Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[crimresearch]

When did Zimmerman drive while on the phone with the cops?

Why did Zimmerman jump out and chase Martin, and state that he was following Martin, if he weren't following Martin?

If Zimmerman wanted a street name, why didn't he just drive to the corner?

When did the dispatcher instruct Zimmerman to keep an eye on Martin?

When did Zimmerman state that the cops should meet him by his SUV?

When on earth did Martin come out of the alley, circle Zimmerman's car, and then run back into the alley?

How did Zimmerman end up south of Martin, who had supposedly punched Zimmerman *frm* the south, and knocked him north?

When, prior to stating "he's running", did Zimmerman claim to have lost sight of Martin?

If you are serious with any of that, you need to start a new thread in the CT forum.

 

[Rare Truth]

If you are serious with any of that, you need to start a new thread in the CT forum.

What an absurd attempt to diminish and deride the poster's questions. It's insulting.

All of those questions come directly from the mass of GZ's conflicting statements.

 

[Cylinder]

You are misunderstanding the blanket claim that 'the law prohibits' something that thousands of cops do legally everywhere in the country, (including Florida) day in and day out.

If I had made that claim, you'd be right. I stated that the SPD describing it as "investigative detention" plus the handcuffs and the no door handle inside the back of the partol car is probably prohibited by the immunity statute absent probable cause that the use of force was unlawful.

It's probably not worth arguing, since there's nothing there that hurts Zimmerman and a whole lot of consistency in the retelling, but Florida does not allow "investigative detention" in self-defense cases absent probable cause that the use of force is illegal.

Clearly when he was armed until the point he was (or should have been) thouroghly searched wasn't illegal, so any statement at that time would be kosher. I don't know if it will be challenged, but the officers describe the transport first as "protective custody" then "investigative detention."

You can only use the evidence the police had that night. Bringing Zimmerman to the station in handcuffs was probably illegal.

You could argue that SPD had PC at that point, though I don't know what they'd point to since they were telling everyone that his story fit and you could probably better argue that (like you said) it was a voluntary transport plus safety precaution but then you have the SPD transporting officer describing as "investigative detention." That's why I use the phrase probably illegal.

 

[This is The End]

So? I'm quite sure about it. Your confusion is your own personal issue.

I'm quite sure you could be wrong.

I addressed it with quite a bit of detail and you just snipped it from my quote.

Please re-quote the post and address the points one by one.

Not doing so would look bad.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8387127#post8387127

 

[Cylinder]

So - at the end of the stress test (1:11:59), Det. Serino asks the examiner a question, to which the examiner replies, "He did." and Serino adds, "I thought so."

Anyone get the question?

 

[This is The End]

I'll concede that your scenario is possible, but it does not fit the criteria where GZ can easily lie and his story is still plausible, which is one of the criteria of making up a successful lie to CYA.

That's weird that you think that because it is the exact same scenario as we know it, except Z has to leave out one minor detail, that M gave up when M saw the gun.

All Z has to do is change "M gave up when M saw the gun" to "M went for the gun when M saw the gun" and stick with it. Z is good to go.

Easy as pie. Really easy pie too.

Again, what should I read into you thinking that is not easy?

 

[This is The End]

I agree. I am in the "not enough evidence" state of mind. I didn't take OTT's hypothetical as anything close to attempting to line up actual facts. OTT's point was that omitting a single important detail of the story doesn't require an exceptionally high IQ. The accuracy of the information was irrelevant. It was really no different than bringing in an anecdote about the way kids tattle to make the same point; "so there I was, minding my own business, when this kid came up and hit me for no reason." It wasn't mean to reflect a possibility.

Thanks for helping explain what I was doing, which I thought was quite obvious.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Maybe they don't think they were deceiving the court?

There is indisputable evidence that they knew they had this money available and were using it to pay credit card bills (and at least circumstantial evidence that they were trying to hide the money). When the judge asked her, she said there was no other money that she was aware of.

George did his impression of a potted plant.

I'd like very much to hear an explanation of these facts that is consistent with them not knowing they were deceiving the court.

 

[crimresearch]

If I had made that claim, you'd be right. I stated that the SPD describing it as "investigative detention" plus the handcuffs and the no door handle inside the back of the partol car is probably prohibited by the immunity statute absent probable cause that the use of force was unlawful.

It's probably not worth arguing, since there's nothing there that hurts Zimmerman and a whole lot of consistency in the retelling, but Florida does not allow "investigative detention" in self-defense cases absent probable cause that the use of force is illegal.

Clearly when he was armed until the point he was (or should have been) thouroghly searched wasn't illegal, so any statement at that time would be kosher. I don't know if it will be challenged, but the officers describe the transport first as "protective custody" then "investigative detention."

