Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[JoeTheJuggler]

The omitted 'exchanged words', and it could be interpreted as 'attacked him from behind' - but it also could be interpreted as approached him from behind and then attacked him -

That's a pretty huge omission, don't you think? Without it, it very strongly implies attacked him from behind. With it, it complete precludes that meaning.

Indeed, if he turned to face him, then it's not really accurate to say he was approached from behind, is it? One would simply say he approached him.

At any rate, I was answering the question as to why someone thinks Zimmerman said he was attacked from behind. It's a reasonable reading of what that article says. If the Herald left out a hugely significant part of Zimmerman's account, then it's their fault for giving such a misleading description of it.

 

[Cylinder]

That's a pretty huge omission, don't you think?

I think it is safe to say that the day has long past that Zimmerman can be held responsible to initial media reports by any reasonable person.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

That's a pretty huge omission, don't you think? Without it, it very strongly implies attacked him from behind. With it, it complete precludes that meaning.

Indeed, if he turned to face him, then it's not really accurate to say he was approached from behind, is it? One would simply say he approached him.

At any rate, I was answering the question as to why someone thinks Zimmerman said he was attacked from behind. It's a reasonable reading of what that article says. If the Herald left out a hugely significant part of Zimmerman's account, then it's their fault for giving such a misleading description of it.

Dan could simply answer the question himself, he's been participating in this thread for a long time.

However:

She heard him ask Zimmerman why he was pursuing him, then heard a scuffle before the line went dead.

Zimmerman told police that Trayvon approached him from behind and attacked him.

Doesn't that first sentence pretty much rule out any 'attack from behind' if they exchanged words ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Yes, GZ said he could not talk about that night and told FT to just use the story the police used. So What?

That makes me think GZ is innocent, not guilty.

More conspiracy theories.

As if Frank Taffee has anything to do with the events of that night.

 

[Dancing David]

I actually think the calls show that GZ followed the dispatcher's suggestion.

Minor point, no the dispatcher did not. The dispatcher did not say 'follow him and let me know what happens', what the dispatcher said was to inform him if something did happen.

There is going to be no movement on that, you can not add anything to what the dispatcher said.

Minor point done.

 

[Unabogie]

Dan could simply answer the question himself, he's been participating in this thread for a long time.

However:

She heard him ask Zimmerman why he was pursuing him, then heard a scuffle before the line went dead.

Zimmerman told police that Trayvon approached him from behind and attacked him.

Doesn't that first sentence pretty much rule out any 'attack from behind' if they exchanged words ?

Right. Maybe I'm confused on your position here. She says that Trayvon repeatedly tried to evade George, but George kept following him. Trayvon said "he's following me again" and "he's getting closer". That is the opposite of Trayvon approaching George from the front, side, or behind. Her story is clear: George approached Trayvon. Now we don't know if George says they exchanged words. We will very soon. But if his story says he was approached from behind as he was walking back to his truck, that's exactly the opposite of Trayvon telling DD that George was following him and getting closer. Especially if George told a different tale about the first words spoken.

I am genuinely curious why the judge said the case against him was so strong?

 

[LTC8K6]

Minor point, no the dispatcher did not. The dispatcher did not say 'follow him and let me know what happens', what the dispatcher said was to inform him if something did happen.

There is going to be no movement on that, you can not add anything to what the dispatcher said.

Minor point done.

I disagree.

Let me know if he does anything, OK?

Just let me know if this guy does anything else.

Completely different than your claim, imo.

 

[Unabogie]

More conspiracy theories.

As if Frank Taffee has anything to do with the events of that night.

Minor quibble. If George told this person a version of events that contradicts what he told the police, then yes, he could have something to do with the case.

 

[LTC8K6]

911 dispatcher:

Alright, sir, what is your name? [2:34]

Zimmerman:

George. He ran.

That indicates to me that TM is gone from GZ's view.

I think this and GZ's "okay" indicates that while he started to run after TM, he stopped pretty quickly.

 

[Unabogie]

I disagree.

Completely different than your claim, imo.

We've been through this one quite a bit already. I assume we're all American here, so the obvious meaning of "We don't need you to do that, sir" is "don't do that". There is no other way to parse that, especially in "dispatcher speak". That's telling him to back off. I get why people want to parse things in George's favor if you've already chosen his side in this, but you have to be willfully ignorant to read that any other way.

Likewise, after telling him this "just let me know if he does anything else" means hang tight and call us again if you need to. It most certainly does not mean "ignore what I just told you and go keep an eye on the guy".

Especially since it's not in a vacuum and we know how police feel about the issue. They want you to call the police and then back off and let them do their jobs. They don't want your help. They don't need your help.

I'm sure you'll continue to disagree, but that won't help George. The jury won't be as biased, I'm sure.

 

[LTC8K6]

We've been through this one quite a bit already. I assume we're all American here, so the obvious meaning of "We don't need you to do that, sir" is "don't do that". There is no other way to parse that, especially in "dispatcher speak". That's telling him to back off. I get why people want to parse things in George's favor if you've already chosen his side in this, but you have to be willfully ignorant to read that any other way.

Likewise, after telling him this "just let me know if he does anything else" means hang tight and call us again if you need to. It most certainly does not mean "ignore what I just told you and go keep an eye on the guy".

Especially since it's not in a vacuum and we know how police feel about the issue. They want you to call the police and then back off and let them do their jobs. They don't want your help. They don't need your help.

I'm sure you'll continue to disagree, but that won't help George. The jury won't be as biased, I'm sure.

