Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[johnny karate]

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.

I kind of doubt that. It would suggest the judge doesn't know the law, and know that Corey's affadavit was perfectly legal and even standard.

If anything, the judge will continue to be unhappy with Zimmerman since he's the one who actually tried to play him.

 

[GWCarver]

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 thier illogical and far fetched assertions

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

I don't really know what you are talking about, other than you don't seem to think the probable cause affidavit is germane to the conversation and its contents are irrelevant. I think it is more relevant to whether or not Zimmerman is guilty of murder II than the endless discussion of Shellie's "lies". Here is what Mark NeJame said yesterday:

"That said, the affidavit Corey filed in the Zimmerman case is about as minimal as I've seen in more than 30 years of practice as a criminal defense attorney."

Do you have a theory as to why the judge thought the evidence was "strong", or do you just want me to shutup?

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/19/opinion/nejame-angela-corey/index.html

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Right. Maybe I'm confused on your position here. She says that Trayvon repeatedly tried to evade George, but George kept following him.

That is quite an over-simplification.

He ran (when GZ was in the car) and lost him. He didn't go home for ~ a few minutes. Then

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.

I disagree. That's GZ walking back to his truck, towards TM. We already went over this.

"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. "​

Her story is clear: George approached Trayvon.

"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?”

That is not the same as "George approached Trayvon". That is the same GZ walked in the general direction that was bringing him closer to TM (and his truck).

Now we don't know if George says they exchanged words. We will very soon.

According to all accounts, they did. As you say, we'll see his words soon, and I think they will be that TM walked up from 'behind' him (that is any direction that is not 180^o in front of him and they exchanged some words. GZ reached for his cell phone and was punched. That's my prediction.

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.

As explained above, I think they are compatible stories, based on differing perspectives.

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

Me too. I haven't a clue ... like many here, I don't see murder 2.

 

[LTC8K6]

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)

Well, in the courtroom, you will have the SPD saying GZ had no obligation at all to do what the dispatcher asked.

So it seems to me that at best the jury will see that as a tie. The police essentially gave both opinions.

In fact, the police appear to have flip flopped, from saying GZ had no duty, to making it the basis of a charge.

I can't imagine a jury as seeing this as anything but favorable to GZ.

If the police and prosecutor can't agree on what GZ should have done, then how can you hold it against GZ?

 

[LTC8K6]

"The call taker’s suggestion is not a lawful order that Mr. Zimmerman would be
required to follow."

Norton N. Bonaparte, Jr., ICMA-CM
City Manager
March 23, 2012

Amongst other SPD representatvies, iirc.

 

[LTC8K6]

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.

Oh yeah, GZ's statements could certainly render a lot of things moot, and put him solidly in jail for murder 2.

In fact, if the statements are bad for GZ, I expect plea negotiations to start.

 

[bookworm]

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.

Wasn't the sequence of events more like this?:

1. Dispatcher: "Let me know if this guy does anything else."
2. TM runs - Z gets out and follows.
3. Dispatcher: "We don't need you to do that"
4. Zimmerman: "OK" and stops running.

 

[Unabogie]

Wasn't the sequence of events more like this?:

1. Dispatcher: "Let me know if this guy does anything else."
2. TM runs - Z gets out and follows.
3. Dispatcher: "We don't need you to do that"
4. Zimmerman: "OK" and stops running.

Ok, so you agree that the phrase "We don't need you to do that" means stop any kind of pursuit?

 

[bookworm]

Ok, so you agree that the phrase "We don't need you to do that" means stop any kind of pursuit?

Yes, I agree that was the suggestion.

 

[crimresearch]

I don't really know what you are talking about, other than you don't seem to think the probable cause affidavit is germane to the conversation and its contents are irrelevant. I think it is more relevant to whether or not Zimmerman is guilty of murder II than the endless discussion of Shellie's "lies". Here is what Mark NeJame said yesterday:

"That said, the affidavit Corey filed in the Zimmerman case is about as minimal as I've seen in more than 30 years of practice as a criminal defense attorney."

Do you have a theory as to why the judge thought the evidence was "strong", or do you just want me to shutup?

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/19/opinion/nejame-angela-corey/index.html

ETA: He chose the word 'strong' because to use the word 'overwhelming' would have triggered legal issues. In legalese it is a more neutral term than many people here are imagining. It says that the minimum threshold has been reached.
It just means that the evidence is not so weak as to be dismissable, it doesn't connote a presumption on guilt.


Claiming that I think it isn't germane or is irrelevant, is as pointless as pretending to be able to read the judge's mind and tell us how outraged he is at being 'played'.
You still can't have the JREF $1 million.

The law is very clear on the matter, I've cited it and explained it, the quoted Florida attorney explained it, others have gotten it with no problem.

