Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[LTC8K6]

But why would he change his clothes?

Why would you ask me? I'm not a teenager or an SPD officer.

 

[bookworm]

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com..._chief-bill-lee-federal-review-federal-agency



http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/15/2696446_p2/trayvon-martin-case.html

How did we get away from these strong statements, made in mid-March?

As far as I can tell, no new evidence was uncovered.

They must be basing the M2 decision on Dee Dee.

Which is hard to believe.

I agree. It's amazing what can happen once people start accusing someone of being racist. Too bad Daniel Adkins' parents don't have that option.

 

[KatieG]

My prediction:

Zimmeman pleads down to manslaughter.

Perjury charges against his wife are dropped as part of the plea agreement.

Conservative America loses its damn mind. Conspiracy theories about Zimmerman being railroaded abound.

Sounds about right to me. I think M2 is a stretch but manslaughter works in this case.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Yes.
http://m.wdbo.com/Player/101425231/
About 13:30

http://cmgdigital.brightcove.com.ed...9001_1699804655001_video-reenactment-0227.mp4
About 9:50 in, GZ says TM yelled from the sidewalk to him.

ETA: written statement says 'emerged from the dark'
http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news/documents/2012/06/21/Zimmerman_Written_Statement_.pdf

So somewhat inconsistent, but both claim that GZ didn't see him, and TM yelled out to him "what the **** is your problem"

Murder 2 means he intended to kill him. Not that he set out to kill him. Only that when he fired that shot, he meant for the shot to hit Trayvon and that there are no mitigating circumstances.


But I've found several oddities and inconsistencies in his account. He says Trayvon jumped from the bushes but in the video walkthrough there are no bushes.

He jumped out of the bushes or appeared from the dark.

He says Trayvon came all the way back out and completely circled his car. He doesn't mention this to the dispatcher at all?

HE mentions coming back to check me out, etc. Does not explicitly mention 'circle the car' to NEN operator.

Then after this harrowing moment, he gets out, but not to look for him, only to find a street sign?

He admits he gets out to follow him, then stops following because he lost him, but goes on to get an address.

Then he's walking back and has a completely different dialogue than DD hears over the phone?

DeeDee and George cannot both be correct on this one

Then he says that he felt Trayvon's arm near his side, so he grabbed his gun and shot him, but later on that changes to a struggle for the gun?

I am still listening, but have not heard the part about how it turned into a struggle for the gun.

He says Trayvon hit him repeatedly with what "felt like bricks" but Trayvon had none of George's blood on his hands and no marks on them aside from a single, tiny mark on his off hand?

And so in a contest of credibility, we have some other information that lets us see how George will lie when it suits him?

I wasn't sure if George would be convicted before, but now I'm reasonably sure he's going down.

There are definitely inconsistencies, but I don't see a 'smoking gun'.

The fact that GZ can't describe how he got from shooting TM while he was on top of him to GZ being on TM with TM on his stomach bothers me.

 

[GWCarver]

But why would he change his clothes?

Because they were wet?

 

[bookworm]

"Trayvon Martin's fatal encounter with George Zimmerman was "avoidable," and the teen was not doing anything criminal at the time of their confrontation on Feb. 26, a report by Sanford, Fla., police says.

The report, dated March 13, came nearly a month before a special prosecutor brought second-degree-murder charges against Zimmerman, 28, in the death of 17-year-old Trayvon. He has pleaded not guilty and said he acted in self-defense.


"The encounter between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin was ultimately avoidable by Zimmerman, if Zimmerman had remained in his vehicle and awaited the arrival of law enforcement, or conversely, if he had identified himself to Martin as a concerned citizen and initiated dialog in an effort to dispel each party's concern," the report says. "There is no indication that Trayvon Martin was involved in any criminal activity at the time of the encounter."


http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-05-17/zimmerman-trayvon-shooting-report/55046944/1


That last paragraph is from Serino's report - March 13.



Then the Good ole boys Chief Lee and Wolfinger swung in and overruled.

Wolfingers out now.

Lee is canned.


I'll be looking forward to seeing and hearing Serino on the Witness stand.

Even so, I still don't see how anyone could get Murder 2 out of that.

 

[crimresearch]

I agree. It's amazing what can happen once people start accusing someone of being racist. Too bad Daniel Adkins' parents don't have that option.

Or blond haired, blue eyed, George Zimmerman's parents.

 

[Unabogie]

Because they were wet?

I'm having a hard time understanding where this comes from. There's been lots of speculation that Trayvon was a burglar, so I'm trying to see if that's where this is going. Trayvon Martin, master of disguise and MMA champion.

 

[bookworm]

Wait, so George really did claim that Martin jumped him from the bushes? Ok, can we now agree that DD's version and George's versions do not square?

We should also keep in mind that George's version came that night and the next day and DD's version came about 3 weeks later after some people contacted her.

 

[LTC8K6]

Serino is grilling the heck out of GZ, and we were told SPD just let GZ go...