We are talking about reasonable interpretations of evidence, not specifics. It's normal for people to see evidence in different ways.

It's not unreasonable to interpret the evidence the way I interpret it, nor is it unreasonable to interpret it your way.

Of course the jury is biased towards GZ. That's how our system works. Innocent until proven guilty. Beyond a reasonable doubt. Etc.

If you have any reasonable doubt that GZ committed murder 2, you acquit.

 

[Unabogie]

We are talking about reasonable interpretations of evidence, not specifics. It's normal for people to see evidence in different ways.

It's not unreasonable to interpret the evidence the way I interpret it, nor is it unreasonable to interpret it your way.

Of course the jury is biased towards GZ. That's how our system works. Innocent until proven guilty. Beyond a reasonable doubt. Etc.

If you have any reasonable doubt that GZ committed murder 2, you acquit.

I agree with this, of course. But I'm not talking about the general question of guilt. I'm talking about parsing the clear meaning of "we don't need you to do that, sir". No jury would rightly parse that to mean anything other than "get back to your car and let us handle things". That's part of the state's case, and while a jury may think George listened to this advice, no one would fairly say that the advice wasn't what it clearly was. Unfortunately, some folks in this thread have argued just that. That the police weren't even telling George to stay out of if. That they may have even WANTED George to follow Trayvon. If you take that position, you're getting into crazyland.

(not saying you take that position)

 

[Rare Truth]

Right. Maybe I'm confused on your position here. She says that Trayvon repeatedly tried to evade George, but George kept following him. Trayvon said "he's following me again" and "he's getting closer". That is the opposite of Trayvon approaching George from the front, side, or behind. Her story is clear: George approached Trayvon. Now we don't know if George says they exchanged words. We will very soon. But if his story says he was approached from behind as he was walking back to his truck, that's exactly the opposite of Trayvon telling DD that George was following him and getting closer. Especially if George told a different tale about the first words spoken.

I am genuinely curious why the judge said the case against him was so strong?

Well, we have his ole bud Chief Lee telling this version of Z's story:

“If someone asks you, ‘Hey do you live here?’ is it OK for you to jump on them and beat the crap out of somebody? It’s not.” -Resigned, unresigned Police Chief Lee, on the Trayvon Martin incident, March 15, 2012

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/15/2696446_p2_trayvon-martin-case.html

 

[Rare Truth]

More conspiracy theories.

As if Frank Taffee has anything to do with the events of that night.

Good ole Frank the Tank Taaffe is on the prosecution's witness list.

He has something to do with it.

 

[Unabogie]

Well, we have his ole bud Chief Lee telling this version of Z's story:

“If someone asks you, ‘Hey do you live here?’ is it OK for you to jump on them and beat the crap out of somebody? It’s not.” -Resigned, unresigned Police Chief Lee, on the Trayvon Martin incident, March 15, 2012

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/15/2696446_p2_trayvon-martin-case.html

Yeah, I can't wait until they release George's statements. Should put an end to a lot of this stuff. Although when they released the jail house tapes that clearly show Shellie and George discussing their filthy lucre and how best to move it around, it seems like none of George's fans bothered to listen to any of it, since they are still contending that there is some reading of it in which Shellie and George didn't conspire to pull one over on the court.

 

[crimresearch]

however if he is the person who initiated the confrontation, he doesn't get that out (and would have to prove that there was no opportunity to get away without using lethal force)

Thoroughly debunked so many times here, that it is truly stundie worthy to keep blindly repeating it.

Neither the staring, phoning the police, following, or asking 'What are you doing here', counts as 'initiating the confrontation' in the context of the law. Neither do the confused ramblings of an 'earwitness' to 'rustling sounds'.

 

[GWCarver]

Right. Maybe I'm confused on your position here. She says that Trayvon repeatedly tried to evade George, but George kept following him. Trayvon said "he's following me again" and "he's getting closer". That is the opposite of Trayvon approaching George from the front, side, or behind. Her story is clear: George approached Trayvon. Now we don't know if George says they exchanged words. We will very soon. But if his story says he was approached from behind as he was walking back to his truck, that's exactly the opposite of Trayvon telling DD that George was following him and getting closer. Especially if George told a different tale about the first words spoken.

I am genuinely curious why the judge said the case against him was so strong?

The judge very well could have actually believed the probable cause affidavit contained the truth, and Corey had evidence to back up everything said in it.

The judge was played, and when he finds out, he won't be happy.

 

[crimresearch]

I disagree.





Completely different than your claim, imo.

Let me know if he does anything else *in the context* of
'suspicious acting/reaching in his waistband for something'.

The 'something else' cannot be stretched to mean 'does anything ever in the future', it clearly sets a narrow condition of 'in addition to what you just said he was doing'.

 

[crimresearch]

The judge very well could have actually believed the probable cause affidavit contained the truth, and Corey had evidence to back up everything said in it.

The judge was played, and when he finds out, he won't be happy.

Another stundie nominee.

Utterly debunked, by an actual Florida lawyer practicing in that court system, who knows that judge, and knows the standard for affidavits (as well as by the multiple citations given here).

The only 'playing' is by those who expect people to ignore the facts, and fall for their illogical and far fetched assertions

It is well past time that this thread got split off into CT.

 

[bookworm]

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.



...

This is the most believable alternate scenario I've heard so far. I don't see how it could be proven though and Zimmerman is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.

The downside to this argument is that witness(es) said the screams stopped at the time of the gunshot. If your version were true, there would need to be a little more time between the screams stopping and the gunshot.