You can only use the evidence the police had that night. Bringing Zimmerman to the station in handcuffs was probably illegal.

You could argue that SPD had PC at that point, though I don't know what they'd point to since they were telling everyone that his story fit and you could probably better argue that (like you said) it was a voluntary transport plus safety precaution but then you have the SPD transporting officer describing as "investigative detention." That's why I use the phrase probably illegal.

'Arrest' is a specific legal term. 'Detaining in custody' is a statutory term. 'Investigative detention' is a bureaucratic term.

There's a good reason why the SPD used a phrase that is nowhere to be found in that statute... because what they were doing,... handcuffing, transporting, and asking voluntary questions under the guise of 'investigative detention', does not violate that prohibition you mentioned. There's no 'probably' about it, it isn't illegal.

It is the same sort of police semantics used to stop cars and ask the driver questions without Mirandizing them.... perfectly legal once some reason for the stop has been established, has the same elements of an arrest or custody, but whenever some defense lawyer has tried to make your argument, the courts have allowed the excepted police actions as a legitimate working neccessity for law enforcement.

 

[WildCat]

I'm quite sure you could be wrong.

I addressed it with quite a bit of detail and you just snipped it from my quote.

Please re-quote the post and address the points one by one.

Not doing so would look bad.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8387127#post8387127

I snipped out all the parts you are wrong about. I see no point in discussing your bizarre claim that going in the direction you last saw a suspect, without actually having him in sight, is "getting physical".

You seem to have a unique interpretation of the word. You aren't Humpty Dumpty, and this isn't Wonderland.

 

[Cylinder]

Here's Zimmerman's written statement:

In August of 2011 my neighbors house was broken into while she was home with her infant son. The intruders attempted to attack ker and her child; however, SPD reported to the scene of the crime and the robber fled. My wife saw the intruders running from the home and became scared of the rising crime within our neighborhood. I and my neighbor formed a "Neighborhood Watch Program." We were instructed by SPD to call the non-emergency line if we saw anything suspicious and 911 if we saw a crime in progress.


Tonight, I was on my way to the grocery store when I saw a male approximatly 5'11'' to 6'2' casually walking in the rain looking into homes. I pulled my vehicle over and called SPD non-emergency phone number, I told the dispatcher what I had witnesses, the dispatcher took note of my location and the suspect fled to a darkened area of the sidewalk. As the dispatcher was asking me for the exact location the suspect emerged from the darkness and circled my vehicle. I could not hear if he said anything. The suspect once again disappeared between the back of some houses. The dispatcher once again asked me for my exact location. I could not remember the name of the street so I got out of my car to look for a street sign. The dispacther asked me for a description and the direction the suspct went. I told the dispatcher I did not know but I was out of my vehicle looking for a street sign and the direction the suspect was. The dispatcher told me not to follow the suspect and that an officer was in route.

As I headed back to my vehicle the suspect emerged from the darkness and said, "You got a problem?" I said "No." The suspect said "You do now."

As I looked(?) and tried to find my phone to dial 911 the suspect punched me in the face. I fell backwards onto my back. The suspect got on top of me. I yelled "Help" several times. The suspect told me "Shut the f*ck up" and I tried to sit up right. The suspect grabbed my head and slammed it into the concrete sidewalk several times. I continued to yell, "Help." Each time I attempted to sit up, the suspect slammed my head into the sidewalk. My head felt like it was going to explode. I tried to slide out from under the suspect and continued to yell "Help." As I slid, the suspect covered my mouth and nose and stopped my breathing. At this point I felt the suspect reach for my now exposed firearm and say "You're gonna die tonight motherf*cker." I unholstered my firearm in fear for my life as he had assured he was going to kill me and fired one shot into his torso. The suspect sat back allowing me to sit up and said "You got me."

At this point I slid out from underneath him and got on top of the suspect holding his hands away from his body. An onlooker appeared and asked me if I was OK. I said "No." He said, "I'm calling 911." I said "I don't need you to call 911. I already called them. I need you to help me restrain this guy." At this point a SPD officer arrived and asked, "Who shot him?" I said, "I did," and I placed my hands on top of my head and told the officer where on my person my firearm was holstered. The officer handcuffed me and disarmed me. The officer then placed me in the back of vehicle.

 

[Rare Truth]

I snipped out all the parts you are wrong about. I see no point in discussing your bizarre claim that going in the direction you last saw a suspect, without actually having him in sight, is "getting physical".

You seem to have a unique interpretation of the word. You aren't Humpty Dumpty, and this isn't Wonderland.

No, her interpretation is not unique in any sense. Your ad hominems aside...