No one in the system there (including all those defense attorneys) has lifted a finger to bring charges against Corey over it, try to challenge it in court, or take any other action... because it is a perfectly normal affidavit, that contains exactly what is needed.

As an extra bonus, the sky is blue.



So all this Nancy Grace cloned 'outrage', and breathy 'drama' based on the media hype, and internet chatter is simply a waste of time.

 

[crimresearch]

Wasn't the sequence of events more like this?:

1. Dispatcher: "Let me know if this guy does anything else."
2. TM runs - Z gets out and follows.
3. Dispatcher: "We don't need you to do that"
4. Zimmerman: "OK" and stops running.

I think that 'Are you following him?' prefaced the suggestion.

And bear in mind that dispatch had no way of knowing who GZ was following, what they were going to do, and so forth. That particular person might not have even known GZ, or his predilections.

That 'we don't need you to do that' with 'because our units are almost there' left unspoken, is a literal statement of lack of need.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/father-daughter-attacker-beat-death-texas-151942957.html

The GJ declined to indict in this case. Punched in the head to death.

 

[Dancing David]

I disagree.





Completely different than your claim, imo.

These are both requests for information, neither is a request to follow. My actual claim was that the phone operator/dispatcher was saying. tell me if new information arises, at no point in either quote, do they say 'follow the suspect'.

And this will be a long series of days for the jury. There will be a long discussion of what evidence exists the GZ knew that standard police advice and standard advice for citizens is to not follow.

So...

Where exactly does the non-emergency dispatcher request GZ to follow TM?

 

[Dancing David]

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

That will be a tough haul for the defense, I do not think that they will even try it. It would be a terrible argument to make in court. Especially after whatever evidence is presented that GZ knew he was not to follow under any circumstances, if it exists.

The interpretation is up to the jury at any rate and I highly doubt the defense will even try.

 

[Dancing David]

"The call taker’s suggestion is not a lawful order that Mr. Zimmerman would be
required to follow."

Norton N. Bonaparte, Jr., ICMA-CM
City Manager
March 23, 2012

Amongst other SPD representatvies, iirc.

Ah yes, well that is why I suspect the condo association newsletters are in evidence. I am guessing that GZ tried to start a Neighborhood Watch group and that he attended training. Now this may or may not be true, in which case the prosecution's case will diminish.

However if a reasonable person goes to a training and even gets trained to be a trainer and leader, and one of the main messages of that training is:
-we only call , we do not follow, we do not intervene

Then it might be that a reasonable person with that training and knowledge would know what is called 'the standard of care' and might be seen as needing to meet it.

Now if GZ had that training and knowledge and if it would be reasonable under FL law, I have no idea.

 

[Dancing David]

Oh yeah, GZ's statements could certainly render a lot of things moot, and put him solidly in jail for murder 2.

In fact, if the statements are bad for GZ, I expect plea negotiations to start.

It really depends, does the set of stories hang together?

Are there minor inconsistencies which would be reasonable?
Are there huge glaring inconsistencies?
Are there statements which would indicate a mind set that a jury would find to be unreasonable?

 

[LTC8K6]

Ah yes, well that is why I suspect the condo association newsletters are in evidence. I am guessing that GZ tried to start a Neighborhood Watch group and that he attended training. Now this may or may not be true, in which case the prosecution's case will diminish.

However if a reasonable person goes to a training and even gets trained to be a trainer and leader, and one of the main messages of that training is:
-we only call , we do not follow, we do not intervene

Then it might be that a reasonable person with that training and knowledge would know what is called 'the standard of care' and might be seen as needing to meet it.

Now if GZ had that training and knowledge and if it would be reasonable under FL law, I have no idea.

Was GZ acting as NW at the time, or was he on his own time? Were there NW "shifts"? If so, was GZ on one?

 

[LTC8K6]

It really depends, does the set of stories hang together?

Are there minor inconsistencies which would be reasonable?
Are there huge glaring inconsistencies?
Are there statements which would indicate a mind set that a jury would find to be unreasonable?

Which of those would be bad for GZ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Was GZ acting as NW at the time, or was he on his own time? Were there NW "shifts"? If so, was GZ on one?

The police decided determined he was acting in the capacity of the NW.

I'm not sure how.

 

[LTC8K6]

Zimmerman:

Yeah. You go in straight through the entrance and then you would go left. You go straight in, don’t turn and make a left.

He’s running. [2:08]

911 dispatcher:

He’s running? Which way is he running?

Zimmerman:

Down toward the other entrance of the neighborhood. [2:14]

911 dispatcher:

OK, which entrance is that he’s headed towards?

Zimmerman:

The back entrance.

The dispatcher asks GZ which entrance TM is running towards.

One could take that as a need to go and see.

Especially if TM is out of sight at that point.