeeDee doesn't really say GZ came up to TM, does she ? He was close, and then TM spoke to GZ.

Exactly. DeeDee corroborates Zimmerman's story and adds her conclusion that Zimmerman pushed Martin because of some sound made by the grass. My belief with the evidence I've seen is that both were kind of checking for the other. Zimmerman on the way back to his truck and Martin kind of lingering for some reason - either to get back to whatever he was doing or curious about who Zimmerman was.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

How in the world do you get that from my 'what if'!

Please read it again. Seriously, read what you quote me saying, and then read your response.

My what if specifically says "when Z got his gun out". Not for "like a minute"....

Here, I'll try again:

They fight for the 60 to 90 seconds from the end of Z's not911 call to the gunshot.

M is handedly winning the fight.

A few seconds before the shot Z pulls out his gun.

M sees the gun and immediately gives up.

Z shoots him anyway.​

In that scenario all Z would have to do is not tell the M gave up part.

Cool story. Who was screaming the entire time and why ?

 

[sgtbaker]

No. It's not believable.

Most likely he was trying to fool the inmates listening.

Am I remembering it wrong, or was she at the bank during that phone call?

 

[This is The End]

Cool story. Who was screaming the entire time and why ?

Did you even read it??

Perhaps you missed this part:

M is handedly winning the fight.

So quite obviously, in this scenario, Z would be screaming like a baby for the majority of the fight.

Z finally gets his gun out. M sees it and gives up. Z shoots him anyway.

Don't forget this is in response to all of the assumptions that Z would have to be a genius to make up a solid story.

In my "what if" scenario all he has to do is say everything that happened exactly as it went down, except for one small but important detail, that M gave up when M saw the gun.

This is to show that there are scenarios where Z would not have to be a genius to make up a solid story and stick to it.

In fact, I'm not even sure why some of you are making that argument.

 

[Cylinder]

Z finally gets his gun out. M sees it and gives up. Z shoots him anyway.

The screams continue up to the very point of the gunshot. There's no pause for the event you postulate.