When you physically remove yourself from your vehicle, and you physically begin to follow a suspect on foot, then you are physically involving yourself with a suspect (and in Zimmerman's case, one he thought was armed, on drugs and a criminal.)

It's not that hard, really.

 

[johnny karate]

delete

 

[TheL8Elvis]

That's weird that you think that because it is the exact same scenario as we know it, except Z has to leave out one minor detail, that M gave up when M saw the gun.

All Z has to do is change "M gave up when M saw the gun" to "M went for the gun when M saw the gun" and stick with it. Z is good to go.

Easy as pie. Really easy pie too.

Again, what should I read into you thinking that is not easy?

You should read whatever you want into it.

 

[marplots]

No, her interpretation is not unique in any sense. Your ad hominems aside...

When you physically remove yourself from your vehicle, and you physically begin to follow a suspect on foot, then you are physically involving yourself with a suspect (and in Zimmerman's case, one he thought was armed, on drugs and a criminal.)

It's not that hard, really.

It's even worse than that. When you physically turn your head and physically use your physical eyes to look at someone, that's getting physically involved. But, to be sure, I'd ask a physicist.

 

[sgtbaker]

In his first interview, he said TM punched him at the T and knocked him down then.

Then it changes later.

A blow that knocks you down in the first instance to something totally different later.

GAPING hole.

As I tried to point out, earlier, there are going to be variations, each time the memory is recalled, but there will even be inaccuracies the first time the event is recalled. Human brains tend to fill in the gaps and they are not typically phonographic. Even police make allowances for variations because it's a well known fact.

Look, as an example, and I swear it is nothing more than showing how imperfect our memories are: when Tracey Martin called the police, the following morning, to report Trayvon missing, the operator asks when the last time he saw Trayvon was. Tracy replies, "Around 8:30 last night." We know for a fact that is wrong because at 8:30 the previous night, his son had already been shot, and the cut through was crawling with police. Is it some mass conspiracy. Did Tracy Martin lie to gain something or he has something to hide? No, he probably came home from dinner at about 8:30 and assumed that his son was home. How can such a blatant inconsistancy happen? Because the human brain fills in gaps and we think we remember more than we actually do.

 

[Rare Truth]

It's even worse than that. When you physically turn your head and physically use your physical eyes to look at someone, that's getting physically involved. But, to be sure, I'd ask a physicist.

I'm sure that sounded better in your head than it did in print here.

 

[Rare Truth]

As I tried to point out, earlier, there are going to be variations, each time the memory is recalled, but there will even be inaccuracies the first time the event is recalled. Human brains tend to fill in the gaps and they are not typically phonographic. Even police make allowances for variations because it's a well known fact.

Look, as an example, and I swear it is nothing more than showing how imperfect our memories are: when Tracey Martin called the police, the following morning, to report Trayvon missing, the operator asks when the last time he saw Trayvon was. Tracy replies, "Around 8:30 last night." We know for a fact that is wrong because at 8:30 the previous night, his son had already been shot, and the cut through was crawling with police. Is it some mass conspiracy. Did Tracy Martin lie to gain something or he has something to hide? No, he probably came home from dinner at about 8:30 and assumed that his son was home. How can such a blatant inconsistancy happen? Because the human brain fills in gaps and we think we remember more than we actually do.

Not comparable at all.

I understand minor ones, not gaping ones like he punched me right off and I went right down -- to we scuffled for a bit, and I pushed him away -- to landing some 60 feet from where he said it happened.

Not buying it.

Bullet trajectory - way off
Timeline - way off.

Not buying it.

He also said TM pounded his head like 30 times. Heaping pile of BS.

 

[Cylinder]

Bullet trajectory - way off

Huh?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

As I tried to point out, earlier, there are going to be variations, each time the memory is recalled, but there will even be inaccuracies the first time the event is recalled. Human brains tend to fill in the gaps and they are not typically phonographic. Even police make allowances for variations because it's a well known fact.

Look, as an example, and I swear it is nothing more than showing how imperfect our memories are: when Tracey Martin called the police, the following morning, to report Trayvon missing, the operator asks when the last time he saw Trayvon was. Tracy replies, "Around 8:30 last night." We know for a fact that is wrong because at 8:30 the previous night, his son had already been shot, and the cut through was crawling with police. Is it some mass conspiracy. Did Tracy Martin lie to gain something or he has something to hide? No, he probably came home from dinner at about 8:30 and assumed that his son was home. How can such a blatant inconsistancy happen? Because the human brain fills in gaps and we think we remember more than we actually do.

Even better - Mr. Martin claims to have not gotten home until 10:15 - 10:30. So he completely pulled 8:30 out of his ass.

Your point is well taken.