 

[LTC8K6]

We should also keep in mind that George's version came that night and the next day and DD's version came about 3 weeks later after some people contacted her.

Exactly. DD is not going to do much for the prosecution, imo.

 

[Giz]

This explains why there's no DNA from Trayvon on the gun.

Question (apologies if this is common knowledge or has been answered already):

Why would there be DNA on the gun? I thought that for a match you needed a certain amount of sample (i.e. hair, or some amount of blood). If someone just holds an object (and assuming that their skin isn't prone to flaking off in abnormal quantities) then why would we expect to find anything more than fingerprints on it?

 

[LTC8K6]

Question (apologies if this is common knowledge or has been answered already):

Why would there be DNA on the gun? I thought that for a match you needed a certain amount of sample (i.e. hair, or some amount of blood). If someone just holds an object (and assuming that their skin isn't prone to flaking off in abnormal quantities) then why would we expect to find anything more than fingerprints on it?

Yes, getting DNA from the gun is very unlikely, even if we were certain that TM touched it.

 

[Unabogie]

Even so, I still don't see how anyone could get Murder 2 out of that.

http://cfnews13.com/content/dam/news/static/cfnews13/documents/trayvon-martin-murder-statute.pdf

[SIZE=-1]The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.[/SIZE]

1. Did he kill him? Yes.
2. Was the act of shooting his gun at him imminently dangerous? Yes.
3. Did it evince a depraved mind? Yes (according to what that means legally)
4. Did he premeditate it? No.

Murder two.


Found this link here as well:


http://viewfromll2.com/2012/04/14/t...and-his-available-defenses-under-florida-law/


The relevant part regarding "depraved mind"

The key distinction between the two is that the second degree murder charge requires a finding that Zimmerman killed Trayvon while engaging in an act “imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life.” Take that element away, and you still have the lesser included offense of manslaughter, so both charges are still theoretically on the table.


Unlike Murder 1, for a Murder 2 charge you do not need to show a premeditated plan, or a plan to kill that came into existence prior to the moment of the shooting. Murder 2 just requires that the defendant deliberately, and with so little justification as to be reckless, engaged in conduct that puts others at obvious risk of death or great bodily harm. To give a rough example, imagine an individual who, on a random whim, decides to throw a boulder off a cliff, when that individual knows that there is a path at the bottom of the cliff that people walk on. The individual could not have known if the boulder would kill anyone, and did not actually intend to cause anyone’s death, but could still be subject to a murder 2 charge if in fact someone was struck and killed.

 

[johnny karate]

Because they were wet?

So he brought a change of clothes with him for a trip to 7-11?

And where might he have changed? Perhaps it was in those same mystery bushes he jumped out of to attack Zimmerman.

 

[crimresearch]

<SNIP>...The fact that GZ can't describe how he got from shooting TM while he was on top of him to GZ being on TM with TM on his stomach bothers me.

Don't worry about it:


GEORGE ZIMMERMAN TELLS ALL:

http://gma.yahoo.com/george-zimmerm...-shooting-055354695--abc-news-topstories.html

 

[LTC8K6]

http://cfnews13.com/content/dam/news/static/cfnews13/documents/trayvon-martin-murder-statute.pdf

1. Did he kill him? Yes.
2. Was the act of shooting his gun at him imminently dangerous? Yes.
3. Did it evince a depraved mind? Yes (according to what that means legally)
4. Did he premeditate it? No.

Murder two.


Found this link here as well:


http://viewfromll2.com/2012/04/14/t...and-his-available-defenses-under-florida-law/


The relevant part regarding "depraved mind"

You have to have eliminated self defense, though.

 

[Unabogie]

Question (apologies if this is common knowledge or has been answered already):

Why would there be DNA on the gun? I thought that for a match you needed a certain amount of sample (i.e. hair, or some amount of blood). If someone just holds an object (and assuming that their skin isn't prone to flaking off in abnormal quantities) then why would we expect to find anything more than fingerprints on it?

The prior discussion was about the idea of a struggle for the gun.

The scenario was thought to be that Trayvon went for the gun, George struggled with him over it, then he shot him. The question was if that was the case, then why no fingerprints or DNA from Trayvon?

This answers that question. Trayvon never went for the gun. George merely felt his arm on his side, knew the gun was there, grabbed it and shot him.

 

[Dan O.]

Either provide a link to all those 'posters here' saying that, or let this add to the long list of outright whoppers you keep piling up in this thread.

Since you are looking for the answer, let's start with you. Do you believe that it is or should be a responsibility of gun owners to insurer that their gun doesn't get into a situation where it could be used inapropriately? Do you believe that George by chasing after Trayvon when Trayvon fled, by not backing off when he found Trayvon, by carrying his gun in a maner that allows it to be easily exposed and accessed by another person violated his responsibility to safeguard that gun?

 

[GWCarver]

So he brought a change of clothes with him for a trip to 7-11?

And where might he have changed? Perhaps it was in those same mystery bushes he jumped out of to attack Zimmerman.

I see you aren't paying attention. Don't blame me.